Draft Environmental Impact Statement

For Hydropower License

Office of

Energy

Projects

July 2010

FERC/D-0237

Federal Energy

Regulatory

Commission

McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project

FERC Project No. 2106, California

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

888 First Street, NE

Washington, DC 20426

FERC/D-0237

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE

McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project—FERC Project No. 2106

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Office of Energy Projects

Division of Hydropower Licensing

888 First Street, NE

Washington, DC 20426

July 2010

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20426

OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS

To the Agency or Individual Addressed:

Reference: Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Attached is the draft environmental impact statement (draft EIS) for the McCloudPit Project (Project No. 2106), located on the McCloud and Pit Rivers in Shasta County,

California.

This draft EIS documents the view of governmental agencies, nongovernmental

organizations, affected Indian tribes, the public, the license applicant, and Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (Commission) staff. It contains staff evaluations on the

applicant’s proposal and alternatives for relicensing the McCloud-Pit Project.

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

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

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

preparation of the final EIS.

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

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

must be filed by September 28, 2010, and should reference Project No. 2106. The

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

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

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

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

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

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

30, 2010.

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

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

may be viewed on the Internet at http://elibrary.ferc.gov. For assistance, contact FERC

Online Support at FERCOnlineSuppor@ferc.gov or toll-free at 1-866-208-3372, or for

TTY, (202) 502-8659.

Attachment: Draft Environmental Impact Statement

COVER SHEET

a. Title: Relicensing the McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project

No. P-2106

b. Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement

c. Lead Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

d. Abstract: On July 16, 2009, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) filed an application

to relicense its 368-megawatt (MW) McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric

Project (P-2106). The McCloud-Pit Project is located on the McCloud

and Pit Rivers in Shasta County, California. The project consists of

three power developments (James B. Black, Pit 6, and Pit 7) and

generates an average of about 1,542.2 gigawatt-hours (GWh) annually.

The project occupies 1,621.9 acres of federal lands managed by the

U.S. Department of Agriculture and 29.5 acres of federal lands

managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.

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

with certain modifications, and additional measures recommended by

the agencies.

e. Contact: Emily Carter

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Office of Energy Projects

888 First Street, NE

Washington, DC 20426

(202) 502-6512

f. Transmittal: This draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared by the

Commission’s staff on the hydroelectric license application filed by

PG&E for the existing McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project

(FERC No. P-2106) is being made available to the public on or about

July 30, 2010, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act of

1969.1

1 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, amended (Public Law [Pub. L.] 91-190,

42 United States Code [U.S.C.] 4321-4347, January 1, 1970, as amended by Pub. L. 94-52,

July 3, 1975, Pub. L. 94-83, August 9, 1975, and Pub. L. 97-258, §4(b), September 13, 1982).
FOREWORD

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

Federal Power Act (FPA)2and the U.S. Department of Energy Organization Act,3is

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

conditions:

That the project...shall be such as in the judgment of the Commission will be best

adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or

waterways for the use or benefit of interstate or foreign commerce, for the

improvement and utilization of water-power development, for the adequate

protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife (including related

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

irrigation, flood control, water supply, and recreational and other purposes referred

to in section 4(e)...4

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

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

project.5 Compliance with such conditions during the licensing period is required. The

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

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

for such objection for the Commission’s consideration.6

2

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

1986, Pub. L. 99-495 (1986) and the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102-486 (1992),

and the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-58 (2005).

3

Pub. L. 95-91, 91 Stat. 556 (1977).

4

16 U.S.C. §803(a) (2008).

5

16 U.S.C. §803(g) (2008).

6

18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §385.206 (2008).
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COVER SHEET ...................................................................................................................i

FOREWORD.......................................................................................................................ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................iii

LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................vii

LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................viii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS..........................................................................xii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................. 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 13

1.1 APPLICATION ................................................................................................... 13

1.2 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER ........................................ 13

1.2.1 Purpose of Action.......................................................................................... 13

1.2.2 Need for Power.............................................................................................. 15

1.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS................................ 16

1.3.1 Federal Power Act......................................................................................... 17

1.3.1.1 Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions........................................................... 17

1.3.1.2 Section 4(e) Conditions.......................................................................... 17

1.3.1.3 Alternative Conditions Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005............... 17

1.3.1.4 Section 10(j) Recommendations ............................................................ 18

1.3.2 Clean Water Act............................................................................................ 18

1.3.3 Endangered Species Act................................................................................ 18

1.3.4 Coastal Zone Management Act..................................................................... 19

1.3.5 National Historic Preservation Act ............................................................... 19

1.3.6 California Environmental Quality Act.......................................................... 19

1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND CONSULTATION..................................................... 21

1.4.1 Scoping.......................................................................................................... 21

1.4.2 Interventions.................................................................................................. 22

1.4.3 Comments on License Application ............................................................... 23

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES................................................ 25

2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE .......................................................................... 25

2.1.1 Existing Project Facilities ............................................................................. 25

2.1.1.1 James B. Black Development................................................................. 25

2.1.1.2 Pit 6 Development .................................................................................. 30

2.1.1.3 Pit 7 Development .................................................................................. 31

2.1.1.4 Existing Project Boundary...................................................................... 32

2.1.2 Project Safety ................................................................................................ 33

2.1.3 Existing Project Operation ............................................................................ 33

2.1.4 Existing Environmental Measures ................................................................ 34

2.2 APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL .............................................................................. 34

2.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities............................................................................ 34

2.2.1.1 McCloud Development .......................................................................... 35
iv

2.2.1.2 Pit 7 Afterbay Development................................................................... 35

2.2.2 Proposed Project Operation........................................................................... 36

2.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures............................................................... 37

2.2.4 Modifications to the Applicant’s Proposal—Mandatory Conditions ........... 41

2.2.4.1 Section 4(e) Federal Land Management Conditions.............................. 41

2.2.4.2 Alternative 4(e) Conditions Pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 200545

2.3 STAFF ALTERNATIVE..................................................................................... 48

2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER

ANALYSIS.......................................................................................................... 56

2.4.1 Issuing a Non-Power License........................................................................ 56

2.4.2 Federal Government Takeover of the Project ............................................... 56

2.4.3 Project Retirement......................................................................................... 56

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS...................................................................... 59

3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RIVER BASIN....................................... 59

3.2 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS......................................... 60

3.2.1 Geographic Scope ......................................................................................... 61

3.2.2 Temporal Scope............................................................................................. 61

3.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES................................ 61

3.3.1 Geology and Soils ......................................................................................... 61

3.3.1.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................ 61

3.3.1.1.1 Geologic Setting ................................................................................. 61

3.3.1.1.2 Reservoir Shorelines........................................................................... 63

3.3.1.1.3 Project Reaches................................................................................... 69

3.3.1.2 Environmental Effects............................................................................ 74

3.3.2 Aquatic Resources......................................................................................... 84

3.3.2.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................ 84

3.3.2.1.1 Water Quantity ................................................................................... 84

3.3.2.1.2 Water Quality ...................................................................................102

3.3.2.1.3 Aquatic Biota....................................................................................112

3.3.2.2 Environmental Effects..........................................................................121

3.3.2.3 Cumulative Effects...............................................................................150

3.3.3 Terrestrial Resources...................................................................................151

3.3.3.1 Affected Environment ..........................................................................151

3.3.3.1.1 Vegetation ...........................................................................................151

3.3.3.1.2 Wildlife.............................................................................................156

3.3.3.2 Environmental Effects..........................................................................166

3.3.3.2.1 Vegetation ...........................................................................................166

3.3.3.2.2 Wildlife.............................................................................................178

3.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species...........................................................192

3.3.4.1 Affected Environment ..........................................................................192

3.3.4.2 Environmental Effects..........................................................................195

3.3.5 Recreation Resources..................................................................................200

3.3.5.1 Affected Environment ..........................................................................200
v

3.3.5.2 Environmental Effects..........................................................................218

3.3.6 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................243

3.3.6.1 Affected Environment ..........................................................................243

3.3.6.2 Environmental Effects..........................................................................261

3.3.7 Land Use and Aesthetic Resources.............................................................272

3.3.7.1 Affected Environment ..........................................................................272

3.3.7.2 Environmental Effects..........................................................................283

3.4 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE ........................................................................289

4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS....................................................................291

4.1 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE PROJECTS ......................291

4.1.1 Economic Assumptions...............................................................................291

4.1.2 Current Annual Costs and Future Capital Costs Under the No-Action

Alternative ..................................................................................................292

4.2 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES............................................................292

4.2.1 No-Action Alternative.................................................................................294

4.2.2 PG&E’s Proposed Action ...........................................................................294

4.2.3 Staff Alternative ..........................................................................................294

4.2.4 Staff Alternative with Mandatory Conditions.............................................294

4.3 COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES.................................................295

4.3.1 Cost of Environmental Measures for the McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project

....................................................................................................................295

4.3.2 Effect of Environmental Measures on Energy Generation .........................298

4.4 Comparison of Alternatives for PG&E’s Proposed Powerhouses ....................298

5.0 STAFF’S CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................301

5.1 COMPARISON OF EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION AND

ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................................301

5.2 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED

ALTERNATIVE................................................................................................309

5.2.1 Discussion of Key Issues ............................................................................318

5.3 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS.........................................................357

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

CONDITIONS...................................................................................................358

5.4.1 Recommendations of Fish and Wildlife Agencies......................................358

5.4.2 Forest Service 4(e) Conditions....................................................................363

5.5 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS....................................377

6.0 LITERATURE CITED......................................................................................379

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS .....................................................................................385

8.0 LIST OF RECIPIENTS .....................................................................................387

APPENDIX A—MCCLOUD-PIT PROJECT MITIGATION AND MONITORING

SUMMARY.....................................................................................................................A-1
vi

APPENDIX B—CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS OF MEASURES FOR THE

MCCLOUD-PIT PROJECT............................................................................................B-1

APPENDIX C—COMMISSION STAFF RECOMMENDED LICENSE

CONDITIONS.................................................................................................................C-1

APPENDIX DFOREST SERVICE 4(E) CONDITIONS ...........................................D-1
vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1. McCloud-Pit Project, location map. (Source: PG&E, 2009a).................... 14

Figure 2-1. McCloud-Pit Project, system map. (Source: PG&E, 2009a)...................... 27

Figure 2-2. Schematic of the McCloud-Pit Project. ........................................................ 29

Figure 3-1. Historic median and mean daily reservoir storage for McCloud-Pit

Hydroelectric Project reservoirs, water years 1974athrough 2006. (Source:

PG&E 2009a)................................................................................................ 88

Figure 3-2. Existing and proposed recreation facilities at McCloud reservoir. (Source:

PG&E, 2009a).............................................................................................205

Figure 3-3. Existing and proposed recreation facilities at Iron Canyon reservoir.

(Source: PG&E, 2009a)..............................................................................208

Figure 3-4. Existing and proposed recreation facilities at Pit 7 reservoir and Pit 7

afterbay dam. (Source: PG&E, 2009a)......................................................210
viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1. Major statutory and regulatory requirements for the McCloud-Pit

Hydroelectric Project. ................................................................................... 16

Table 3-1. Distribution of erosion inventory sites for the McCloud reservoir and Lower

McCloud River study region. (Source: PG&E, 2009a).............................. 64

Table 3-2. Distribution of erosion inventory sites for the Iron Canyon reservoir and

dam study region. (Source: PG&E, 2009a)................................................ 68

Table 3-3. Distribution of erosion inventory sites for the Oak Mountain Road Study

Region. (Source: PG&E, 2009a) ................................................................ 73

Table 3-4. Distribution of erosion sites in the Lower Pit River Study Region. (Source:

PG&E, 2009a)............................................................................................... 73

Table 3-5. Reservoir and afterbay characteristics. (Source: Staff, based on

specifications provided in PG&E, 2009a) .................................................... 86

Table 3-6. Current required releases to Lower McCloud River and Iron Canyon Creek.

(Source: Adapted by staff, from PG&E, 2009a) ......................................... 89

Table 3-7. Mean, minimum, and maximum unimpaired flows in the McCloud River

above McCloud reservoir for water years 1974–2006 (USGS gage

11367500/MC-3); all flows are unimpaired at this location. (Source: PG&E

2009)............................................................................................................. 90

Table 3-8. Mean, minimum, and maximum regulated flows in the McCloud tunnel for

water years 1974–2006 (USGS gage 11367720/MC-8); all flows are

regulated at this location. (Source: PG&E 2009a) ..................................... 91

Table 3-9. Mean, minimum, and maximum regulated and unimpaired flows in the

McCloud River at the McCloud dam for water years 1974–2006 (USGS

gage 11367760/MC-7, synthesized unimpaired hydrology data). (Source:

PG&E 2009a)................................................................................................ 92

Table 3-10. Mean, minimum, and maximum regulated and unimpaired flows in the

McCloud River at Ah-Di-Na for water years 1974–2006 (USGS gage

11367800/MC-1, synthesized unimpaired hydrology data). (Source: PG&E

2009a) ........................................................................................................... 93

Table 3-11. Mean, minimum, and maximum regulated and unimpaired flows in the

McCloud River above Shasta Lake for water years 1974–2006 (USGS gage

11368000/MC-5, synthesized unimpaired hydrology data). (Source: PG&E

2009a) ........................................................................................................... 94

Table 3-12. Mean, minimum, and maximum regulated and unimpaired flows in Iron

Canyon Creek at Iron Canyon dam for water years 1974–2006 (USGS gage

11363930/MC-10, synthesized unimpaired hydrology data). (Source:

PG&E 2009a)................................................................................................ 95

Table 3-13. Mean, minimum, and maximum regulated and unimpaired flows in the

Pit River below the Pit 5 dam for water years 1974–2006 (USGS gage
ix

11363000/PH-27, synthesized unimpaired hydrology data). (Source: PG&E

2009a) ........................................................................................................... 96

Table 3-14. Mean, minimum, and maximum regulated and unimpaired flows at the Pit 5

powerhouse for water years 1974–2006 (USGS gage 11362700/PH-69); all

flows are regulated at this location. (Source: PG&E 2009a)...................... 97

Table 3-15. Mean, minimum, and maximum regulated and unimpaired flows in the

Pit River at the Pit 7 dam for water years 1974–2006 (USGS gage

11365000/PH-47, synthesized unimpaired hydrology data). (Source: PG&E

2009a) ........................................................................................................... 98

Table 3-16. Mean, minimum, and maximum regulated and unimpaired at the James B.

Black powerhouse for water years 1974–2006 (USGS gage

11363910/MC-11); all flows are regulated at this location. (Source: PG&E

2009a) ........................................................................................................... 99

Table 3-17. Mean, minimum, and maximum regulated and unimpaired at the Pit 6

powerhouse for water years 1974–2006 (USGS gage 11364150/PH-63); all

flows are regulated at this location. (Source: PG&E 2009a)....................100

Table 3-18. Mean, minimum, and maximum regulated and unimpaired at the Pit 7

powerhouse for water years 1974–2006 (USGS gage 11364480/PH-64); all

flows are regulated at this location. (Source: PG&E 2009a)....................101

Table 3-19. Water quality objectives to support designated beneficial uses in the project

area. (Source: PG&E, 2009a) ....................................................................103

Table 3-20. Fish species documented in the McCloud-Pit Project reservoirs. ..............116

Table 3-21. Minimum flows proposed, specified, or recommended for gage MC-7 below

McCloud dam (USGS gage 11367760) by PG&E, the Forest Service,

California Fish and Game, and NMFS. (Source: Staff) ...........................124

Table 3-22. Minimum flows proposed, specified, or recommended for gage MC-10

below Iron Canyon dam (USGS gage 11363930). (Source: Staff) ..........128

Table 3-23. Minimum flows proposed, specified, or recommended for gage PH-47

below Pit 7 dam (USGS gage 11365000). (Source: Staff).......................129

Table 3-24. Minimum flows proposed by the Forest Service, California Trout, Trout

Unlimited, and McCloud River Club for gage MC-7 below McCloud dam

(USGS gage 11367760). Specified flow increases are relative to flows

specified in table 3-21 for the same date interval. Variations from Forest

Service condition 19 are indicated in bold. (Source: Staff)......................130

Table 3-25. Minimum flows (cfs) proposed by the McCloud RiverKeepers for gage MC7 below McCloud dam (USGS gage 11367760) and for gage MC-1 at AhDi-Na (USGS gage 11367800) compared to revised Forest Service condition

19 and PG&E alternative condition 19. (Source: Staff)............................131

Table 3-26. Recreation Facilities at McCloud Reservoir. (Source: PG&E, 2009a and

2008b, and staff).........................................................................................204

Table 3-27. Recreation facilities at Iron Canyon reservoir. (Source: PG&E, 2009a and

2008b, and staff).........................................................................................207
x

Table 3-28. Primary activity by general area within the project. (Source: PG&E, 2008d,

as modified by staff)...................................................................................212

Table 3-29. Project study area current use estimates by month using observation method.

(Source PG&E, 2008d, as modified by staff).............................................213

Table 3-30. Archaeological and historic-era resources located on McCloud River Club

lands within the McCloud River Expanded APE. (Source: PG&E, 2009d;

Berryman, 1999).........................................................................................252

Table 3-31. Previously recorded archaeological and historic-era resources that were not

relocated during Archaeological field survey. (Source: PG&E, 2009d)..253

Table 3-32. Documented archaeological and historic-era resources located within the

APE. (Source: PG&E, 2009d) ...................................................................255

Table 3-33 Site-specific potential effects for archaeological and historic-era resources.

(Source: PG&E, 2009d).............................................................................266

Table 3-34. Project roads. ..............................................................................................278

Table 3-35. Summary of Shasta-Trinity National Forest VQO classifications and

guidelines for National Forest System lands within the project area or

influenced by project operations. (Source: PG&E, 2009a) .......................283

Table 4-1. Staff assumptions for economic analysis of the McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric

Project. (Source: Staff) .............................................................................291

Table 4-2. Summary of current annual costs and future costs under the no-action

alternative for the McCloud Pit Hydroelectric Project. (Source: PG&E,

2009a, staff)................................................................................................292

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

alternative, and staff alternative with mandatory conditions for the

McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project. (Source: Staff) ................................293

Table 4-4. Summary of annualized costs by resource area for measures included in the

proposed action and proposed action with staff modifications for the

McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project.a(Source: Staff)...............................296

Table 4-5. Summary of annualized costs by resource area for measures included in the

proposed action and proposed action with staff modifications for the

McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project. This summary includes only measures

that are directly associated with construction of a proposed powerhouse.

(Source: Staff)............................................................................................297

Table 4-6. Summary of the effect of environmental measures on energy for the noaction, proposed action, staff alternative, and staff alternative with

mandatory conditions for the McCloud-Pit Project. (Source: Staff)........298

Table 4-7. Summary of annual net benefits for the proposed powerhouses of the

McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project. (Source: Staff) ................................299

Table 5-1. Comparison of alternatives for the McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project.

(Source: Staff)............................................................................................301

Table 5-2. Analysis of fish and wildlife agency section 10(j) recommendations for the

McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project. (Source: Staff) ................................360
xi

Table 5-3. Forest Service 4(e) conditions for the McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project.

(Source: Forest Service, 2010a).................................................................364
xii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ABA Architectural Barriers Act

ac-ft acre-feet

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

Advisory Council Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

APE area of potential effects

APLIC Avian Power Line Interaction Committee

basin plan Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento

and San Joaquin River Basins

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMP best management practice

°C degrees Celsius

California Boating California Department of Boating and

Waterways

California Fish and Game California Department of Fish and Game

California Water Board California State Water Resources Control Board

California Water Resources California Department of Water Resources

CDEC California Data Exchange Center

Central Valley Regional Water Board Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control

Board

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cfs cubic feet per second

Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

CRMP Coordinated Resource Management Plan

CSU California State University

CWA Clean Water Act

CWHR California Wildlife-Habitat Relationships

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act

DO dissolved oxygen

draft EIS draft environmental impact statement

DWR Department of Water Resources

EIR environmental impact report

EIS environmental impact statement

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

°F degrees Fahrenheit

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

final EIS final environmental impact statement

Forest Service U.S. Department of Agriculture − Forest

Service

FLA Final License Application
xiii

FPA Federal Power Act

FR Forest Road

FSORAG Forest Service Outdoor Recreation Accessibility

Guidelines

FSSS Forest Service special status

FSTAG Forest Service Trail Accessibility Guidelines

ft foot or feet

ft msl feet above mean sea level

FWS U.S. Department of the Interior − Fish and

Wildlife Service

GIS geographic information system

GWh gigawatt-hour(s) (equals one million kilowatthours)

HCM Habitat Criteria Mapping

HMBP hazardous materials business plan

hp horsepower

HPMP Historic Properties Management Plan

IBM Individual Base Modeling

IFIM instream flow incremental methodology

ILP Integrated Licensing Process

in. inch(es)

Interior U.S. Department of the Interior

KOP key observation point

kV kilovolt(s)

kW kilowatt(s)

kWh kilowatt hour(s)

licensee Pacific Gas and Electric

LSR Late Successional Reserve

LWD large woody debris

m meter(s)

mg/kg milligram(s) per kilogram

mg/l milligram(s) per liter

ml milliliter(s)

mm millimeter(s)

MMI multimetric index

MOU memorandum of understanding

MVA megavolt-ampere

MW megawatt

MWh megawatt-hours

NA not applicable

National Register National Register of Historic Places

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NERC North American Electric Reliability Council
xiv

NFS National Forest System

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMFS U.S. Department of Commerce, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

National Marine Fisheries Service

NTU nephelometric turbidity unit(s)

O&M operation and maintenance

OHV off-highway vehicle

PA Programmatic Agreement

PAOT people-at-one-time

Park Service National Park Service

PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric

PHABSIM Physical Habitat Simulation Modeling

project McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project

QA/QC quality assurance / quality control

RMO road management objective

RO runoff

ROD Record of Decision on Management of Habitat

for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest

Related Specieswithin the Range of the

Northern Spotted Owl

ROSrecreationopportunityspectrum

RRMP Reddingresourcemanagementplan

RV recreational vehicle

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SPCC plan spill prevention, control, and countermeasures

plan

t tonnes

TBMP terrestrial biological management plan

TCP Traditional Cultural Property

TMDL total maximum daily load

Tribes Winnemem Wintu Tribe, Pit River Tribe, and

Redding Rancheria

TSS total suspended solids

U.S.C. United States Code

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

VAOT vehicles-at-one-time

VELB valley elderberry longhorn beetle

VMP vegetation management plan

VQOvisualqualityobjective

WECC Western Electricity Coordinating Council

WROS Water Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

WUA weighted usable area
1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On July 16, 2009, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E or licensee) filed an application

for a new major license for its McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project, Project No. 2106

(project). The 368-megawatt (MW) project is located on the McCloud and Pit Rivers in

Shasta County, California, and consists of three power generating developments (James

B. Black, Pit 6, and Pit 7). These developments collectively include four reservoirs,

three powerhouses, five dams, two tunnels, an afterbay, and associated equipment and

transmission facilities. The project is described in more detail in section 2.1.1 Existing

Project Facilities. The project occupies 1,621.9 acres of federal lands managed by the

U.S. Department of Agriculture − Forest Service (Forest Service) and 29.5 acres of

federal lands managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

Proposed Action

To improve aquatic resources, PG&E proposes changes to existing operations,

including higher minimum instream flow releases in two project reaches: Lower

McCloud River and Iron Canyon Creek. In addition, PG&E proposes measures to protect

sensitive species and measures to maintain and enhance existing recreation opportunities

as well as to provide additional recreational facilities. Furthermore, PG&E proposes to

develop and/or implement the following plans: a large woody debris (LWD)

management plan; an erosion and sediment monitoring and control plan; a gravel and

coarse sediment monitoring plan; a water quality and temperature monitoring plan; an

aquatic biological monitoring and management plan; a vegetation management plan; a

terrestrial management plan; a recreation management plan; a project sign and education

plan; a historic properties management plan; a road and transportation facilities

management plan; a hazardous substance management plan; and a visual quality

management plan. PG&E’s measures are described in more detail in section 2.2,

Applicant’s Proposal. Finally, PG&E proposes to construct a new powerhouse at the

base of McCloud dam and a powerhouse at Pit 7 afterbay dam, along with associated

transmission facilities.

Alternatives Considered

This draft environmental impact statement (EIS) analyzes the effects of continued

project operation and recommends conditions for a new license for the project. In

addition to PG&E’s proposal, we consider two alternatives: (1) staff alternative; and

(2) no action—continued operation with no changes.

Staff Alternative

Under the staff alternative, the project would include most of PG&E’s proposed

measures and would be operated to maintain existing flows in the Pit 7 reach of the Pit

River, but would include higher instream flows than proposed by PG&E in the Lower

McCloud River bypassed reach and in the Iron Canyon Creek bypassed reach. The staff

alternative also includes the following additional measures:
2

 development and/or implementation of plans for gravel and coarse sediment

management, water quality and temperature monitoring, aquatic biological

monitoring, vegetation and invasive species management, terrestrial biological

management, recreation development and management, fish stocking, historic

properties management, and visual resources, with staff modifications;

 ramping rates to protect fish, macroinvertebrates, and foothill yellow-legged

frogs;

 operation and maintenance of gages to measure streamflows;

 foothill yellow-legged frog surveys; and

 real-time monitoring of water temperatures to assist in determining effects of

mudflows from Mud Creek on project waters in the Lower McCloud River.

The staff alternative is based in part on recommendations made by the Forest

Service, United States Department of Interior – Fish and Wildlife Service; California

Department of Fish and Game (California Fish and Game), California Trout, Trout

Unlimited, the McCloud River Club, and American Whitewater. We include most, but

not all, of the section 4(e) conditions filed by the Forest Service in the staff alternative.

Public Involvement and Areas of Concern

PG&E utilized the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC or the

Commission) Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) to prepare its license application. The

intent of the Commission’s pre-filing process under the ILP is to initiate public

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

governmental entities, Tribes, and other interested parties to identify issues and

information needs prior to an application being formally filed with the Commission.

As part of the pre-filing process, we distributed Scoping Document 1 to interested parties

on September 25, 2006, and issued a letter responding to comments made on Scoping

Document 1 on October 8, 2007. Scoping meetings were held in Redding, California, on

October 23 and 24, 2006. On December 1, 2009, after the final license application filing,

we requested comments, conditions, and recommendations in response to our notice of

application ready for environmental analysis.

The primary issues associated with relicensing the project are appropriate

minimum flows in project-affected reaches, assessment of project effects on special status

species, effects of any new minimum flow regime on angling and reservoir-based

recreation, assessment of project effects on recreation facilities, and potential effects of

project operation on water quality, aquatic habitat, and fish.

Project Effects

The project alters flows in the McCloud and Pit Rivers and Iron Canyon Creek via

water storage in four reservoirs and one afterbay, and diversion of flows to generate

power at three powerhouses. Project effects resulting from the operation and

maintenance of the McCloud-Pit Project include: the lack of LWD below McCloud dam;
3

trapped sediments behind McCloud dam resulting in a degraded aquatic habitat below the

dam; erosion and fine sediment delivery to stream channels; lower instream flows due to

water diversions; a lack of flow ramping during spill events; increased water temperature,

turbidity, and contaminants in project-stream reaches; introduction and spread of invasive

weed species; avian collision and electrocution at project transmission lines; accessibility

of project waters for recreational access (boating and angling); potential adverse effects

to historic properties; and decreased aesthetic values throughout the project area.

In recognition of these project effects, the table below summarizes the measures

proposed to mitigate these effects associated with the three alternatives considered in this

draft EIS.

Resource No-action

Alternative Proposed Action Staff Alternative

Generation 1,542.2 GWh 1524.3 GWh 1,502.2 GWh

Geology

and Soils

Continued removal

of LWD behind

McCloud dam

Prepare an LWD

management plan to

facilitate the placing

of LWD downstream

of McCloud dam

Same as proposed

action

Continue to maintain

roadways and

implement BMPs to

reduce sediment

input to project

waters

Implement erosion

and sediment

monitoring and

control plan to

minimize erosion

Same as proposed

action
4

Resource No-action

Alternative Proposed Action Staff Alternative

Monitor gravel and

coarse sediment that

could benefit

downstream aquatic

habitat

The proposed action

plus implement a

gravel and coarse

sediment

management plan to

add 150 to 600 tons

of gravel and coarse

sediment, from Star

City Creek or other

potential sites, to the

Lower McCloud

River periodically

for protection of

geology and soil

resources

Aquatic

Resources

Provide existing

minimum flows in

all stream reaches

Higher minimum

instream flows

below McCloud and

Iron Canyon dams

Higher minimum

instream flows

below McCloud and

Iron Canyon dams

consistent with a

more natural spring

hydrograph

No ramping rates for

seasonal minimum

flow changes, but

upramping at 100 cfs

per hour prior to

uncontrollable spills

Downramping at

150 cfs each

48 hours at

McCloud dam

during spills

controllable by

valve

Maximum

upramping during

controllable spills at

200 cfs each

24 hours; implement

water quality and

temperature

monitoring plan
5

Resource No-action

Alternative Proposed Action Staff Alternative

Move streamflow

measurements for

McCloud dam from

gage MC-1 to MC-7

Measure streamflow

compliance at two

compliance points

(MC-7 and MC-1)

No aquatic

biological

monitoring plan

Implement an

aquatic biological

monitoring plan

Implement water

quality monitoring

plan

Same as proposed

action

Terrestrial

Resources

Continue to

implement

vegetation

management

programs around

project facilities

Implement

vegetation

management plan to

guide restoration

using native plants

and manage invasive

plants

Implement BMPs to

protect wetlands

during construction

of McCloud

transmission line

Use native

vegetation during

restoration of areas

disturbed by projectrelated activities

Implement the

vegetation

management plan as

proposed under

Forest Service

condition 25 with

modifications to

include language

from the licensee’s

alternative condition

and the use of BMPs

and native

vegetation during

restoration activities
6

Resource No-action

Alternative Proposed Action Staff Alternative

Monitor bald eagle

territories

Implement wildlife

management plan

Implement the

terrestrial biological

management plan as

proposed under

Forest Service

condition 26 with

modifications to

include language

from the licensee’s

alternative condition

Monitor known bat

habitat annually for

five years after plan

approval, then once

every five years

Prepare biological

evaluations for

special-status

species prior to new

construction within

the project boundary

Implement APLIC

standards for

transmission lines to

minimize avian

collision and

electrocution

hazards

Same as proposed

action

Threatene

d and

Endangere

d Species

Implement Valley

Elderberry Longhorn

Beetle Conservation

Program

Same as no-action

plus conduct

preconstruction

surveys for Pacific

fisher and to

minimize effects on

northern spotted owl

Same as proposed

action
7

Resource No-action

Alternative Proposed Action Staff Alternative

Recreation

Resources

Fund California Fish

and Game trout

stocking program

Continue funding to

California Fish and

Game for stocking

trout annually and to

evaluate fish

stocking program

Stock 60,000 pounds

of trout annually at

the project and

develop and

implement a fish

stocking plan

Continue to operate

and maintain

existing recreational

facilities at the

project

Implement

recreation

development and

management plan to

include

rehabilitation and

upgrades to existing

recreation facilities,

reservoir water

surface

management,

recreation

monitoring, and a

signage and

education plan,

providing

streamflow

information to the

public via the

internet

Evaluation of fish

stocking at the

project and

monitoring of boat

use at the reservoirs

as a part of the

recreation

monitoring

Construct new dayuse area at McCloud

reservoir, include

fish/swimming

platform, reconstruct

and extend existing

boat ramp, and add

parking at Tarantula

Gulch

Same as proposed

but add lighting at

Tarantula Gulch

boat ramp
8

Resource No-action

Alternative Proposed Action Staff Alternative

Provide a formal

campground at

McCloud reservoir

at Star City

Same as proposed

Conduct a feasibility

study to find a

suitable location for

a floating dock or

pier and trail at

McCloud reservoir

Construct a floating

dock or pier and trail

at McCloud

reservoir

Construct a day-use

site and access trail

along the Lower

McCloud River, at

the base of McCloud

dam

Same as proposed

Reconstruct

Hawkins Landing

boat ramp and

campground and

provide additional

parking, restroom

facilities, and

conduct a site

evaluation to

provide three paved

parking areas with

shoreline access

points

Same as proposed

with the inclusion of

three paved parking

areas with shoreline

access points at Iron

Canyon reservoir

Construct new boat

ramp and shoreline

access at Iron

Canyon reservoir

Same as proposed

with the inclusion of

adding lighting at

the boat ramp
9

Resource No-action

Alternative Proposed Action Staff Alternative

Relocate (if feasible)

and reconstruct

Deadlun

Campground if a

suitable location is

found

Same as proposed

action with the

exception of

reconstructing, not

relocating Deadlun

Campground

Remove snow at

Iron Canyon dam

boat ramp and

access road when

project operations

require snow

removal from Oak

Mountain Road

Same as proposed

Evaluate the

feasibility of

constructing a

pedestrian shoreline

access trail at the

upper end of Pit 7

reservoir,

downstream of Pit 6

powerhouse tailrace,

and

Construct the

shoreline access trail

Conduct feasibility

assessment for

providing boat put-in

or boat hand- launch

at Montgomery

Creek, near the

lower end of Pit 7

reservoir, if not

feasible construct a

fishing access trail

with boat handlaunch

Conduct a site

evaluation to

determine the

location of a

pedestrian shoreline

access trail at the

lower end of Pit 7

reservoir with paved

parking. Once a

suitable location is

found, construct this

facility within five

years of license

issuance
10

Resource No-action

Alternative Proposed Action Staff Alternative

Reconstruct Fenders

Flat day-use area

(above Pit 7 afterbay

dam) and provide

access near the

proposed Pit 7

afterbay

powerhouse, and

provide parking at

the end of the

powerhouse access

road

Same as proposed

Conduct a site

evaluation to

determine the

location of three

paved parking areas

along FR 37N78

Construct three

paved parking areas

along FR 37N78

Provide project

patrols

No requirement for

project patrol plan,

patrols, or funding

for law enforcement

position

Cultural

Resources

Finalize and

implement Historic

Properties

Management Plan

(HPMP)

Implement HPMP

with some additional

measures

Continue employee

environmental

training and

sensitivity program

Continue employee

environmental

training and

sensitivity program

as part of the HPMP

Same as proposed

action
11

Resource No-action

Alternative Proposed Action Staff Alternative

Provide program to

educate public about

cultural significance

of area (with

assistance from Pit

River Tribe,

Winnemem Wintu

Tribe, and Forest

Service)

Same as proposed

action

Land Use

and

Aesthetics

Continue to maintain

all project roads and

facilities

Develop and

implement a road

and transportation

facility management

plan for project

roads

Same as proposed

action plus revise

project boundary to

include all project

roads and existing

recreational facilities

Execute a separate

MOU with the

Forest Service for

areas with shared

responsibility

Outside of licensing

processing

Continue to

implement the Spill

Prevention Control

and Countermeasure

(SPCC) Plan and the

Hazardous Materials

Business Plan

(HMBP)

Same as No-action,

but provide the

Forest Service with

copies of the current

SPCC plans and

HMBPs

Same as proposed

action

Develop and

implement visual

quality management

plan

Same as proposed

action

Develop and

implement a fire

response plan

Same as proposed

action
12

Conclusions

Based on our analysis, we recommend licensing the project as proposed by PG&E,

with some staff modifications and additional measures (staff alternative), as described

previously under Alternatives Considered.

In section 4.1 of the EIS, we compare the total project cost of obtaining power

from a likely alternative source of power in the region, for each of the alternatives

identified above. Our analysis shows that during the first year of operation, under the noaction alternative the project produces power at a cost of $23,102,533, or about

$72.52/megawatt-hours (MWh) more than the cost of alternative power. Under the

applicant’s proposal, the project would produce power at a cost of $33,354,853, or about

$65.62/MWh, more than the cost of alternative power. Under the staff-recommended

alternative, the project would produce power at a cost of $33,684,836, or about

$65.08/MWh, more than the cost of alternative power.

We choose the staff alternative as the preferred alternative because:

(1) the project would provide a dependable source of electrical energy for the region

(1,502,200 megawatt-hours annually); (2) the project may save the equivalent amount of

fossil fueled generation and capacity, thereby continuing to help conserve non-renewable

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

measures proposed by PG&E, as modified by staff, would adequately protect and

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

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

measures.
13

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 APPLICATION

On July 16, 2009, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) filed an application to

relicense its 368-megawatt (MW) McCloud-Pit Project (P-2106) with the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission). The McCloud-Pit Project is located on

the McCloud and Pit Rivers in Shasta County, California, and consists of three existing

developments (James B. Black, Pit 6, and Pit 7; figure 1-1). Project features collectively

include two storage reservoirs (McCloud and Iron Canyon reservoirs), two regulating

reservoirs (Pit 6 and Pit 7 reservoirs), one afterbay (Pit 7 afterbay), two tunnels, three

powerhouses (James B. Black, Pit 6, and Pit 7 powerhouses), and associated equipment

and transmission facilities. PG&E proposes to construct two new generation facilities at

the base of McCloud dam (5 to 8 MW) and at the base of Pit 7 afterbay dam (10 MW),

including a transmission line. A portion of the route of the proposed McCloud

transmission line would cross about 5 miles of the southern portion of Siskiyou County.

The current license expires July 31, 2011. The average annual energy generation

(1979-2004) for James B. Black, Pit 6, and Pit 7 powerhouses is 656.3, 373.8, and

512.1 gigawatt-hours (GWh), respectively.

The project currently occupies 1,651.4 acres of federal lands. Of those,

1,621.9 acres are managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture − Forest Service

(Forest Service), and 29.5 acres managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management

(BLM). The proposed new generation facilities add about 45.4 additional acres within

the project boundary, of which about 4.6 acres would be federally-owned lands managed

by the Forest Service.

1.2 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER

1.2.1 Purpose of Action

The Commission must decide whether to issue a license to PG&E for the project

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

a license for a hydroelectric project, the Commission must determine that the project will

be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway. In

addition to the power and developmental purposes for which licenses are issued

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

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

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

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

environmental quality.
14

Figure 1-1. McCloud-Pit Project, location map. (Source: PG&E, 2009a)
15

Issuing a new license for the McCloud-Pit Project would allow PG&E to continue

to generate electricity at the project for the term of a new license, making electric power

from a renewable resource available to its customers.

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

associated with operation of the proposed project, examines alternatives to the proposed

project, and makes recommendations to the Commission on whether to issue a new

license, and if so, recommends terms and conditions to become a part of any license

issued.

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

to operate the project: (1) as proposed by PG&E; (2) as proposed by PG&E with our

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

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

Important issues that are addressed include appropriate minimum flows in projectaffected reaches, assessment of project effects on special status species, effects of any

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

operation on water quality, aquatic habitat, and fish.

1.2.2 Need for Power

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

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

Reliability Corporation (NERC, 2009), which forecasts electrical supply and demand

nationally and regionally, summer total internal demands for the California-Mexico

Power area is projected to grow at an annual compound rate of 0.9 percent from 2009 to

2018. Annual energy use is projected to grow at an annual compound rate of 1.3 percent.

NERC forecasts that approximately 31,613 MW of capacity will be added to the

California-Mexico Power area of WECC over the project planning period (2009 – 2018).

The project could continue to meet part of the existing load requirements within a system

in need of resources. In addition, pursuant to California Senate Bill 1078 passed in

September 2002, the proposed new small hydro powerhouses may qualify as “eligible

renewable energy resources,” and could be used to help meet California’s Renewable

Portfolio Standard.

California’s principal energy agencies (the California Energy Commission,

California Public Utility Commission, and California Power Authority) developed a

common policy vision calling for: optimizing energy conservation and resource

efficiency; meeting new generation needs first with renewable energy resources and

distributed generation, then with clean fossil fuel generation; and improving the bulk

electricity transmission grid and distribution infrastructure. The California Energy

Commission projects that the statewide annual peak demand will grow an average of

1.35 percent between 2008 and 2018.

We conclude that power from the McCloud-Pit Project could continue to meet a

need for power in the WECC region in both the short- and long-term. The project
16

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

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

facilities may avoid some power plant emissions and creates an environmental benefit.

1.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

The license for the McCloud-Pit Project is subject to numerous requirements

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

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

Table 1-1. Major statutory and regulatory requirements for the McCloud-Pit

Hydroelectric Project.

Requirement Agency Status

Section 18 of the FPA

(fishway prescriptions)

U.S. Department of

Interior (Interior) – Fish

and Wildlife Service

(FWS); U.S. Department

of Commerce – National

Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, National

Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS)

FWS reserved its authority to

prescribe fishways on

January 28, 2010. NMFS

reserved its authority on

January 29, 2010.

Section 4(e) of the FPA

(land management

conditions)

Forest Service

The Forest Service provided

conditions on January 29, 2010,

and one revised condition on

March 1, 2010.

Section 10(j) of the FPA

California Department of

Fish and Game

(California Fish and

Game); NMFS

On January 29, 2010, NMFS

provided section 10(j)

recommendations. Fish and

Game provided

recommendations on

February 2, 2010.

Clean Water Act water

quality certification

California State Water

Resources Control Board

(California Water Board)

Application for water quality

certification filed with the

California Water Board on

January 27, 2010. Certification

due by January 27, 2011.
17

Requirement Agency Status

Endangered Species Act

consultation

U.S. Department of the

Interior − Fish and

Wildlife Service (FWS)

We conclude that the project is

not likely to adversely affect

VELB, Pacific fisher, or

northern spotted owl. We will

seek concurrence with FWS on

this matter.

Coastal Zone

Management Act

consistency

California Coastal

Commission

Relicensing the project would

not influence resources in the

designated coastal zone.

1.3.1 Federal Power Act

1.3.1.1 Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions

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

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

the secretaries of Commerce or Interior. By letter filed January 28, 2010, the U.S.

Department of the Interior (Interior) requested that a reservation of authority to prescribe

fishways be included in any project license for the McCloud-Pit Project. NMFS filed a

request for reservation of authority on January 29, 2010.

1.3.1.2 Section 4(e) Conditions

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

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

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

for the adequate protection and use of the reservation. The Forest Service filed 34

section 4(e) conditions for the McCloud-Pit Project on January 29, 2010, and one revised

condition on March 1, 2010. These conditions are described under section 2.2.4,

Modifications to the Applicant’s Proposal—Mandatory Conditions, summarized in

table 5-2, analyzed in the appropriate resource sections of section 3, and discussed in

section 5, Staff’s Conclusions.

1.3.1.3 Alternative Conditions Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005

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

opportunity to propose alternatives to 4(e) conditions. PG&E provided 16 alternative

4(e) conditions; Trout Unlimited, California Trout, and the McCloud River Club

provided one alternative condition; and the McCloud RiverKeepers provided one

alternative condition. We discuss these alternative conditions in the appropriate resource

analysis sections of this draft EIS and in section 2.2.4.2, Alternative 4(e) Conditions

Pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 2005. We discuss our conclusions in section 5,

Staff’s Conclusions.
18

1.3.1.4 Section 10(j) Recommendations

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

Commission must include conditions based on recommendations provided by federal and

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

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

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

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

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

recommendations, expertise, and statutory responsibilities of such agency.

On January 29, 2010, NMFS filed recommendations under section 10(j) for the

McCloud-Pit Project. California Department of Fish and Game (California Fish and

Game) filed recommendations on February 2, 2010. We summarize these

recommendations in table 5-1, analyze them in the appropriate resource sections in

section 3, and present our conclusions in section 5. We also discuss and address the

agency recommendations in section 5.4.1, Recommendations of Fish and Wildlife

Agencies.

1.3.2 Clean Water Act

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

certification from the appropriate state pollution control agency verifying compliance

with the CWA. By letter dated January 27, 2010, PG&E submitted its application for

water quality certification to the California State Water Resources Control Board

(California Water Board). By letter dated February 26, 2010, the California Water Board

documented receipt of the application on January 27, 2010. Consequently, the water

quality certification is due by January 27, 2011.

1.3.3 Endangered Species Act

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

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

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

habitat of such species. Four federally-listed species have the potential to occur in the

project vicinity: northern spotted owl, valley elderberry longhorn beetle (VELB),

California red-legged frog, and Pacific fisher. Our analyses of project effects on

threatened and endangered species are presented in section 3.3.4, Threatened and

Endangered Species, and our recommendations in section 5.2, Comprehensive

Development and Recommended Alternative.

We conclude that relicensing of the McCloud-Pit Project, as described under the

staff alternative with mandatory conditions, would have no effect on the California redlegged frog. Relicensing the project would not likely adversely affect the VELB, Pacific

fisher, and northern spotted owl. We will seek concurrence with the U.S. Department of
19

the Interior − Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) on our conclusions regarding the VELB,

Pacific fisher, and northern spotted owl.

1.3.4 Coastal Zone Management Act

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

16 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 1456(3)(A), the Commission cannot issue a license for

a project within or affecting a state’s coastal zone unless the state CZMA agency concurs

with the license applicant’s certification of consistency with the state’s CZMA program,

or the agency’s concurrence is conclusively presumed by its failure to act within 180 days

of its receipt of the applicant’s certification.

The project is located in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and is not located within the

boundary of a designated Coastal Zone Management Program, which extends from a few

blocks to 5 miles inland from the sea (www.ceres.ca.gov/coastal.com), and relicensing

the project would not affect resources within the boundary of a designated coastal zone.

Therefore, the project is not subject to California coastal zone program review and no

consistency certification is needed. We have provided a copy of this draft EIS to the

California Coastal Commission for review.

1.3.5 National Historic Preservation Act

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that every

federal agency “take into account” how each of its undertakings could affect historic

properties. Historic properties are districts, sites, buildings, structures, traditional cultural

properties (TCPs), and objects significant in American history, architecture, engineering,

and culture that are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places

(National Register).

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

Programmatic Agreement (PA) for the protection of historic properties from the effects of

the operation of the McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project. The terms of the PA would

ensure that PG&E addresses and treats all historic properties identified within the

project’s area of potential effects through the implementation of PG&E’s Historic

Properties Management Plan (HPMP).

1.3.6 California Environmental Quality Act

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

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). CEQA went into effect in 1970 for the

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

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

development, requires state and local agencies to identify the significant environmental

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

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

and local government agencies. The California Water Board, which must act on PG&E’s
20

request for water quality certification for the project (see section 1.3.2, Clean Water Act),

is the lead agency under CEQA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EIS/EIR. While this document is not a joint EIS/EIR, the California Water Board has the

opportunity to use this document, as appropriate, to satisfy its responsibilities under

CEQA. As such, we invite the California Water Board’s comments on this draft EIS as

they may pertain to the agency’s use of the final EIS for CEQA purposes.

One element needed in an EIR, but not required by NEPA, is a discussion of a

program for monitoring or reporting on mitigation measures that were adopted or made

conditions of project approval. The monitoring or reporting program must ensure

compliance with mitigation measures during project implementation. The program may

also provide information on the effectiveness of mitigation measures. Although

discussion of the mitigation reporting or monitoring program can be deferred until the

final EIR or, in some cases, after project approval, it is often included in the draft EIR to

obtain public review and comment.

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

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

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

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

list the mitigation measures, and monitoring and reporting requirements we recommend

for inclusion in any license issued for the McCloud-Pit Project. Additionally, any

conditions of the water quality certification that may be issued for this project will

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

CEQA requirements with respect to mitigation monitoring, appendix A, McCloud-Pit

Project Mitigation and Monitoring Summary, identifies each potentially significant

impact of relicensing the McCloud-Pit Project, lists the project changes or mitigation

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

impact, and describes the monitoring and reporting measures PG&E would undertake to

ensure the project changes and mitigation measures are implemented as intended.

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

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

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

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

obstacle to growth. PG&E, however, also is proposing to construct new powerhouses at

the McCloud and Pit 7 afterbay dams, and associated transmission lines. Increased
21

power generation would facilitate population growth and remove a potential obstacle to

growth.

1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND CONSULTATION

The Commission’s regulations (18 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] §16.8)

require that applicants consult with appropriate resource agencies, tribes, and other

entities before filing an application for a license. This consultation is the first step in

complying with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the ESA, the NHPA, and other

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

the Commission’s regulations.

1.4.1 Scoping

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

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

with NEPA. The preparation of an environmental assessment or EIS is supported by a

scoping process to ensure the identification and analysis of all pertinent issues. We

issued a notice of intent to prepare an EIS on December 1, 2009.

On September 25, 2006, the Commission issued Scoping Document 1 to enable

resource agencies; the Winnemem Wintu Tribe, Pit River Tribe, and Redding Rancheria

[Tribes]; and other interested parties to more effectively participate in and contribute to

the scoping process. In Scoping Document 1, we requested clarification of preliminary

issues concerning the McCloud-Pit Project and identification of any new issues that

needed to be addressed. On October 8, 2007, we issued a letter responding to comments

made on Scoping Document 1.

We held two public scoping meetings regarding the project, on October 23

and 24, 2006, in Redding, California. The scoping meetings were noticed in a local

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

scoping meetings, 25 individuals attended the October 23 evening scoping meeting, and

32 individuals attended the October 24 morning scoping meeting. In addition, an

environmental site review of the project area was conducted on September 19 and 20,

2006, and was attended by several of the individuals who also attended one or both of the

scoping meetings. The environmental site review also was noticed in a local newspaper

and the Federal Register.

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

Commission by November 23, 2006. In addition to the oral comments received during

the scoping meetings, we received written scoping comments from the following entities:
22

Commenting entity Date of filing

Redding Rancheria November 13, 2006

PG&E November 20, 2006

National Park Service (Park Service) November 21, 2006

Forest Service November 21, 2006

California Fish and Game November 21, 2006

California Trout, Friends of the River, and Trout Unlimited November 22, 2006

Pit River Tribe November 24, 2006

California Water Board November 22, 2006

Hearst Corporation November 24, 2006

Sierra Pacific Industries November 28, 2006

1.4.2 Interventions

On December 1, 2009, the Commission issued a public notice accepting the

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

which interventions could be filed, ending February 1, 2010. In response to these notices,

the following entities filed motions to intervene in this proceeding:

Entity Date of filing

California Fisheries and Water Unlimited December 3, 2009;

amended

December 4, 2009

Forest Service December 10, 2009

Anglers Committee December 10, 2009

Friends of the River and American Whitewater December 18, 2009

Winnemem Wintu Tribe December 22, 2009

California Salmon and Steelhead Association December 30, 2009

Center for Water Advocacy January 8, 2010

California Sportfishing Protection Alliance January 13, 2010

California Trout, Trout Unlimited, and Northern California

Council Federation of Flyfishers

January 26, 2010
23

Entity Date of filing

California Water Board January 28, 2010

McCloud River Club January 28, 2010

Interior February 1, 2010

NMFS January 29, 2010

The Fly Shop January 29, 2010

McCloud RiverKeepers February 1, 2010

California Fish and Game February 1, 2010

Pit River Tribe February 8, 2010a

Hearst Corporation February 16, 2010 a

a

Late intervention granted by Commission notice issued February 25, 2010.

1.4.3 Comments on License Application

On December 1, 2009, the Commission issued a Ready for Environmental

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

(subject to sections 4(e), 10(a), 10(j) and 18 of the FPA) with a filing deadline of

February 1, 2010.7The following entities filed comments, terms, conditions,

prescriptions, or recommendations:

Commenting entity Date of filing

Forest Service December 21, 2009

January 29, 2010 – filed one 4(e) condition

revised in part

California Fisheries and Water Unlimited January 19, 2010

FWS January 28, 2010

NMFS January 29, 2010

American Whitewater February 2, 2010

Winnemem Wintu Tribe February 1, 2010

California Fish and Game February 2, 2010

7

Several comments were received after the filing deadline, but are still considered

in this EIS.
24

Commenting entity Date of filing

Forest Service March 1, 2010

PG&E March 3, 2010

California Trout, Trout Unlimited, and

McCloud River Club

March 4, 2010

California Water Board March 8, 2010

Hearst Corporation March 16, 2010

PG&E March 16, 2010

PG&E March 22, 2010

Hearst Corporation March 22, 2010

American Whitewater and Friends of the

River

March 30, 2010

American Whitewater and Friends of the

River

March 31, 2010

McCloud RiverKeepers April 14, 2010

McCloud RiverKeepers April 22, 2010

PG&E April 23, 2010

Winnemem Wintu Tribe May 26, 2010
25

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under the no-action alternative, the McCloud-Pit Project would continue to

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

protection, mitigation, or enhancement measures would be implemented. We use this

alternative to establish baseline environmental conditions for comparison with other

alternatives.

2.1.1 Existing Project Facilities

Located in the McCloud and Pit River drainages of Northern California, the

McCloud-Pit Project involves the transfer of water from the McCloud River basin to the

Lower Pit River basin. McCloud reservoir is located on the McCloud River, which

originates at Moosehead Creek, southwest of Mt. Shasta, and flows in a southwesterly

direction before entering Shasta Lake, a reservoir formed by the U.S. Department of

Interior – Bureau of Reclamation’s Shasta dam at the confluence of the Pit, Sacramento,

and McCloud Rivers. From McCloud reservoir, water is transferred via a tunnel to Iron

Canyon reservoir, which is located on Iron Canyon Creek, a tributary of the Pit River.

Water from Iron Canyon reservoir flows, via a tunnel, to the James B. Black powerhouse,

located on the Pit River, just downstream of PG&E’s Hat Creek and Pit 3, 4, 5 projects.

The water from the McCloud River drainage then enters the Pit River and travels through

the Pit 6 and Pit 7 developments before entering Shasta Lake. Although the project

diverts water from the McCloud River basin to the Lower Pit River basin, both basins

drain to Shasta Lake. The project is located entirely within the Sacramento River

Hydrologic Region of California and both drainages are located along the western slope

of the Cascade Range.

The McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project commenced commercial operation in

1965-1966. The project is composed of three hydroelectric developments: James B.

Black, Pit 6, and Pit 7, each of which is described below. During the period from 1979 to

2004, the developments have annually generated an average of 1,542 GWh of power,

respectively. The locations of the various facilities and features are presented in

figures 2-1 and 2-2.

2.1.1.1 James B. Black Development

McCloud Dam and McCloud Reservoir

McCloud dam is a 241-foot (ft)-high, 630-ft-long earth- and rock-filled dam

located on the McCloud River that impounds McCloud reservoir. The McCloud

reservoir has a surface area of 520 acres and a maximum storage capacity of about

35,197 acre-feet (ac-ft). The spillway (elevation 2,696.0 ft above mean sea level [ft msl])

is on the south side of the dam. The reservoir has a normal maximum water surface

elevation of 2,680 ft msl. The dam’s spillway is equipped with three radial gates
26

measuring 27 ft by 24.5 ft that returns spillage flows to the McCloud River. The dam

also has a 7-ft-diameter diversion/outlet tunnel that runs under the dam to a 24-inch (in.)

Howell-Bunger valve for releasing instream flows to the McCloud River, as well as an

84-in.-diameter butterfly valve for emergency use to control reservoir levels. Controls

for the diversion/outlet tunnel are located at the intake within McCloud reservoir.

McCloud Tunnel

McCloud dam diverts flows from the McCloud River via a 7.2-mile-long lined and

unlined tunnel and a 563-ft-long pipeline section at Hawkins Creek crossing that

hydraulically links McCloud reservoir and Iron Canyon reservoir. An intake tower

within McCloud reservoir collects water for the McCloud tunnel, which is about 17 ft

in diameter, and heads easterly to Iron Canyon reservoir. The differential in water

surface elevations between the two reservoirs controls the amount of water drafted

through the tunnel. The McCloud tunnel diversion results in an approximately 24-milelong bypassed reach of the McCloud River, between the project reservoir and Shasta

Lake.
27

Figure 2-1. McCloud-Pit Project, system map. (Source: PG&E, 2009a)
28
29

Figure 2-2. Schematic of the McCloud-Pit Project.
30

Iron Canyon Dam and Reservoir

An earth-filled dam 214-ft-high and 1,130-ft-long impounds Iron Canyon Creek

water to create Iron Canyon reservoir. The reservoir has a maximum storage capacity of

24,241 ac-ft with about a 500-acre surface area. The dam has a slide gate leading to a

48-in.-diameter pipe for instream flow releases to Iron Canyon Creek. Normal maximum

water surface elevation within the reservoir is 2,664 ft msl.

Iron Canyon Tunnel and Penstock

The 2.9-mile-long, 18-ft-diameter Iron Canyon tunnel diverts water from Iron

Canyon reservoir. An associated 1,194-ft-long, 11.5-ft-diameter pipeline at the Willow

Spring Creek crossing, and a 5,467-ft-long, 11.5-ft-diameter steel penstock provides

water to James B. Black powerhouse. The penstock bifurcates before James B. Black

powerhouse to deliver water flow to the two turbine generator units. The tunnel and

penstock have a total flow capacity of 2,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). The Iron

Canyon tunnel diversion results in an approximately 4-mile-long Iron Canyon Creek

bypassed reach leading to the Pit 6 reservoir.

James B. Black Powerhouse

James B. Black powerhouse is located on the northwest bank of the Pit River,

about 0.5 mile upstream of the Pit 5 powerhouse (FERC project no. 233). The

powerhouse is a three-level, reinforced-concrete structure containing two vertical shaft

impulse turbines rated at 104,000 horsepower (hp) each. They operate at a normal

maximum gross head of 1,226 ft. Two vertical axis outdoor generators, Unit 1 rated at

94.8 megavolt-ampere (MVA) and Unit 2 rated at 92.6 MVA, are connected to a threephase, 86-MVA transformer bank. Their combined maximum capacity is 172 MW.

Average annual generation within the past 25 years at the station is 656.3 GWh. Flows

discharge from this powerhouse via a tailrace leading directly from the generation units

to the Pit River.

Transmission

The primary transmission lines (230 kilovolt [kV]) extend about 0.5 mile from the

transformer bank in the switchyard adjacent to James B. Black powerhouse to the

switchyard adjacent to the non-project Pit 5 powerhouse.

2.1.1.2 Pit 6 Development

Pit 6 Dam and Reservoir

Pit 6 dam and reservoir are located on the Pit River downstream of James B. Black

powerhouse. The 183-ft-high, 560-ft-long concrete gravity Pit 6 dam has a crest

elevation of 1,432 ft msl. The top of the dam contains a trash rake, motors for two

42-ft-high by 49-ft-long slide gates, and a control building. The control building houses a

hydraulic system for two low-level 8-ft-diameter outlets at the base of the dam. The Pit 6

reservoir has a maximum storage capacity of about 15,619 ac-ft and a maximum surface

area of about 268 acres. The normal maximum water surface elevation of the reservoir is
31

1,425 ft msl. The reservoir serves as the forebay for Pit 6 powerhouse. Two

18-ft-diameter steel penstocks with a total flow capacity of 6,470 cfs extend 602 ft from

the dam to the Pit 6 powerhouse turbines located at the base of the dam.

Pit 6 Powerhouse

Pit 6 powerhouse is located along the east bank of the Pit River at the base of Pit 6

dam. The powerhouse is a four-level, reinforced concrete structure, three levels of which

are below grade. The structure contains two vertical-shaft, Francis reaction turbines,

rated at 53,000 hp each and operating at a normal maximum gross head of 155 ft. There

are two outdoor vertical axis generators, rated at 44 MVA each, with each unit connected

to a three-phase, 44-MVA transformer bank that steps up plant output to 230 kV. The

maximum generator capacity is 80 MW. Average annual generation over the last

25 years is 373.8 GWh. Water is discharged from the Pit 6 powerhouse directly into the

Pit 7 reservoir.

Transmission

The primary transmission lines extend about 3.3 miles from the switchyard

adjacent to Pit 6 powerhouse to PG&E’s interconnected transmission system.

2.1.1.3 Pit 7 Development

Pit 7 Dam and Reservoir

Pit 7 dam and reservoir are located on the Pit River downstream of Pit 6

powerhouse. Pit 7 dam is a 228-ft-high and 770-ft-long concrete gravity dam. The top of

the dam contains a trash rake, motors for two 49-ft by 42-ft slide gates at the crest of the

dam, and a control building. The control building houses hydraulic controls for two

8-ft-diameter low-level outlets at the base of the dam. Pit 7 reservoir has a maximum

storage capacity of 34,142 ac-ft and a surface area of about 468 acres at a normal

maximum water surface elevation of 1,270 ft msl. As with Pit 6 reservoir, Pit 7 reservoir

serves as the forebay for Pit 7 powerhouse. Two penstocks, 15 ft in diameter, extend

572 ft from the dam to the turbines in the powerhouse, located at the base of the dam.

Total flow capacity within the penstocks is 7,440 cfs.

Pit 7 Powerhouse

Pit 7 powerhouse is located along the east bank of the Pit River at the base of the

Pit 7 dam. The powerhouse consists of a four-level, reinforced concrete structure, three

levels of which are below grade. The powerhouse contains two vertical-shaft, reaction

turbines that are rated at 70,000 hp each and operate at a normal maximum gross head of

205 ft. Two vertical axis generators are rated at 52.2 (Unit 2) and 62.1 (Unit 1) MVA,

respectively. Their maximum combined capacity is 112 MW. Each unit is connected to

a three-phase, 58-MVA transformer bank that steps up plant output to 230 kV. The

average annual generation over the last 25 years is 512 GWh. Water is discharged from

Pit 7 powerhouse directly into Pit 7 afterbay.
32

Transmission

The primary transmission lines extend about 3.5 miles from the switchyard

adjacent to Pit 7 powerhouse to the licensee’s interconnected transmission system.

Pit 7 Dam and Afterbay

Pit 7 afterbay has a surface area of about 69 acres at a normal “maximum” water

surface elevation of 1,067 ft msl (maximum water surface of Shasta Lake). The afterbay

dam is a 30-ft-high, steel reinforced, rock-fill structure, including a variable width

concrete gravity regulations weir section. Pit 7 afterbay serves to attenuate changes in

the water flow from Pit 7 dam and powerhouse before entering Shasta Lake, which abuts

and sometimes inundates the afterbay.

2.1.1.4 Existing Project Boundary

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

and maintenance (O&M) of the project and other purposes, such as recreation, shoreline

control, and protection of environmental resources, includes about 3,707.6 acres of land

in Shasta and Siskiyou Counties, California.

The project boundary generally only encompasses project facilities, including:

dams and diversions; impoundments; water conveyances and associated structures;

access roads and trails; transmission, communication, and control lines; powerhouses;

gaging stations; and helicopter landing sites used for access to project structures. The

project boundary also includes land adjacent to project features and the width of these

zones varies depending on the feature. The current project boundary encloses the project

facilities associated with the three developments (James B. Black, Pit 6, and Pit 7) along

the McCloud and Pit Rivers, and lands within Shasta-Trinity National Forest.

The project currently contains six existing recreation sites within the project

boundary. These sites include: (1) the Forest Service’s Star City dispersed recreation

site at McCloud reservoir; (2) the existing Tarantula Gulch boat launch at McCloud

reservoir; (3) PG&E’s Hawkins Landing campground at Iron Canyon reservoir;

(4) PG&E’s Hawkins Landing boat launch at Iron Canyon reservoir; (5) the Forest

Service’s Fenders Flat car-top boat launch at Pit 7 afterbay dam; and (6) the Forest

Service’s existing Deadlun Creek campground.

PG&E proposes to expand the project boundary to include: (1) an existing project

road (access road to Hawkins Landing campground); (2) a proposed project road (access

road for the proposed Pit 7 afterbay powerhouse); and (3) the right-of-way for the

proposed McCloud and Pit 7 afterbay transmission lines.

In addition, PG&E proposes to construct nine new recreation sites, seven of which

would be located within the existing project boundary and two of which would need to be

brought into the project boundary after construction. The seven sites PG&E proposes to

construct within the project boundary include: (1) a white-water access trail at McCloud

reservoir; (2) a floating swim/fish dock at McCloud reservoir; (3) an additional boat
33

launch at Iron Canyon reservoir; (4) a day-use area at Iron Canyon reservoir; (5) a

shoreline access site at Pit 6 reservoir; (6) the Montgomery Creek car-top boat launch at

Pit 7 reservoir; and (7) shoreline access at Pit 7 afterbay. The two proposed sites that

would need to be brought into the project boundary after construction include: (1) the

Tarantula Gulch boat launch day-use area at McCloud reservoir; and (2) the Red Banks

day-use area at McCloud reservoir.

About 44 percent of the land (1,621.9 acres) within the project boundary is owned

by the United States and is managed by the Forest Service as part of Shasta-Trinity

National Forest. Another 29.5 acres where Montgomery Creek enters Pit 7 reservoir is

United States-owned land managed by BLM. The licensee owns 1,239.4 acres

(33 percent) of the land within the project boundary, and the remaining 816.8 acres are

privately owned.

2.1.2 Project Safety

The McCloud-Pit Project has been operating under the existing license for more

than 48 years, during which time Commission staff has conducted operational inspections

focusing on the continued safety of the structures, identification of unauthorized

modifications, efficiency and safety of operation, compliance with the terms of the

license, and proper maintenance. In addition, the project has been inspected and

evaluated every five years by an independent consultant, and a consultant’s safety report

has been filed for Commission review. As part of the relicensing process, the

Commission staff would evaluate the continued adequacy of the proposed project

facilities under a new license. Special articles would be included in any license issued,

as appropriate. Commission staff would continue to inspect the project during the new

license term to assure continued adherence to the Commission-approved plans and

specifications; special license articles relating to construction, operation, and

maintenance; and accepted engineering practices and procedures.

2.1.3 Existing Project Operation

The project operates both as a peaking system and a load-following system

throughout the year, using the available water supply after satisfying minimum instream

flow requirements.

James B. Black, Pit 6, and Pit 7 powerhouses are typically operated on a peaking

basis. The powerhouses’ output varies on an hourly basis from minimum or no load

during the off-peak periods, up to the powerhouses’ maximum output during peak

demand periods. During the mid-peak demand periods, the powerhouses are operated

near their more efficient loads depending on the available flow. During periods of high

flow, the powerhouses are operated at their maximum capacities in order to minimize

spill.

Operations of McCloud and Iron Canyon reservoirs are coordinated to optimize

use of water. The movement of water through the tunnel from McCloud reservoir to Iron
34

Canyon reservoir and through a tunnel and penstock from Iron Canyon reservoir to James

B. Black powerhouse is carefully planned to prevent spills at Iron Canyon reservoir and

minimize spills at McCloud reservoir. The water surface elevation in Iron Canyon

reservoir is regulated through the operation of James B. Black powerhouse. The relative

level of McCloud reservoir and Iron Canyon reservoir determines the rate of flow

through the tunnel connecting the two reservoirs. When spill conditions are forecast

because of high inflows to the reservoirs, Iron Canyon reservoir is drawn down to avoid

use of its spillway while maximizing the tunnel flow and minimizing spill at McCloud

dam. Iron Canyon reservoir generally does not spill, while McCloud reservoir, on

average, spills about 4 out of every 10 years.

2.1.4 Existing Environmental Measures

The current license for the project includes minimum flow requirements for

McCloud and Iron Canyon dams (article 31). For McCloud dam, requirements include

a 50-cfs flow release from May through November and a 40-cfs flow release from

December through April, as measured at gage MC-7, with additional releases as

necessary to maintain minimum flows of 160 to 210 cfs at gage MC-1 near Ah-Di-Na.

Flows of at least 3 cfs are required to be released to Iron Canyon Creek downstream of

Iron Canyon dam at all times.

To facilitate use of the boat ramp during the recreation season from May 15 to

October 15, PG&E voluntarily keeps the water surface elevation of Iron Canyon reservoir

at or above elevation 2,615 ft msl, instead of the minimum elevation of 2,593 ft msl

allowed by the current license.

Land use is regulated under article 56 and is subject to the Shasta County general

plan, Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP),

BLM’s resource management plan, and the McCloud River Coordinated Resource

Management Plan (CRMP). The current license articles also include requirements for

fire prevention and suppression.

PG&E is a participant in the McCloud River CRMP, which provides for

coordinated management of the McCloud River by federal and state resource agencies,

adjacent landowners, and conservation organizations. Any changes in the operation of

the McCloud dam are expected to undergo review by the CRMP coordinating group

(McCloud River CRMP, 1991). Also, the Shasta-Trinity National Forest LRMP guides

protection of environmental resources (Forest Service, 1995).

2.2 APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL

2.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities

PG&E proposes to construct a new powerhouse at the base of McCloud dam and

a new powerhouse at Pit 7 afterbay dam, along with associated transmission facilities.

PG&E also proposes to construct four new recreational facilities at McCloud reservoir,
35

two new recreation facilities at Iron Canyon reservoir, one new recreation facility at Pit 6

reservoir, and two new recreation facilities at Pit 7 afterbay dam.

2.2.1.1 McCloud Development

At McCloud Development, PG&E proposes to construct a powerhouse located at

the base of McCloud dam. Generation output from the proposed powerhouse would be

connected to a new transmission line that would be routed from the proposed powerhouse

to connect to an existing substation located about 14 miles to the north, in the town of

McCloud, California. The McCloud Development would use water stored in McCloud

reservoir and released into the Lower McCloud River to meet instream flow

requirements, and no new impoundments are proposed. With a flow range of 150 to

400 cfs, the turbine and generator set would have an installed capacity of about 5 to

8 MW. The proposed McCloud Development would have an average range of annual

energy production of 30 to 40 GWh, and average monthly generation would be about

2.5 to 3.3 GWh. PG&E proposes to base the final size of the unit, powerhouse hydraulic

capacity, and average annual energy production on instream flow requirements included

in the new project license.

The proposed powerhouse would be positioned to the south of the current outlet

works control building and would be a reinforced concrete-and-block masonry structure

designed to enclose and protect the electro-mechanical generation equipment, withstand

area snow loads, and prevent vandalism. It would be accessed via the existing project

road that connects to Forest Road (FR) 38N11.

The powerhouse would be equipped with a single vertical-axis Francis turbine.

The turbine, which would have a discharge diameter of about 54 in., would operate at

about 450 revolutions per minute. The direct-coupled synchronous generator rating

would range from 5,600 to 7,500 kilowatts (kW).

The proposed transmission line route from the powerhouse would follow

FR 38N11 and then county roads to the existing substation about 14 miles north in the

town of McCloud.

2.2.1.2 Pit 7 Afterbay Development

PG&E also proposes to construct facilities at Pit 7 Afterbay Development,

including a powerhouse located on the west side of Pit 7 afterbay dam at the regulating

weir. Generation output from the proposed powerhouse would be connected to a new

transmission line that would be routed from the powerhouse to connect to the switchyard

located about 1.6 miles to the east at the existing Pit 7 powerhouse. The proposed

facilities would have no meaningful storage and would operate in a run-of-the-river

mode. The available flows for energy production would be dictated by the operation of

the upstream Pit 7 powerhouse.

The proposed Pit 7 afterbay powerhouse would use water released upstream from

Pit 7 powerhouse and dam and no new impoundments are proposed. The proposed

powerhouse would be configured for two horizontal-axis synchronous generating units,
36

each rated at 5,500 kW and housed in a 30-ft-wide by 110-ft-long intake approach bay.

Each of the generating bays would have a design flow of 2,500 cfs. The upstream

entrance to each intake bay would include a trash rack to stop large debris from entering

the unit. Two radial gates about 26 ft wide by 52 ft high would be constructed upstream

of the unit to regulate flow and for dewatering the turbine pit. A roller gate would be

constructed at the downstream end of each bay or the tailrace to prevent backwatering

during maintenance. A combination of ramps, walkways, and ladders would be used in

each bay to allow for maintenance access and to support the gate operator mechanism. A

20-ft-wide bypass flow bay, which would house a radial gate and operator, would be built

in the first phase of construction. The bypass flow bay would be used to pass river flows

during the second phase of construction and during times of non-generation. The bypass

flow bay also would require a walkway to allow maintenance and operation access and

support the gate operator mechanism. A new access road would be constructed to access

the powerhouse for construction, operation, and maintenance. The access road would

extend between Fenders Ferry Road and the afterbay, just west of Fenders Ferry Bridge.

Based on a flow range of 2,500 to 5,000 cfs, the two-unit powerhouse would

accommodate turbine and generator sets capable of an installed capacity of about 5 MW

each for a total of 10 MW. The average monthly generation from this proposed

powerhouse would be about 4.2 GWh.

The proposed powerhouse substation would be fenced and located on the ground

near the control house, but above the maximum anticipated flood and tailwater levels.

Substation equipment would include a step-up substation to transform energy for the

transmission line. Powerhouse controls and switchgear would be installed in a separate

building located on the right bank of the river, positioned above the maximum anticipated

water level and inside the substation fence. The building would house the required

equipment for control and protection of the generation units and would be equipped with

electric heating and cooling. The transmission line would be a 1.6-mile-long, 34.5-kV,

wooden-pole line connecting the proposed powerhouse to a new 34.5- to 230-kV

transformer, positioned at or near the existing 230-kV Pit 7 switchyard. A new 230-kV

circuit breaker and disconnect switch would be connected by a short span to the main bus

of the existing Pit 7 switchyard.

2.2.2 Proposed Project Operation

Future operation of existing project structures would be generally consistent with

existing operation. One significant change in future operation, however, is related to

minimum flow releases, as described below (Measures 5, 7, and 8). PG&E also proposes

to release recreational flows below McCloud dam (Measure 6).

The proposed McCloud powerhouse would generate electricity with water stored

in McCloud reservoir and released into the Lower McCloud River to meet instream flow

requirements, and no new impoundments are proposed. The final size of the unit,

powerhouse hydraulic capacity, and average annual energy production would be

determined based on instream flow requirements included in the new project license.
37

The proposed Pit 7 afterbay powerhouse would operate in run-of-the-river mode.

2.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures

In its new license application, PG&E proposed the following protection and

enhancement measures:

General

 Consult annually with the Forest Service (Measure 1).

 Conduct annual training in coordination with the Forest Service, to familiarize

project staff with local resource issues, special status species, noxious weeds,

procedures for reporting to the Forest Service, and applicable Forest Service

orders (Measure 2).

 Obtain Forest Service approval of designs and schedules for any changes to

project construction and activities (Measure 4).

Geology and Soils

 Implement a large woody debris (LWD) management plan that calls for

transporting LWD from McCloud reservoir and depositing it in the Lower

McCloud River (Measure 11).

 Develop and implement an erosion and sediment monitoring and control plan

that specifies treatment criteria; methods for inventorying, monitoring, and

reporting; and protocols for emergency erosion control. The plan would

include provisions for detecting and treating new erosion sites, as well as

treating and monitoring existing sites (Measure 12).

Aquatic Resources

 Increase minimum instream flow releases below McCloud dam to the

McCloud River, and move the point for measuring compliance about 4 miles

upstream to the base of McCloud dam. The proposed target minimum

instream flow below McCloud dam is 220 cfs from December through April

and 150 cfs from May through November (Measure 5).

 Increase minimum instream flows below Iron Canyon dam to Iron Canyon

Creek from 3 cfs, year-round, to a varied scenario of flows from 5 to 20 cfs,

depending on time of year and water year type (Measure 7).

 Implement an upramping rate measure for the Lower McCloud River, identical

to the existing voluntary operational practice, which would be implemented

during uncontrolled spill events (e.g., temporary bridges and angling activities)

(Measure 9).
38

 Continue providing a minimum flow release of 150 cfs to the Pit River below

Pit 7 dam when Shasta Lake is lower than 1,055 ft msl to maintain water flow

in the Pit 7 afterbay (Measure 8).

 Develop and implement a water quality monitoring plan, which would provide

for continued monitoring of water temperature and turbidity for selected sites

at which PG&E has been monitoring since about 1987, and add monitoring the

effects of changes to instream flow releases on water temperature and turbidity

and monitoring bacteria in McCloud and Iron Canyon reservoirs (Measure 10).

 Prepare, for Forest Service approval, a biological evaluation of the potential

effects of any proposed action to construct project features on Forest Service

lands on special status species. The evaluation would include procedures to

minimize any adverse effects, meet any management plan restrictions, and

monitor implementation and effectiveness of any measures taken as part the

construction (Measure 15).

 Develop a wildlife management plan for aquatic and terrestrial species that

includes monitoring methodologies, preconstruction survey protocols, and

avoidance and protection measures for special status mollusks, Shasta

salamander, foothill yellow-legged frog, and northwestern pond turtle

(Measure 14).

Terrestrial Resources

 Develop a vegetation management plan in consultation with resource agencies

to ensure that the licensee: (1) identifies, monitors, and protects individuals

and populations of special status species, and culturally significant plant

species to maintain well-distributed, viable populations; (2) specifies allowable

treatment methods for project O&M practices to minimize the introduction and

spread of invasive plant species; (3) protects wetland areas; and (4) restores

native vegetation in areas disturbed by project operation and activities

(Measure 13).

 Develop a wildlife management plan for aquatic and terrestrial species that

describes monitoring methodologies, preconstruction survey protocols, and

avoidance and protection measures for VELB, northern goshawk, bald eagle,

peregrine falcon, willow flycatcher, communities of breeding birds, special

status bats, and forest carnivores (Measure 14).

 Modify any existing power line that does not meet established Avian Power

Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) standards for preventing bird

electrocution; any new power lines would be constructed to meet the

established standards (Measure 16).

 Prepare, for Forest Service approval, a biological evaluation of the potential

effects of any proposed action to construct project features on Forest Service
39

lands. The evaluation would include procedures to minimize any adverse

effects, meet any management plan restrictions, and monitor implementation

and effectiveness of any measures taken as part the construction. This measure

would apply to and protect terrestrial and aquatic Forest Service special status

species (Measure 15).

Threatened and Endangered Species

 Pacific fisher: Perform pre-construction surveys using passive detection

systems, such as baited camera stations. Survey methods from the scientific

literature, and any available standard species survey protocols, would be

considered in defining the survey approach. Avoidance, protection, and

mitigation measures would be used at construction sites (Measures 14 and 15).

 Northern spotted owl: Conduct protocol-level surveys prior to construction

and implement appropriate mitigation measures if required, or alternatively

assume the presence of spotted owls, and propose measures, as appropriate,

to address potential project-related effects. If spotted owls are detected,

implement restrictions on project activities near nest sites documented during

pre-construction surveys or other observations. Define the seasonal timing and

the buffer distance around occupied sites for each type of activity. Ensure that

these restrictions are generally consistent with those applied by the Forest

Service at other occupied sites in the vicinity (Measure 14).

Recreation Resources

 Obtain Forest Service approval of final design before construction of project

facilities occurs on National Forest System (NFS) lands to ensure that any

concerns about consistency with the Shasta-Trinity National Forest LRMP,

including visual quality objectives, are addressed when planning, designing,

and constructing project facilities and implementing project measures

(Measures 3 and 19).

 Continue funding to California Fish and Game for stocking rainbow trout or

kokanee in the drainages of the Pit and McCloud Rivers below the uppermost

project development to Shasta Lake. This measure would continue to enhance

recreational fishing in project waters (Measure 17).

 Develop and implement a recreation development and management plan to

address recreation resource needs at the project. A number of sub-plans are

proposed in the project recreation plan: (1) a signage plan to provide

directions to project recreation opportunities and inform visitors about

applicable rules and regulations; (2) a surface water and shoreline management

plan to manage reservoir use at McCloud reservoir; (3) an interpretive and

education plan to enhance visitor experience; and (4) a recreation monitoring

plan to provide information that could be used to implement actions to address

the effects of recreation use throughout the license term (Measure 19).
40

 Include the following facilities at McCloud reservoir in the project recreation

plan: a walk-in campground at Star City, four day-use facilities, reservoir

shoreline access (i.e., parking areas with pedestrian shoreline access trails) at

three access points, and a whitewater put-in at the base of McCloud dam

(Measure 19).

 Include the following facilities at Iron Canyon reservoir in the project

recreation plan: a boat launch near the dam and reservoir shoreline access after

conducting a site evaluation (i.e., three parking areas with pedestrian shoreline

access trails) (Measure 19).

 Reconstruct Forest Service facilities (Tarantula Gulch boat launch, if feasible,

and Deadlun Campground) and PG&E-owned facilities at Hawkins Landing.

Reconstruction at Deadlun Campground would include redesigning the facility

to include additional overnight capacity. Upgrade Hawkins Landing to Forest

Service standards, resurface the access road, and replace or repair the surfacing

that connects to the concrete ramp. If feasible within site constraints, extend

the boat ramp at Tarantula Gulch. After construction or reconstruction, the

facilities would become project recreation facilities, and PG&E would be

responsible for O&M for the facilities, including fee collection (Measure 19).

 Provide hosts at project campgrounds (Measure 19).

 Develop in consultation with the Forest Service and implement a project patrol

plan to include NFS lands within the project area or affected by project

facilities, access areas, and dispersed use sites to respond to concerns about

trash, vandalism, and improper or disruptive visitor behavior near project

reservoirs (Measure 20).

 Include the following proposed facilities at Pit 7 afterbay in the project

recreation plan: a day-use area at Fenders Flat and, if the Pit 7 afterbay

powerhouse is constructed, pedestrian access to the shoreline between the

powerhouse and the bridge. Grade and maintain the access road to the car-top

boat launch and continue to prohibit public access to the Pit 7 afterbay water

surface and shoreline (Measure 19).

 Assess and implement, in coordination with the Forest Service, closures of

existing and future user-created roads leading to the shoreline. This measure

would prohibit vehicle access between certain forest roads and the shoreline

except to developed facilities and prohibit dispersed camping and off-highway

vehicle (OHV) use between the roads and the shoreline (Measure 19).

 Provide a recreation flow event from McCloud dam when natural spill of at

least 300 cfs for seven consecutive days during the period of April 1 through

October 31 has not occurred at any time in the three previous calendar years

(Measure 6).
41

 Provide real-time flow information on the internet (gage MC-1) in the Lower

McCloud River. Inform the public via internet if the project reservoir levels

are sufficient for launching boats (i.e., end of the launch lanes are sufficiently

submerged). Provide flow and boat launch information so visitors will know

when conditions are suitable for their activities (Measure 19).

 Conduct feasibility studies to evaluate the potential for constructing a few

recreation facilities as suggested at meetings among relicensing participants

and construct if feasible. At McCloud reservoir, evaluate locations for a

floating dock or pier and trail for fishing and swimming. At Pit 7 reservoir,

evaluate the feasibility of providing shoreline access at the upper end of the

reservoir and a hand launch boat put-in where Montgomery Creek enters the

reservoir (Measure 19).

Cultural Resources

 Develop and implement the HPMP. The plan has been developed in

consultation with the Tribes and Forest Service; however, consultation will

continue until the Commission approves the HPMP. Specifications are

included in the plan to avoid or manage any potential project-related adverse

effects on properties that are unevaluated, eligible for, or listed on the National

Register (Measure 22).

Land Use and Aesthetic Resources

 Prepare a road and transportation facilities management plan for NFS roads or

project roads affecting NFS resources (Measure 18).

 Plan and create, in coordination with the Forest Service, shaded fuel breaks

around all project recreation facilities that would be constructed and

maintained by PG&E (Measure 19).

 Develop a fire response plan to address ongoing concerns about wildland fire

and potential damage to project infrastructure and forest resources. This

measure would provide pre-suppression coordination with fire management

agencies; describe hazard reduction treatments; and identify contacts,

equipment, personnel, and access routes that can be immediately referenced to

support suppression actions. It would also specify requirements for reporting

project-caused fires and supporting fire investigations (Measure 21).

2.2.4 Modifications to the Applicant’s Proposal—Mandatory Conditions

The following mandatory conditions have been provided and are evaluated in this

document.

2.2.4.1 Section 4(e) Federal Land Management Conditions

In a January 29, 2010, filing with the Commission, the Forest Service submitted

terms and conditions pursuant to section 4(e) of the FPA, including 18 standard Forest
42

Service conditions and 16 project-specific resource protection conditions. On

March 1, 2010, the Forest Service revised one condition in part, condition 19,

Streamflow.

Of the Forest Service’s 34 conditions, we consider the 18 standard conditions

(conditions 1 through 18) to be administrative or legal in nature and not specific

environmental measures. With the exception of Forest Service condition 1, Consultation,

condition 11, Protect Forest Service Special Status Species, and condition 15, Pesticide

Use Restrictions on NFS Lands, we do not analyze these conditions in this EIS. We

analyze conditions that we consider to be environmental measures in section 3, and we

summarize our analysis of these measures in section 5.4.2, Forest Service 4(e)

Conditions.

The initial and revised Forest Service conditions that we analyze in this document

specify that PG&E:

 Consult with the Forest Service annually on measures needed to ensure

protection and utilization of the National Forest resources affected by the

project. [Forest Service condition 1]

 Prepare and submit a biological evaluation to the Forest Service before taking

action to construct new project features that may affect Forest Service special

status species or their critical habitat. [Forest Service condition 11]

 Obtain prior written approval from the Forest Service for use of pesticides on

NFS lands or in areas affecting NFS lands. Pesticide use would be excluded

from NFS lands within 500 ft of known locations of Shasta salamanders,

northwestern pond turtles, foothill yellow-legged frogs, or known locations of

Forest Service special status or culturally significant plant populations. [Forest

Service condition 15]

 Maintain specified minimum streamflows in project reaches in accordance

with the provisions described in the Forest Service filing. The minimum

instantaneous 15-minute streamflow shall be at least 80 percent of the

prescribed mean daily flow for those minimum streamflows less than or equal

to 10 cfs, and at least 90 percent of the streamflows required to be greater than

10 cfs. Should the mean daily flow as measured be less than the required mean

daily flow but more than the instantaneous flow, licensee shall begin releasing

the equivalent under-released volume of water within seven days of discovery

of the under-release. [Forest Service condition 19 and revised condition 19]

 Determine the water type year for minimum flow compliance based on the

Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin 120 water year forecast of

unimpaired runoff for the Sacramento River near Redding. [Forest Service

condition 19, part 2]
43

 Operate, maintain, and modify (if necessary) gages needed to determine river

stage and minimum streamflow, and measure and document all instream flow

releases in publicly available formats. [Forest Service condition 19, part 3]

 Prepare a water quality and temperature monitoring plan in consultation with

agencies and approved by the Forest Service. [Forest Service condition 20]

 Prepare an LWD management plan in consultation with agencies and approved

by the Forest Service. [Forest Service condition 21]

 Prepare an erosion and sediment control management and monitoring plan

developed in consultation with agencies and approved by the Forest Service.

[Forest Service condition 22]

 Develop a gravel and coarse sediment management plan in consultation with

agencies and approved by the Forest Service. [Forest Service condition 23]

 Prepare a reservoir dredging plan in consultation with and approved by the

Forest Service not less than 90 days prior to any proposed reservoir dredging

operations. [Forest Service condition 24]

 Develop a vegetation and invasive species management plan, in consultation

with agencies and approved by the Forest Service, to address special status

species, aquatic and terrestrial invasive species, and culturally significant

plants within the project boundary and adjacent to project features directly

affecting NFS lands including roads and distribution and transmission lines.

[Forest Service condition 25]

 Develop a terrestrial biological management plan, including Forest Service

special status species potentially affected by the project on NFS lands. File an

avian collision and electrocution hazards plan. [Forest Service condition 26]

 Develop an aquatic biological monitoring plan, in consultation with agencies

and approved by the Forest Service, for fish, benthic macroinvertebrates,

special status aquatic mollusks, special status species, and invasive aquatic

species in the McCloud reservoir, Iron Canyon reservoir, Pit 6 reservoir, Pit 7

reservoir, Lower McCloud River, and Pit River. Provide fish passage

structures at stream crossings at listed streams. [Forest Service condition 27]

 File a plan approved by the Forest Service for oil and hazardous substances

storage and spill prevention and cleanup. [Forest Service condition 28]

 File a road and transportation facility management plan, approved by the

Forest Service, for protection and maintenance of project and project-affected

roads on or affecting NFS lands. [Forest Service condition 29]

 Prepare a recreation development and management plan in consultation with

agencies and approved by the Forest Service to address recreation resource

needs associated with the project that includes the following components:
44

O&M of project recreation facilities, recreation monitoring, project patrol,

reservoir surface water management, evaluation of OHV road closures and

dispersed use, and construction and reconstruction of recreation facilities. All

new and reconstructed project recreation facilities would comply with federal

accessibility standards and include the following facilities:

o Reconstruct Tarantula Gulch boat ramp and develop day-use area at the

boat ramp;

o Develop campground and day-use area at Star City;

o Develop day-use areas at Tarantula Gulch inlet and Red Banks;

o Create reservoir access points at Battle Creek and on each side of McCloud

dam;

o Construct a day-use area at the base of McCloud dam;

o Upgrade and relocate the river access trail from Ash Camp to Ah-Di-Na

Campground;

o Provide three day-use parking areas with shoreline access at Iron Canyon

reservoir;

o Construct Iron Canyon dam boat ramp;

o Reconstruct Hawkins Landing Campground and boat ramp;

o Relocate Deadlun campground;

o Develop a shoreline trail at Pit 6 reservoir if determined necessary based on

six-year recreation use monitoring;

o Construct an access trail at the upper end of Pit 7 reservoir;

o Conduct feasibility assessment and construct, if feasible, a hand-launch

boat put-in where Montgomery Creek enters Pit 7 reservoir;

o If Montgomery Creek is not feasible, construct a second access trail with

hand-launch boat put-in at the lower end of Pit 7 reservoir;

o Reconstruct day-use area below Pit 7 afterbay at Fenders Flat;

o Reconstruct car-top boat launch below Pit 7 afterbay near Fenders Flat; and

o Construct, if Pit7 afterbay powerhouse is constructed, a day-use area with

river access trail. [Forest Service condition 30]

 In collaboration with the Forest Service, develop a project sign plan which

includes road and trail safety, directional and traffic signs, and an interpretive

and educational component that includes a website for public information and

informational kiosks. [Forest Service condition 31]
45

 Develop procedures and a timeline for mitigation measures to provide for

visual quality of project and project-affected NFS lands. [Forest Service

condition 32]

 Develop a fire and fuels management plan, in consultation with agencies and

approved by the Forest Service, for prevention, reporting, and emergency

response to fires in the vicinity of the project resulting from project operations.

The plan shall address fuels treatment, prevention and response, and

investigation of project-related fires. [Forest Service condition 33]

 File an HPMP approved by the Forest Service with the Commission. [Forest

Service condition 34]

2.2.4.2 Alternative 4(e) Conditions Pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of

2005

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

the opportunity to propose alternatives to mandatory conditions. On March 4, 2010,

PG&E filed alternatives to 16 of the Forest Service’s 4(e) conditions:

 PG&E alternative condition 12 − proposes that access to Forest Service lands

within the licensed area be permitted by the Forest Service specifically for the

protection, administration, management, and utilization of Forest Service

lands, in a manner that does not require the licensee to disproportionately bear

costs;

 PG&E alternative condition 18 − proposes that this Forest Service condition

be limited to licensee-proposed ground-disturbing activities on or directly

affecting Forest Service lands and eliminates requirements for the licensee

to bear Forest Service staff-related time and expenses;

 PG&E alternative condition 19, part 1, subpart b − proposes minimum

streamflow requirements and measurement for McCloud River below

McCloud dam;

 PG&E alternative condition 19, part 1, subpart c − proposes minimum

streamflow requirements and measurement for Iron Canyon Creek below Iron

Canyon dam and allows for a longer scheduling timeframe for the adjustment

of flows and dam tests;

 PG&E alternative condition 19, part 2 − proposes that compliance with flow

changes be implemented within five business days for Iron Canyon dam

between February and May, to account for potential weather-related access

difficulties;

 PG&E alternative condition 20 − addresses the timeframe for the development

of the water quality and temperature monitoring plan as well as access issues,
46

such as those related to private property and inclement weather, associated

with the installation of water quality sensors and temperature monitoring;

 PG&E alternative condition 23 − addresses the conditions for implementation

of a gravel and coarse sediment management and monitoring plan, and defines

the monitoring area and sediment augmentation metric and methods;

 PG&E alternative condition 24 − states that the licensee does not anticipate a

need for development of a dredging plan;

 PG&E alternative condition 25 − proposes a new timeframe for development

of a vegetation and invasive weed management and monitoring plan, the

definition of culturally significant plants, invasive weed monitoring priorities

and intervals, and geographic monitoring boundaries;

 PG&E alternative condition 26 – proposes a new timeframe for development

of a terrestrial biological management and monitoring plan, identifies targeted

populations and habitat for monitoring, monitoring intervals, and the timeline

and focus for APLIC recommended upgrades;

 PG&E alternative condition 27 − proposes a new timeframe for development

of an aquatic biological management and monitoring plan, identifies nonproject roads and eliminates associated fish passage responsibilities, and

addresses fish monitoring in project reservoirs;

 PG&E alternative condition 28 − proposes that the licensee would provide the

Forest Service copies of its existing spill prevention, control, and

countermeasures (SPCC) plans and hazardous materials business plans

(HMBPs) for the project in lieu of a plan approved by the Forest Service for oil

and hazardous substances storage and spill prevention and cleanup;

 PG&E alternative condition 29 − clarifies road segments that would be covered

by the road and transportation facility management plan;

 PG&E alternative condition 30 − proposes to remove the requirement for

Forest Service approval of the recreation development and management plan;

modifies specific components of the recreation plan, including recreation

facility enhancements and recreation facility construction and site assessment

schedules; clarifies the applicability of recreation monitoring to project

facilities and project lands and waters; specifies that existing recreation

facilities would be included within the project boundary after reconstruction;

and modifies the schedule for surface sweeps of McCloud and Iron Canyon

reservoirs and boat ramps;

 PG&E alternative condition 31 − specifies that for the informational sign plan,

the licensee will provide project recreation information, except for confidential

business information, to the Forest Service for posting on the Forest Service’s

website;
47

 PG&E alternative condition 32 − proposes to define the applicability of

specific mitigation measures as existing and proposed project facilities,

clarifies terminology, and accounts for an apparent inconsistency between the

assigned visual quality objective (VQO) and the appearance of the project area;

 PG&E alternative condition 33 − proposes minor clarifications to the fire and

fuels plan; and

 PG&E alternative condition 34 − proposes clarifications in terminology and

allowances for modifications to the HPMP upon completion of an ethnographic

study, clarifies conditions for National Register site evaluation, and ensures

collaborative HPMP development and appropriate consideration of new

cultural materials.

On March 4, 2010, California Trout, Trout Unlimited, and the McCloud River

Club filed an alternative to Forest Service condition 19:

 Forest Service condition 19, part 1 − California Trout, Trout Unlimited, and

the McCloud River Club recommend modifications to streamflow

requirements for McCloud River below McCloud dam, including a minimum

baseflow of 200 cfs at MC-1 and summer base flows at MC-1 of 200 cfs or the

historic average summer base flows, whichever is higher.

On March 30, 2010, American Whitewater and Friends of the River filed an

alternative to Forest Service condition 19:

 Forest Service condition 19, part 1 – American Whitewater and Friends of the

River recommend modifications to streamflow requirements for McCloud

River below McCloud dam, including minimum flows of 400 cfs in April in

below normal water years, peak flows of 600 cfs in April ramping down in

May in wet and above normal years, and flows of 300 cfs ramping down to 200

cfs base flows by opening day of trout season in dry and critically dry years).

On April 14, 2010, the McCloud RiverKeepers filed an alternative to Forest

Service condition 19:

8

 Forest Service condition 19, part 1 – the McCloud RiverKeepers recommend

minimum flow releases at McCloud dam (MC-7) of 100 cfs year-round and a

second compliance point at MC-7 with minimum flows ranging from 160 to

210 cfs).

We evaluate these alternative conditions in sections 3 and 5 of this draft EIS.

8 McCloud RiverKeepers alternative condition 19 was filed after the conclusion of

the required response period, which concluded on March 18, 2010.
48

2.3 STAFF ALTERNATIVE

After evaluating PG&E’s proposal and recommendations from resource agencies

and other interested parties, we compiled a set of environmental measures that we

consider appropriate for addressing the resource issues raised in this proceeding, calling

this the staff alternative. The staff alternative includes some measures included in

PG&E’s proposal and some of the Forest Service’s section 4(e) conditions and PG&E’s

alternative section 4(e) conditions, section 10(j) recommendations, section 10(a)

recommendations, and measures developed by Commission staff.

PG&E Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures Modified by Staff

The staff alternative incorporates PG&E’s proposed environmental measures (see

section 2.2.2, Proposed Environmental Measures), as modified by staff (indicated by

italics):

Geology and Soils

 Prepare an LWD management plan.

 Prepare an erosion and sediment monitoring and control plan.

Aquatic Resources

 Continue to implement the current minimum flow release schedule for the Pit 7

afterbay reach.

 Implement upramping rates of no more than 100 cfs per hour prior to the start

of an uncontrolled spill event at McCloud dam.

 Develop and implement a water quality monitoring plan.

Recreation Resources

 Implement a recreation development and management plan that would include:

location, conceptual designs, and schedules for upgrading existing recreation

facilities and constructing new recreation facilities; plans using Forest Service

design standards (including applicable standards for providing access to users

with disabilities); and details regarding O&M activities at all recreation

facilities including existing and new project recreation facilities. The plan also

should incorporate the following components:

o A project sign plan that includes an interpretive and education component;

o Monitoring, visitor surveys, and use estimation concurrent with the

recreation Form 80 reporting. This measure also should include details

addressing collection of annual use data at facilities where passes/fees are

collected; consult with Forest Service on the survey methods for the

Recreational Resource Survey and consult every six years (concurrent with

the FERC Form 80) with the Forest Service, appropriate agencies, and
49

interested parties to review and adjust project-wide recreation management

objective, if needed; and

o A water surface management plan to manage reservoir use at McCloud

reservoir. This plan component would include installing speed limit signs

in the northern end of the reservoir, LWD removal from the reservoir,

points of public access to the shoreline, and boating speeds. This measure

would also include details addressing monitoring and management of

recreation user safety, including developing protocols for all project

reservoirs for preventing/removing unapproved buoy courses, approved use

of docks, and measures to prevent unauthorized access to project lands and

waters; annual surface sweeps of McCloud and Iron Canyon reservoirs and

boat ramps to remove logs and other debris; monitoring boat use on

McCloud and Iron Canyon reservoirs every six years coinciding with the

Commission recreation Form 80 schedule; and reassessing water surface

management mitigations every six years.

 Provide real-time stream flow (gage MC-1) and drawdown information to the

public via PG&E’s webpage on the internet.

 At McCloud and Iron Canyon reservoirs, assess and implement closures of

user-created roads, trails, and dispersed use sites leading to the shoreline of

McCloud and Iron Canyon reservoirs, in coordination with the Forest Service.

McCloud Reservoir

 Within five years of Commission approval of the recreation plan, if feasible

within site constraint limitations, reconstruct the Tarantula Gulch boat ramp to

California Department of Boating and Waterways (California Boating)

standards, provide a boarding dock, and extend the launch ramp to 3 ft

(vertical) below the minimum operating pool elevation, including the

specifications for reconstructing the boat ramp to California Boating standards

to provide one lane ramp with boarding dock and sidewalk; redesigning the

parking lot to maximize parking spaces; developing a paved parking area and

turnaround; designating parking spaces; and maintaining or relocating and

maintaining a vault restroom.

 Within five years of Commission approval of the recreation plan, provide

access points (paved parking and shoreline access trail) at Battle Creek, West

dam, and East dam. This measure is modified to include details for picnic

tables and the number of vehicles that can be accommodated at the parking

areas (three).

 Within five years of Commission approval of the recreation plan, develop a

formal campground at Star City with walk-in sites (estimate 6 sites), paved

parking, vault restroom, potable water, tables, fire rings/grills, trash

receptacles/removal, and host site. This measure is modified to include
50

specifications for the camping area, including campsites, restroom, and

potable water.

Lower McCloud River

 Within five years of Commission approval of the recreation plan, provide a

day-use facility at the base of McCloud dam and provide parking, vault

restroom, trash receptacle/removal, and shoreline pedestrian access trail on

river left to the pool below the spillway. This measure is modified to include

details for a day-use area with paved parking for a minimum of three vehicles,

signage, and a shoreline access trail from the base of the dam to splash pool

below the spillway that accommodates fishing and boating access and an

access road.

Iron Canyon Reservoir

 Within five years of Commission approval of the recreation plan, reconstruct

Hawkins Landing Campground to Forest Service standards and provide

potable water and reconstruct or resurface the access road to allow all-season

use. This measure is modified to include details for the campground including

an entrance gate with signing; surfaced loop road; parking spurs; site posts;

picnic tables; animal resistant food boxes; fire rings; vault restrooms; animal

resistant trash receptacles; and developed trail from the campground to the

adjacent boat ramp and shoreline for pedestrian fishing access.

 Within five years of Commission approval of the recreation plan, retain

concrete ramp surface at Hawkins Landing Boat Launch and replace or repair

the surfacing that connects to the concrete ramp. This measure is modified to

include specifications for reconstruction of boat ramp surface (length and

width) to meet California Boating standards for one lane, and to specify a

surfaced and striped parking lot above high water level for a minimum of 10

vehicles with a single-vault toilet, animal resistant trash receptacle, and an

information sign.

 Within five years of Commission approval of the recreation plan, reconstruct

Deadlun Campground to Forest Service standards and increase capacity by

about 10 sites to provide about 37 sites and provide potable water a shoreline

access trail. This measure is modified to include details for campsites and

campground including specifications for parking spurs, site posts, picnic

tables, animal resistant food lockers, fire rings, two 2-vault restrooms, and

animal resistant trash receptacles.

 Within five years of Commission approval of the recreation plan, construct a

new boat launch at the east end of Iron Canyon dam that meets California

Boating standards and provide vault restroom, picnic tables, potable water, and

trash receptacles/removal. This measure is modified to include specifications

for the boat ramp to be operable at minimum operating pool, for snow removal
51

for parking area and ramp when project operations require snow removal

from Oak Mountain Road, and one lane ramp placement should include option

for two lanes if needed during mid-license review, and details for the parking

area capacity, number of picnic tables.

 Conduct a site evaluation to determine the location of three paved parking

areas along FR 37N78, each with a capacity of up to three vehicle parking

spaces and a pedestrian shoreline access trail. Once three suitable locations

are identified, design and construct these project facilities. This measure is

modified to specify the evaluation would be completed within two years of

license issuance.

 Allow public use of at least one campground year-round. This measure is

modified to specify that a schedule for implementation would be included in the

recreation plan.

Pit 7 Reservoir

 Conduct a site evaluation to determine the location of a pedestrian shoreline

access trail at the upper end of Pit 7 reservoir, downstream of Pit 6 powerhouse

tailrace. This measure is modified to include specifications for conducting the

site evaluation within two years of license issuance, consultation with the

Forest Service, and once a suitable location is found, constructing this facility

within five years of Commission approval of the recreation plan. The facility

would include a trailhead, parking for up to three vehicles, and hand-launch

boating access.

Pit 7 afterbay

 Within two years of Commission approval of the recreation plan, grade and

maintain FR 35N66 from its intersection with FR 37N78 to the car-top boat

launch. Provide a vault restroom near the car-top boat launch.

 Continue to prohibit public access to Pit 7 afterbay water surface and shoreline

by maintaining fencing, signage, and patrols.

 If the Pit 7 afterbay powerhouse is constructed, provide a paved parking area

for two to three vehicles at the end of the powerhouse access road or along

Fenders Ferry Road and provide a vault restroom, trash receptacle/removal,

and pedestrian access to the shoreline between the powerhouse and Fenders

Ferry Bridge. This measure is modified to include specifications for the

restroom and to condition the day-use area on public safety and homeland

security needs.

 Within five years of Commission approval of the recreation plan, provide a

day-use site at Fenders Flat with a capacity five sites, parking, vault restroom,

tables, fire grills, and trash receptacles/removal and to coordinate with the

Forest Service to develop and implement a plan to revegetate disturbed areas
52

and prevent vehicle access beyond the access road and parking area. This

measure is modified to include specifications for the parking area.

Land Use and Aesthetic Resources

 Develop, file, and implement, within 1 year of license issuance, a road and

transportation facilities management plan for all project roads.

 Develop, file, and implement, within 1 year of license issuance, a fire

prevention and response plan.

 File copies of the existing Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan

(SPCC) and Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) with the Commission

and provide copies to the Forest Service within 30 days of license issuance and

continue to implement these plans.

 Include all project roads and recreation sites within the project boundary and

file a revised exhibit G with the Commission within 1 year of license issuance.

 Develop, file, and implement, within 1 year of license issuance, a visual quality

management plan.

Additional Measures Identified by Staff

In addition to PG&E’s proposed measures listed above (and modified as

indicated), the staff alternative also includes the following additional measures identified

by staff based on agency, tribal, and non-governmental organization specifications,

recommendations, and our analysis.

Geology and Soils

 Within 12 months of license issuance, develop and implement a gravel and

coarse sediment management plan in consultation with agencies and

approved by the Forest Service. Augment gravel and coarse sediment

periodically. Evaluate Star City Creek as a primary source of gravel, and

evaluate other potential alternate local sites.

Aquatic Resources

 Implement a minimum flow release schedule for the McCloud dam reach,

as follows:

Month Lower McCloud River Flows (cfs) by Water Yeara

May – June 200

July– February 14 1751
53

Month Lower McCloud River Flows (cfs) by Water Yeara

February 15-29 0-75% ROb No flow change

76-89% ROb No flow change

90-99% RObIncrease flow by 75 cfs

100-119% RObIncrease flow by 125 cfs

≥120% RObIncrease flow by 175 cfs

March 1-15 0-75% ROb No flow change

76-89% RObIncrease flow by 50 cfs

90-99% RObIncrease flow by 50 cfs

100-119% ROb

Increase flow by 100 cfs

≥120% ROb

Increase flow by 150 cfs

March 16-31 0-75% ROc No flow change

76-89% ROc No flow change

90-99% ROc No flow change

100-119% ROc

Increase flow by 50 cfs

≥120% ROc

Increase flow by 150 cfs

April 1-15 0-75% ROc No flow change

76-89% ROc No flow change

90-99% ROc No flow change

100-119% ROc

No flow change

≥120% ROcIncrease flow by 50 cfs

April 16 – April 30 April 15 MC-7

Release ≥ 200 cfs

Decrease flow by 50 cfs each Friday after April 15

(if 0-99%RO) and by 75 cfs per week (if ≥ 100%

RO) until flow is 200 cfs.

Decrease flow by 50 cfs each Friday after May 1

until flow is 200 cfs. Maintain 200 cfs release at

gage MC-7 through June 30.

April 15 MC-7

Release <200 cfs

175 cfs at MC-7; maintain at least 200 cfs at AhDi-Na (MC-1)

1 Mean daily flow at USGS Gage 11367800 (MC-1) at Ah-Di-Na should be at

least 200 cfs.

 Implement a minimum flow release schedule for the Iron Canyon dam

reach, as follows:
54

Release from Iron Canyon Dam (cfs) by Water Year-type

Month Wet Above Normal

Below Normal, Dry,

Critically Dry

October 10 7 7

November 10 7 7

December 15 10 7

January 15 10 7

February 15 10 7

March >20b15 10

April >20b15 10

May 15 10 7

June 15 10 7

July 10 7 7

August 10 7 7

September 10 7 7

 Downramp all spill events controllable at McCloud dam by valve operation

at a maximum rate of 150 cfs per 48 hour until the prescribed minimum

instream flow value is reached and upramp operational controllable spills at

McCloud dam at a maximum rate of 200 cfs per 24 hour period.

 Determine water year type based on the forecast of unimpaired runoff of

the Sacramento River near Redding as provided by DWR Bulletin 120 or

its successor.

 Operate, maintain, and modify (if necessary) gages needed to determine

river stage and minimum streamflow and measure and document all

instream flow releases in publicly available formats.

 Develop and implement an aquatic biological monitoring plan within

12 months of license issuance and for Commission approval, after consultation

with interested parties and approved by the Forest Service, for fish, benthic

macroinvertebrates, special-status aquatic mollusks, other special-status

species, and invasive aquatic species in the McCloud River and Iron Canyon

Creek. Periodic sampling of fish, benthic macroinvertebrates, and specialstatus mollusks would occur once every three years for the first nine years, and

then once every five years thereafter. The number of sites, site locations,

sampling methods, and data protocols should be consistent with relicensing

studies.
55

Terrestrial Resources and Threatened and Endangered Species

 Implement a vegetation and invasive weed management and monitoring plan,

as specified by Forest Service condition 25, with the inclusion of the speciesspecific monitoring schedule outlined in PG&E alternative condition 25; best

management practices (BMPs) to avoid/minimize effects on wetlands; and

restoration of native vegetation in relevant areas disturbed as a result of project

activities will also be included in this plan.

 Implement a TBMP (terrestrial biological management plan) as specified by

Forest Service condition 26, with the inclusion of the species-specific

monitoring schedule outlined in PG&E alternative condition 26. The Specialstatus Species section of the TBMP also should incorporate a foothill yellowlegged frog monitoring plan.

 Exclude the use of pesticides and herbicides on NFS land, unless prior written

approval is received first from the Forest Service, as specified by Forest

Service condition 15.

Recreation Resources

 Stock 60,000 pounds of trout annually at the project and develop (for

Commission approval) and implement a fish stocking plan in consultation with

California Fish and Game within two years of license issuance and evaluate

and monitor the amount of fish to be stocked every 6 years.

 Construct, within two years of license issuance, a floating dock or pier and trail

(away from Tarantula Gulch boat launch) at McCloud reservoir.

 Provide lighting at both the Tarantula Gulch and Iron Canyon boat launches.

 Conduct a site evaluation to determine the location of a pedestrian shoreline

access trail at the lower end of Pit 7 reservoir, with paved parking. Once a

suitable location is found, construct this facility within five years of

Commission approval of the recreation plan.

Cultural Resources

 Implement the final HPMP prior to license issuance, as proposed by PG&E

and specified by Forest Service condition 34. Include additional staff

modifications, including inclusion of treatment measures for site CA-SHA-252

and National Register evaluations for all adversely effected sites.
56

2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER

ANALYSIS

2.4.1 Issuing a Non-Power License

A non-power license is a temporary license that the Commission terminates when

it determines that another governmental agency will assume regulatory authority and

supervision over the lands and facilities covered by the license. At this point, no agency

has suggested a willingness or ability to do so. No party has sought a non-power license,

and we have no basis for concluding that the project should no longer be used to produce

power. Thus, we do not consider a non-power license a realistic alternative to relicensing

in this circumstance.

2.4.2 Federal Government Takeover of the Project

We do not consider federal takeover to be a reasonable alternative. Federal

takeover and operation of the project would require Congressional approval. Although

that fact alone would not preclude further consideration of this alternative, there is no

evidence to indicate that federal takeover should be recommended to Congress. No party

has suggested federal takeover would be appropriate, and no federal agency has

expressed an interest in operating the project.

2.4.3 Project Retirement

Project retirement could be accomplished with or without removal of the dams.

Either alterative would involve denial of the relicense application and surrender or

termination of the existing license with appropriate conditions and cessation of power

generation at the project, resulting in the following effects:

 Energy currently generated at the project by a renewable resource would be

lost.

 There would be significant costs involved in retiring the powerhouse and

appurtenant facilities.

 The environmental enhancements currently proposed by PG&E would be

foregone.

 If the dam and control structures were removed, the original riverine habitat

could not be reestablished because of the presence of Shasta dam and Shasta

Lake, which inundates the Lower McCloud River and abuts the Pit 7 afterbay.

Also, the presence of Shasta dam prevents unobstructed fish passage into areas

upstream, including the McCloud-Pit Project.

 If the dam and control structures were removed, the existing recreational,

residential, and commercial interests around the project would be

compromised.
57

 The potential for environmental effects such as the release of sediments

accumulated behind the dam to the river downstream and loss of lacustrine

habitats and wetlands could occur.

The removal of the dam and control structures, however, would restore some

riverine habitat, eliminate any fish entrainment mortality that may be occurring, provide

recreational riverine boating, provide the potential for future unobstructed fish passage if

Shasta dam were removed, and allow the Tribes to potentially re-establish some of their

traditional uses of the river that occurred prior to impoundment.

Despite these potential benefits, we do not regard this alternative as reasonable in

view of the many more potential losses.

The second project retirement alternative would involve retaining the dam and

control structures and disabling or removing equipment used to generate power. Project

works would remain in place and could be used for historic or other purposes. This

alternative would require us to identify another government agency with authority to

assume regulatory control and supervision of the remaining facilities. No agency has

stepped forward to assume regulatory control and no participant has advocated this

alternative; therefore, we have no basis for recommending this action. Furthermore,

because the power supplied by the project is needed, a source of replacement power

would have to be identified. In these circumstances, we do not consider removal of the

electric generating equipment to be reasonable alternative.

For these reasons, we do consider dam removal a reasonable alternative to

relicensing the project with appropriate protection, mitigation, and enhancement

measures.
58

This page intentionally left blank.
59

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

In this section, we present: (1) a general description of the project vicinity; (2) an

explanation of the scope of our cumulative effects analysis; and (3) our analysis of the

proposed action and other recommended environmental measures. Sections are

organized by resource area (aquatic, recreation, etc.) and we first describe each resources

affected environment, which includes historic and current conditions. The existing

condition is the baseline against which environmental effects of the proposed action and

alternatives are compared. Next, we describe the environmental effects of the proposed

project, including an assessment of the effects of proposed protection, mitigation, and

enhancement measures, and any potential cumulative effects of the proposed action and

alternatives. Unless otherwise identified, the source of our information is the license

application for the project (PG&E, 2009a). We provide citations for information

obtained from other sources, including subsequent filings related to the project.

3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RIVER BASIN

The project is located along the western slope of the Cascade Range in the Central

Valley of northern California, within Shasta County and the Shasta-Trinity National

Forest.9The project area originates at McCloud reservoir and occupies the McCloud and

Lower Pit River Basins to Shasta Lake. The project area is entirely contained within the

Sacramento River Hydrologic Region of California and specifically includes the

following: McCloud reservoir; McCloud River from McCloud reservoir downstream to

the confluence with Squaw Valley Creek; Iron Canyon reservoir and Iron Canyon Creek

from Iron Canyon dam downstream to the Pit River; the Pit River downstream of the

James B. Black powerhouse to the Pit River arm of Shasta Lake immediately downstream

of Pit 7 afterbay; and tributaries that flow into the project reservoirs. The maximum

elevation of the project area is about 2,680 ft, the normal maximum water surface

elevation of McCloud reservoir.

The area surrounding the project is primarily federal forest land with rural

communities and one larger incorporated city (>80,000 residents) nearby. Land uses in

and around the project area include recreational and commercial activities such as

fishing, swimming, timber harvest, and wildlife management. Water uses such as

municipal and domestic supply, power production, recreation, warm- and cold-water

spawning, and wildlife habitat are also associated with the project area.

The Cascades are a chain of active and explosive volcanic cones that extend from

British Columbia in the north to Mount Lassen, California. Mount Shasta, the headwater

region of the McCloud River system associated with the project, is the second highest

volcano within the Cascade Range. To the east of the Cascades, the geologic setting

9 A portion of the route of the proposed McCloud transmission line crosses about

5 miles of the southern portion of Siskiyou County.
60

transitions into one dominated by formations associated with the Modoc Plateau; the

major drainage of the Modoc Plateau is the Pit River, which is meandering and lowgradient in its upper reaches until it enters the canyon topography upstream of Shasta

Lake, including the Pit 6 and Pit 7 Developments. Rivers and streams of the project area

are typically steep gradient and highly confined, resulting in minimal flood plain

development.

The project vicinity has a temperate climate with warm, dry summers and cool

winters. Moderate snowfall occurs above elevations of 5,000 ft, and precipitation falls

predominantly as rain at lower elevations. The National Weather Service maintains a

monitoring station (No. 045449) in the town of McCloud, which has documented July air

temperatures from an average maximum high of 87.8 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) to an

average minimum low of 47.6°F. Air temperatures in January range from an average

maximum high of 45.7°F to an average minimum low of 23.6°F. Annual mean

precipitation at McCloud is 50.57 in., most (78 percent) of which falls between

November and March, and annual mean snowfall is 81.5 in.

The project area is characterized by a variety of vegetation types typical of mixed

woodland and mid-elevation forest habitats found in the southeastern Klamath Mountains

and west-slope southern Cascade regions. More than three-quarters of the land is

occupied by Douglas-fir–Ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and mixed conifer forests. The

remaining land supports a wide array of vegetation types where plant species diversity is

high due to the complex topography of the project area. In general, the topographical

features of the project area preclude extensive wetland habitat, although wetlandassociated vegetation often exists adjacent to and within the active river channel, and

additional wetlands occur in small patches along the reservoirs.

In addition to the McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project, which is the only

hydroelectric project on the McCloud River, PG&E owns and operates other projects in

the Pit River watershed: Pit 1 Project (FERC No. 2687); Pit 3, 4, and 5 Project

(FERC No. 233); and Hat Creek Project (FERC No. 2661). Tributaries to the Pit River

also have several smaller-scale hydroelectric projects. These other hydroelectric systems

receive and regulate flows from most of the Pit River watershed upstream of the town of

Big Bend.

3.2 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS

According to the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for

implementing NEPA (50 CFR §1508.7), an action may cause cumulative effects if its

impacts overlap in space and time with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably

foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other

actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively

significant actions taking place over a period of time, including hydropower and other

land and water development activities.
61

Based on information in the license application, agency comments, public

comments, other filings related to the project, and staff analysis, we identified water

quality and fisheries as having the potential to be cumulatively affected by the continued

operation and expansion of the McCloud-Pit Project, in combination with other past,

present, and future activities that occur in the McCloud and Pit River watersheds. These

cumulative effects are discussed in more detail in 3.3.2.3 Cumulative Effects (Aquatic

Resources).

3.2.1 Geographic Scope

The geographic scope of the cumulative effects analysis defines the physical limits

or boundaries of the proposed action’s effects on resources. Because the proposed action

would affect resources differently, the geographic scope for each resource may vary. For

most fisheries and water resources, the geographic scope would include all project

reservoirs (McCloud, Iron Canyon, Pit 6, and Pit 7), Pit 7 afterbay, tributaries that flow

into the reservoirs, and streams downstream of the project reservoirs, including the

McCloud River from McCloud reservoir downstream to the confluence with Squaw

Valley Creek, Iron Canyon Creek from Iron Canyon dam downstream to the Pit River,

and the Pit River downstream of the James B. Black powerhouse to the Pit River arm of

Shasta Lake, immediately downstream of the Pit 7 afterbay.

3.2.2 Temporal Scope

The temporal scope of our cumulative analysis in the EIS will include past,

present, and future actions and their possible cumulative effects on each resource. Based

on the license term, the temporal scope will look 30 to 50 years into the future,

concentrating on the effect of reasonably foreseeable future actions on the resources. The

historical discussion will be, by necessity, limited to the amount of available information

for each resource.

3.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES

This section outlines the proposed action and action alternatives with regard to:

(1) geology and soils, (2) aquatic resources, (3) terrestrial resources, (4) threatened and

endangered species, (5) recreation resources, (6) cultural resources, and (7) land use and

aesthetic resources.

3.3.1 Geology and Soils

3.3.1.1 Affected Environment

3.3.1.1.1 Geologic Setting

The McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project covers three major geologic terranes

which affect surficial processes, erodibility, and drainage development: the Eastern

Klamath belt, the Western Cascades terrane, and the High Cascades terrane. The

majority of the upper basin of McCloud dam is located in the High Cascades and Western
62

Cascades terranes, and the lower basin occurs almost entirely in the Eastern Klamath belt.

The entire Lower McCloud River and portions of the Iron Canyon Creek watershed and

the Lower Pit River are located within the Eastern Klamath belt.

The landscape in the project vicinity reflects widespread regional uplift and fluvial

incision resulting in highlands and deep canyons. The upper portion of McCloud

reservoir is underlain by shale and greywacke sandstone. In the middle portion of

McCloud reservoir, metavolcanic rocks are juxtaposed against outcrops of limestone and

interbedded tuffaceous mudstone and sandstone. Erosion tendencies along riparian

slopes in the Lower McCloud River vary according to the adjacent rock type. Mafic

flows, tuffaceous mudstone, and minor amounts of limestone occur in the lower portion

of the reservoir and downstream of McCloud dam, and exposed rocks are strongly jointed

and moderately fractured, forming steep slopes that are generally erosion-resistant.

Fractured and weathered metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks, however, are

relatively weak and prone to mass wasting in areas with steep slopes. Survey sites in and

around Hawkins Creek are underlain by shale, siltstone, and metavolcanic rocks, with

gentle to steep slopes covered with gravelly soils and typically supporting dense mixed

conifer and oak woodland vegetation.

In the Lower McCloud River watershed, soils mantling steep slopes overlaying

metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks are typically thin and rocky, except in areas

with convergent topography, where a thicker mantle of soil and colluvium is more

susceptible to landslides and debris flow during intense storm events. Active and

dormant landslide scars are susceptible to secondary erosion by rock fall and shallow

debris slides. Intensely weathered, fine-grained, and highly erodible sedimentary rocks

surrounding Iron Canyon reservoir and the upper portions of Pit 6 Powerhouse Road are

particularly susceptible to erosion when disturbed, as are potentially unstable landforms

on fractured metamorphic rocks in the Oak Mountain Road corridor and inner gorge of

the Lower Pit River.

Soil conditions around the Lower Pit River include highly weathered upland

surfaces which are in some places composed of saprolite. These soils are susceptible to

erosion and have potential for high fine sediment yields if sparsely vegetated or denuded.

Soils mantling the generally steep sided canyon slopes are thin and rocky. Debris flows

commonly are triggered on steep canyon slopes with convergent topography and thick

soil mantle during and following major storm events. These conditions are commonly

found in the area of Iron Canyon reservoir and dam, as well as in the area of the James B.

Black Development.

Seismicity

Available seismic data for the project area are classed as Critical Energy

Infrastructure Information. The Commission’s Dam Safety Program regulations

(18 CFR part 12D) require PG&E to retain an independent consultant every five years to

inspect, review data, and prepare project safety reports to be submitted to the

Commission. The California Water Code requires seismic stability adequacy for all dams
63

under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Water Resources (California Water

Resources), Division of Safety of Dams, which are in general satisfied by the same

requirements of 18 CFR part 12D. The most recent part 12D safety reports for the

McCloud, Iron Canyon, Pit 6, and Pit 7 dams were prepared in October 2006.

3.3.1.1.2 Reservoir Shorelines

McCloud Reservoir

In general, shorelines around McCloud reservoir are underlain by resistant

bedrock that limits the degree to which the shoreline can be eroded as a result of

fluctuations in the reservoir water level. McCloud reservoir shorelines can be classified

into four types: (1) convex, bedrock controlled shorelines overlain by coarse rock debris

with moderate to steep slopes and shallow soils; (2) shorelines with convex to uniform

slope profiles in protected cove locations with low to moderate slopes and fine-grained

sandy loam soils; (3) steep to very steep shorelines with shallow erosional scarps and

loose underlying rocky colluviums and sandy loam soils that support stands of mixed

conifer and shrubs; and (4) shorelines with active shallow soil erosion or rock slide

activity with very steep slopes and little or no vegetative cover. Surveys of the McCloud

reservoir shoreline revealed few erosion sites, all of which had relatively low impact

potential (table 3-1). PG&E has mitigated moderate erosion due to drainage or surface

runoff that has occurred at a few recreation areas associated with McCloud reservoir

(Tarantula Gulch Recreation Area, Ash Camp and Ah-Di-Na Campgrounds, Star City

Creek).
64

Table 3-1. Distribution of erosion inventory sites for the McCloud reservoir and Lower McCloud River study region.

(Source: PG&E, 2009a)

Number of Erosion Sites

Ranka Roads Proposed

Infrastructureb

Mass

Wasting Spoils Shoreline Tributary RecreationUse Total

High 5 6 -- -- -- -- 3 14

Medium 5 17 3 4 -- -- 10 39

Low 1 7 -- 3 4 2 10 27

Total 11 30 3 7 4 2 23 80

a Rank is based on the potential for the site to cause future effects to project infrastructure or water resources of

concern by direct sediment delivery, relative to all inventory sites. A percentile greater than 75 is considered High; a

percentile between 25 and 75 is considered Medium, and a percentile less than 25 is considered Low.

b

Proposed Infrastructure, defined in Study Region 1 by the proposed McCloud powerhouse and proposed McCloud

transmission line, includes road-related erosion sites surveyed along FR 38N11 between McCloud dam and the town of

McCloud, California.
65

Erosion Sites

Sites for erosion evaluation in the project area were selected based on their

potential to affect aquatic resources of concern, project infrastructure, public and private

access, and public health and safety. Sediment delivery to McCloud reservoir has

occurred where shoreline slopes are characterized as type 4 and where stream crossings

along FR 38N11 have gullied, resulting in sediment delivery below the high water

shoreline. Multiple road-related erosion sites were identified along FR 38N11, in the

proposed areas for future powerhouse and transmission line development. Additionally,

the actively eroding slopes of the McCloud tunnel spoils, where they are composed of

finer-grained material and located directly adjacent to Hawkins Creek, may increase

delivery of fine sediment to Hawkins Creek. However, most of the Hawkins Creek

channel is buffered from the spoil slopes by floodplain surfaces covered by dense riparian

vegetation.

Sediment Delivery

Young volcanic rocks and unconsolidated surficial deposits in the Upper McCloud

River Basin form large areas with little runoff or sediment delivery to the Upper

McCloud River. However, debris flows originating from the unconsolidated inner gorge

slopes of Mud Creek Canyon high on the southeast flank of Mount Shasta have

historically delivered large quantities of fine sediment to the Upper McCloud River

during summer months (Osterkamp et al., 1986), and sediment delivery from debris flows

in Mud Creek constitutes a large fraction of the sediment currently stored in McCloud

reservoir. McCloud dam and McCloud reservoir trap all coarse sediment (>2 millimeters

[mm]) delivered from upstream source areas. Sediment delivery from tributaries draining

steep topography surrounding McCloud reservoir constitutes the majority of the coarse

sediment stored in the McCloud reservoir: about 937,400 tonnes (t) representing an

average annual coarse sediment yield of about 140±30 t km2y

-1

. Other direct sediment

delivery to McCloud reservoir is attributed primarily to road-related erosion. Gully

erosion extending from suspended culverts or shallow erosion associated with very steep,

barren fill slopes are the two most common modes of erosion along FR 38N11, between

McCloud dam and Tarantula Gulch. Although active erosion was identified at sitespecific locations, the potential risk to the road infrastructure remains negligible.

Large Woody Debris

In the McCloud basin, LWD can play an important role in channel formation and

as aquatic and riparian habitat for aquatic and wildlife resources. LWD is delivered to

the system via areas of mass wasting and toppling of tree or large limbs as a result of

bank undercutting and during storm events. LWD in tributaries of the upper McCloud

basin is carried progressively downstream during periods of high water discharge. Prior

to construction of McCloud dam, LWD from the upper basin would continue to be

redistributed through the lower McCloud River during storm events. Presently, LWD

from the upper basin is trapped and accumulates over time in McCloud reservoir. For the

safety of recreational boaters and protection of dam structures, PG&E is required under
66

the existing license to regularly capture and remove LWD accumulated behind McCloud

dam.

Iron Canyon Reservoir

Iron Canyon reservoir and dam are underlain by volcaniclastic and pyroclastic

rocks, and argillite and tuffaceous sandstone, as well as weathered, clay-rich, and friable

sedimentary rocks. Outcrops of weakly metamorphosed and moderately to strongly

weathered, interbedded sedimentary rocks in this region express a wide range of rock

resistance. Shoreline slopes are moderate (30 to 65 percent) to steep (>65 percent).

The highly weathered soils and saprolite in this area are easily eroded, particularly

where sparsely vegetated, and are potential sources of sediment. Slopes around the

northern and western portions of Iron Canyon reservoir range from gentle to moderate

but become steep along the southern margin in areas adjacent to the dam. Gentle to steep

slopes surrounding the reservoir and dam support mixed conifers, oak woodland, and

riparian vegetation.

The two predominant soil types in shoreline areas are loose, gravelly sandy loam

soils and cohesive, clay loam soils. Shoreline erosion of up to about 3 ft above the water

line occurs at locations where tree stumps and roots have been exposed and is common

around the reservoir perimeter, indicating shoreline lowering since completion of Iron

Canyon dam in 1965. There are deeply incised gullies where stream channels enter the

reservoir. Concentrated surface runoff from spur roads has caused lesser amounts of

gully erosion below the high water shoreline. Slumping and shallow scarps were

observed in relatively few shoreline areas, on moderately steep slopes and steep

hillslopes above the high water line.

Erosion Sites

Surveys of the Iron Canyon reservoir shoreline revealed few erosion sites, all of

which have low to medium impact potential (table 3-2). The Iron Canyon reservoir

perimeter road has erosion sites associated with road drainage diversions, plugged or

restricted ditch relief structures, and off-highway vehicle use. Concentrated surface

runoff has resulted in rill erosion along steep, unpaved road surfaces. During erosion

inventories, PG&E observed delivery of fine sediment to Iron Canyon reservoir and

tributary stream channels at the majority of erosion sites surveyed along the perimeter

road.

Two former borrow pits located northeast of Iron Canyon dam were evaluated

during field surveys. The northernmost borrow pit showed extensive evidence of past

and active gully erosion at numerous locations across the disturbed hillslope. It appears

that significant headward erosion into brittle, clay-rich sediments has occurred since

excavation of the borrow pit. Two deep gully channels incise up to 2,500 ft of slope

extending to Iron Canyon reservoir. Thick accumulations of sediment were stored behind

grade control structures installed along these gully channels, and some of the grade
67

control structures near the gully headwalls have failed. The Forest Service has

implemented measures to control severe gully erosion at this site.

Large Woody Debris

In the Iron Canyon basin, LWD plays an important role in channel formation and

as habitat for fish and aquatic resources. LWD is delivered to the system via areas of

mass wasting and toppling of tree or large limbs as a result of bank undercutting and

during storm events. LWD in tributaries to Iron Canyon reservoir is carried progressively

downstream during periods of high water discharge. Prior to construction of Iron Canyon

dam, LWD would continue to be redistributed down Iron Canyon Creek to the Pit River

during storm events. Presently, LWD from tributaries to Iron Canyon reservoir is trapped

and accumulates over time in the reservoir. For the safety of recreational boaters and

protection of dam structures, PG&E has instituted a program to periodically capture and

remove LWD from Iron Canyon reservoir.
68

Table 3-2. Distribution of erosion inventory sites for the Iron Canyon reservoir and dam study region. (Source: PG&E,

2009a)

Number of Erosion Sites

Ranka Roads Proposed

Infrastructure

Mass

Wasting Spoils Shoreline Tributary RecreationUse Total

High 7 -- -- 1 -- -- -- 8

Medium 12 -- 2 7 3 6 4 34

Low 3 -- -- 3 2 11 2 21

Total 22 0 2 11 5 17 6 63

a Rank is based on the potential for the site to cause future effects to project infrastructure or water resources of

concern by direct sediment delivery, relative to all inventory sites. A percentile greater than 75 is considered High; a

percentile between 25 and 75 is considered Medium, and a percentile less than 25 is considered Low.
69

Sediment Delivery

Sources of fine sediment to Iron Canyon reservoir include road erosion into

tributaries to Iron Canyon reservoir, active erosion from the borrow pits northeast of Iron

Canyon dam, and concentrated road runoff along the Iron Canyon dam access road.

Additionally, the reservoir shoreline, with erosion ranging from localized to extensive, is

a major contributor of fine sand, silt, and clay to the reservoir. Channel banks along

tributaries above the high water shoreline are protected mostly by dense riparian

vegetation or bedrock outcrops, but actively eroding channel banks in reaches below the

high water shoreline with bedrock channel beds have a high potential to deliver sediment

to the reservoir. Finally, rill erosion and soil disturbance related to unrestricted OHV use

is a widespread source of direct fine sediment delivery to Iron Canyon reservoir.

3.3.1.1.3 Project Reaches

Lower McCloud River

Sediment Delivery

In contrast to the Upper McCloud River Basin, the Lower McCloud River Basin is

comprised almost entirely of steep slopes and a dense, deeply incised channel network

that promotes a more peaked response to storm events and higher rates of coarse

sediment delivery by mass wasting. Cumulative sediment supply to the Lower McCloud

River under regulated conditions ranges from 1,450 t y-1at the Hawkins Creek

confluence to 7,050 t y-1at the Squaw Valley Creek confluence. Under unimpaired

conditions, the Lower McCloud River was likely supply limited from McCloud dam to at

least Bald Mountain Creek. Large alluvial bedforms such as point bars and island bars

occur infrequently and are relatively immobile due to their coarse-grained composition.

LWD does not influence channel morphology or sediment storage in the Lower McCloud

River. The number and distribution of erosion sites in this area is provided in table 3-1.

At McCloud dam, a tight meander bend located directly across from the bottom of

the spillway lies within sheared metavolcanic and sedimentary bedrock and is subject to

erosion during large spillway releases. Future large spillway releases have the potential

to further erode rock in the meander bend and associated low saddle as well as in the

embankment supporting the road. Rock fall and shallow landslides have produced dry

ravel (loose rock particles) along steep cut slopes, and deposited rock and debris into the

inboard ditch associated with FR 38N11 as it traverses relatively steep terrain

immediately downstream of McCloud dam. Mass wasting associated with sites in this

area indicates a potential to affect road access and deliver sediment to the McCloud

River. Sediment produced by episodic erosion during large spillway releases and chronic

secondary erosion of the retreating cliff face across from McCloud dam is delivered

directly to the Lower McCloud River, indicating a high potential for future mass wasting

in the vicinity.

The Lower McCloud River is a mixed bedrock-alluvial channel with high

transport capacity relative to sediment supply and generally low volumes of active
70

sediment storage. Channel reach morphology in the Lower McCloud River broadly

transitions from predominantly step pool upstream of Ah-Di-Na to alternating plane bed

and pool riffle downstream of Ah-Di-Na, reflecting an overall decrease in slope and

confinement and an increase in mobile sediment supply. The resistant bedrock and

boulder channel boundaries in the Lower McCloud River render channel geometry less

sensitive to changes in hydrologic and sediment supply regimes. Large, immobile grains

within the Lower McCloud River reduce the stress available for transporting finer mobile

sediment and create velocity shadows that induce deposition of finer material, forming

one of the primary storage elements of mobile coarse sediment within the active channel.

Similarity in the size of coarse sediment supplied by major tributaries and the size of

mobile deposits in the mainstem Lower McCloud River emphasizes the importance of

coarse sediment inputs from major tributaries in supplying the mobile sediment fraction,

including spawning gravel size classes, to the McCloud River downstream of McCloud

dam.

Bed mobility and transport capacity in the Lower McCloud River are primarily

controlled by differences in channel slope which generally follow a downstream

decreasing continuum. Bed mobilization occurs at an estimated 1,030 cfs in the vicinity

of Ah-Di-Na and at 2,060 cfs between Claiborne Creek and Squaw Valley Creek. Initial

mobilization of more mobile sediment patches in most locations occurs at flows >620 cfs.

Annual average bedload transport capacity peaks in the vicinity of Ah-Di-Na and

declines downstream, reaching a minimum between Claiborne Creek and Squaw Valley

Creek. The presence of suspended sediment in the Lower McCloud River, including

sediment delivery from Mud Creek, is discussed in section 3.3.2.1.2, Water Quality.

Large Woody Debris

Because LWD from the upper McCloud basin is trapped and removed from behind

McCloud dam, the quantity of LWD is reduced in the lower McCloud River. LWD

inventories show that there is very little LWD stored in the lower McCloud River channel

between McCloud dam and Shasta Lake. Below Squaw Valley Creek, the lower

McCloud River is subject to higher flow variation and debris inputs from multiple

tributaries, so the effect of McCloud dam on the quantity and distribution of LWD is

diminished.

Iron Canyon Creek

Sediment Delivery

Accelerated sediment delivery in Iron Canyon Creek is related to erosion of the

access road to the Iron Creek gage and related spur roads, rilling of the native hillslopes

adjacent to the east and west dam abutments, and entrainment of fine sediment stored in

Iron Canyon reservoir in the vicinity of the valve intake. The consequent accelerated

delivery of fine sediment to Iron Canyon Creek and the absence of flow releases that

frequently mobilize sediment have resulted in increased fine sediment storage in the bed

and banks of the relatively low-gradient channel reach immediately downstream of Iron
71

Canyon dam. Geomorphic monitoring demonstrates that annual valve releases would

effectively reduce fine sediment accumulation in the reach immediately downstream of

Iron Canyon dam.

Increases in suspended sediment concentrations in Iron Canyon Creek and the Pit

River due to interbasin transfer between the McCloud River Basin and the Iron Canyon

Creek and Pit River Basins during episodic mass-wasting events is minimal and

discussed in more detail in section 3.3.2.1.2, Water Quality.

Large Woody Debris

Based on observations that LWD recruitment in Iron Canyon Creek is comparable to

regional creeks and environments. The quantity of LWD is consistently distributed

longitudinally along the stream channel between Iron Canyon dam and Pit River.

Experimental flow releases at Iron Canyon dam indicated that LWD was mobilized when

flows exceeded the bankfull discharge.

Lower Pit River

Project areas characterized in the Lower Pit River include those in the vicinity of

Oak Mountain Road, Pit 6 Powerhouse Road, Pit 7 Powerhouse Road, and the Proposed

Pit 7 afterbay powerhouse and transmission line. The topography in the Oak Mountain

Road (FR 37N34) corridor north of the Pit 6 reservoir is moderately steep to steep, with

dormant landslides and debris basins on very steep, southeast-facing slopes from the

ridgeline to the Pit River (Forest Service, 2005). In the Lower Pit River, gentle to

moderate slopes are underlain by resistant volcanic rocks which are relatively stable, with

localized debris basins on steeper slopes leading to the Pit River. Shallow debris slides

coalesce and areas of active rock-fall occur along the steep inner gorge slopes of Pit

River Canyon.

PG&E reported 54 observed erosion sites along the Oak Mountain Road corridor,

about 59 percent of which were identified as road-related (table 3-3). Sites along this

road and associated spur roads have a moderate to high potential to deliver sediment to

Iron Canyon reservoir, tributaries to Iron Canyon Creek, or the Pit River. Additionally,

concentrated surface runoff and road-related erosion along spur roads to the Willow

Creek siphon have potential to deliver sediment to Willow Springs Creek and interrupt

access to project facilities.

Erosion is also evident in a few locations along the edge of the Iron Canyon tunnel

spoils (table 3-3), which are near the ridgeline of a tributary to Iron Canyon Creek west

of the penstock pipe and downstream of the Iron Canyon tunnel portal. PG&E attributes

two existing shallow debris slides to the settling of the spoils. Downslope, two gully

channels are scoured to bedrock and have coalesced, delivering sediment directly into an

Iron Canyon Creek tributary.

PG&E mitigated the effects of a 1997 storm-related large debris flow that

destroyed stream crossing structures. The debris flow scar from this storm remains a

major potential sediment source. Other debris flow-related mitigation includes the repair
72

of the James B. Black penstock pipe that ruptured after a 1978 bedrock landslide, and

associated bedrock stabilization. PG&E’s subsequent creation of a Penstock Safety

Program ensures routine evaluation and review of penstock alignment and adjacent

slopes.

PG&E identified additional erosion sites further downstream in the Lower Pit

River (table 3-4). Along Pit 6 Powerhouse Road, there is evidence of past and active

erosion in several areas. Concentrated surface runoff from culvert outlets and diverted

road drainage has caused gully erosion and shallow slope failure of soils and engineered

road fill. Debris slide scars along steep inner gorge slopes exposed unconsolidated

fluvial gravels overlying metasedimentary bedrock.
73

Table 3-3. Distribution of erosion inventory sites for the Oak Mountain Road Study Region. (Source: PG&E, 2009a)

Number of Erosion Sites

Ranka Roads Proposed

Infrastructure

Mass

Wasting Spoils Shoreline Tributary RecreationUse Total

High 17 -- 10 1 -- -- -- 28

Medium 14 -- 6 2 1 2 -- 25

Low 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1

Total 32 0 16 3 1 2 0 54

a Rank is based on the potential for the site to cause future effects to project infrastructure or water resources of

concern by direct sediment delivery, relative to all inventory sites. A percentile greater than 75 is considered High; a

percentile between 25 and 75 is considered Medium, and a percentile less than 25 is considered Low.

Table 3-4. Distribution of erosion sites in the Lower Pit River Study Region. (Source: PG&E, 2009a)

Number of Erosion Sites

Ranka Roads Proposed

Infrastructure

Mass

Wasting Spoils Shoreline Tributary RecreationUse Total

High 6 -- -- -- -- -- -- 6

Medium 17 1 -- 1 -- -- -- 19

Low 3 1 -- 2 -- -- 1 7

Total 26 2 0 3 0 0 1 32

a Rank is based on the potential for the site to cause future effects to project infrastructure or water resources of

concern by direct sediment delivery, relative to all inventory sites. A percentile greater than 75 is considered High; a

percentile between 25 and 75 is considered Medium, and a percentile less than 25 is considered Low.
74

The access road to the Pit 7 powerhouse traverses moderately steep, wellvegetated slopes. Aggraded ditch relief structures, suspended culvert outfalls, diverted

road runoff, and fluvial erosion along channel bank toe slopes has caused surface and

gully erosion at the outboard road edge at several sites. Thinly bedded metasedimentary

bedrock along the access road is relatively resistant to erosion and shows only a few

localized shallow slide scars at steep to near vertical road cut banks.

Proposed Infrastructure

PG&E evaluated slope conditions in the vicinity of the proposed location for the

Pit 7 afterbay powerhouse and transmission line. This area is characterized by moderate

to steep (40–65 percent) slopes underlain by massive to fractured volcaniclastic bedrock

and overlain by shallow, rocky soils that support mature conifers and understory shrubs.

PG&E observed old shallow landslide scars in this area but no active erosion. A narrow

and benched ridgeline along the northern divide of this second drainage provides

potentially suitable sites for the new powerhouse. Bedrock outcrops at the terminus of

this ridge form a nearly vertical slope above the west abutment of the Pit 7 afterbay dam.

As planned, the proposed transmission line has an initial trajectory of south 10°

east leading from the proposed Pit 7 afterbay powerhouse to FR 35N23. The proposed

alignment traverses an active gully and steep, inner gorge slopes between the east

abutment of Pit 7 afterbay dam and FR 35N23. An alternative alignment for the

transmission line would traverse more gentle slopes (<50 percent) underlain at shallow

depths by bedrock.

Sediment Delivery

Active erosion along the steep inner gorge portion of Pit 6 Powerhouse Road has

caused delivery of unconsolidated sediment and spoils material to the Pit River. Active

gully incision from a non-project road, FR 34N17, has caused multiple gully channels to

form on lower gradient toe slopes located within the project area with a high potential for

direct delivery of eroded sediment to the Lower Pit River.

3.3.1.2 Environmental Effects

Continued operation of the McCloud-Pit Project could affect geology and soils in

the watershed by affecting streamflow, sediment trapping and transport, and geomorphic

characteristics of the stream channel. PG&E proposes infrastructure additions that may

affect geology and soils in the watershed, and the proposed license measures focus on

minimizing issues that may result from the installation of the proposed infrastructure as

well as address operation and management issues that have been observed during project

operation in the current term of the license. Observed issues include trapping of LWD;

erosion from bare surfaces, rockfalls, road-related surfaces, tunnel spoils, and borrow

pits; reservoir sedimentation; and project effects on sediment supply and transport.

Continued operation of the project may influence the rate of erosion in the

watershed and the trapping of sediment in project reservoirs. Project operations may also
75

limit LWD retention and associated sediment storage in the Lower McCloud River.

Therefore, PG&E proposes to develop an erosion and sediment monitoring and control

plan and an LWD management plan. Additionally, the Forest Service, NMFS, and FWS

have recommended that PG&E develop a plan for gravel and coarse sediment

management, not included in the final license application.

Large Woody Debris

LWD can provide habitat structure in streams and affect sediment storage and

channel morphometry through its affect on the distribution of flows and water velocity

within the stream channel and sediment mobilization and transport. LWD can provide

cover and holding habitat for fish, serve as substrate for growth of epibenthic algae and

invertebrates, and affect sediment deposition and scouring. Loss of LWD could result in

reduced complexity of aquatic habitat and reduced carrying capacity for aquatic biota.

In Iron Canyon Creek, LWD is abundant and project operations appear to have

little or no effect on LWD supply, based on observations that LWD recruitment is

comparable to regional creeks and environments. The volume of LWD in Iron Canyon

Creek is consistently distributed longitudinally in the stream channel, which may indicate

that LWD mobilization happens on a regular basis despite flow regulation.

In the Lower McCloud River, the large channel width, high stream power, and

normally low LWD loads due to project operations result in limited opportunity for LWD

retention and associated long-term sediment storage within the bank full channel

perimeter. LWD from the upper watershed accumulates in McCloud reservoir during

high flow events, and under the current license, PG&E generally removes LWD to

protect the McCloud dam structure. This action, as well as the dam itself, reduces the

supply of LWD and impedes the transport of LWD from the upper reaches of the

McCloud River to the lower reaches of the river below McCloud dam.

Within one year after license issuance, PG&E proposes to prepare an LWD

management plan in consultation with the Forest Service. The plan would provide an

operating procedure to facilitate the placing of woody debris downstream of McCloud

dam to replace LWD removed from the system by operation and maintenance of the

McCloud dam. The plan will specify size criteria, placement and storage sites, volume

and frequency of placement, and monitoring procedures.

Forest Service condition 21 supports PG&E’s proposal to prepare an LWD

management plan approved by the Forest Service within one year of license issuance.

The condition specifies that monitoring procedures included in the plan should assess the

effectiveness of LWD mobilization and dispersal in the Lower McCloud River.

Forest Service condition 19 specifies that LWD removed from reservoirs as part of

recreation development, management, and monitoring may be re-introduced to the Lower

McCloud River as directed in the LWD management plan. This condition is discussed

further in section 3.3.5, Recreation Resources.
76

NMFS also submitted comments on the proposed action, specifically stating that

the LWD management plan should ensure that LWD inputs will not be prevented from

migrating downstream, in order to maintain habitat benefits to both resident biota and

anadromous listed salmonids.

Our Analysis

LWD contributes to productive aquatic ecosystems, and is an important

component in the formation of complex aquatic habitat units and channel maintenance.

LWD provides aquatic habitat along the margins and in the active portion of the river

channel, riparian habitat on surfaces above the low-flow channel, and organic matter

which supports the aquatic food web.

PG&E conducted inventories and aerial footage reviews of the Lower McCloud

River that indicated little LWD storage between McCloud dam and Shasta Lake and few,

if any, channel forming LWD elements. Although the frequency of smaller flood events

is diminished by project operations, larger floods capable of mobilizing and redistributing

LWD are uncontrolled and continue to occur on a regular basis. These floods, combined

with placement of accumulated LWD from McCloud reservoir in downstream reaches,

would increase the abundance of LWD in these reaches and provide habitat benefiting

aquatic and riparian organisms in areas where LWD is retained within the active stream

channel and adjacent riparian areas.

NMFS recommended that any LWD management plan should ensure that LWD

inputs will not be prevented from migrating downstream. Presumably, the rate of LWD

inputs from the upper watershed remains similar to that experienced during pre-project

hydrologic conditions; however, the current hydrograph below the dam is significantly

different from pre-project conditions. Therefore, the carrying capacity of the lower

watershed is not likely able to accommodate the volume of LWD material generated by

the upper watershed.

The Forest Service recommended that monitoring procedures in the plan

specifically address the effectiveness of LWD mobilization and dispersal. Existing

survey information documents the amount and distribution of LWD in the lower

McCloud River; however, there is an absence of data that indicates how effective the

proposed minimum and periodic spill flows will be at mobilizing and distributing LWD.

The Forest Service’s recommended monitoring program would provide information

necessary to assess whether the locations and quantity of LWD placement are appropriate

to achieve the objectives.

Erosion and Sediment Control

Surface erosion, increased overland flow, and mass wasting associated with

project construction and maintenance could release fine sediment into project waterways;

fine sediment can adversely affect environmental resources increasing turbidity and

degrading coarse substrate used for spawning. PG&E proposes construction which could
77

lead to stream sedimentation, increased turbidity, and geomorphic effects if proper

erosion and sediment control measures are not implemented and maintained.

Reduction of seasonal high flow events as a result of project operations may

contribute to the accumulation of fine sediment in spawning gravels, which could

adversely affect trout spawning and incubation success and contribute to the

encroachment of riparian vegetation into the stream channel. Sediment that originates

from upstream watershed surface erosion, rockfalls, and mass wasting is generally

transported downstream in the channel reaches and retained in reservoirs behind

structures. An inventory by PG&E identified 56 erosion sites in the project vicinity that

were ranked in the 75th percentile or above, indicating high potential of these sites to

adversely affect project infrastructure or sediment delivery to streams.

In order to manage existing erosion and minimize future erosion and sediment

delivery to stream channels, PG&E proposes to prepare an erosion and sediment

monitoring and control plan within one year after license issuance. PG&E would develop

the plan in consultation with the Forest Service and other appropriate agencies. The plan

would guide management of erosion and sediment control during the term of the new

license and would include the following elements:

 Methods for ongoing inventory of project-related erosion and sedimentation;

 A schedule for periodic monitoring;

 An inventory of erosion sites (e.g., map and database) identified by periodic

monitoring;

 Criteria for treating erosion sites;

 Protocols for emergency erosion and sediment control; and

 A process and schedule for reporting monitoring results, including periodic

plan review and revision.

Inventory of project-related erosion and sedimentation would include project

roads, facilities, infrastructure, reservoir shorelines, recreational use areas, and areas of

mass wasting that are project-related or affected by project roads and facilities. Initial

priority would be placed on the 56 sites ranked as having high erosion potential. Sites

would be monitored for five years to assess erosion activity and associated causes.

Annual monitoring reports would include a Forest Service-compatible database of

erosion sites and detailed site-specific erosion and sediment control measures where

necessary and appropriate. Botanical resources affected by project-related erosion would

be revegetated according to the Vegetation Management Plan, as discussed in

section 3.3.3, Terrestrial Resources.

Forest Service condition 22 specifies that, within one year after license issuance,

PG&E should file with the Commission its erosion and sediment control management

and monitoring plan developed in consultation with the Forest Service, California Water
78

Board, California Fish and Game, and other interested parties. The condition specifies

that the plan should be approved by the Forest Service and should provide direction for

managing erosion and controlling sediment during the term of the new license.

Furthermore, the Forest Service states that during planning, and before any new

construction or non-routine maintenance projects with the potential for causing erosion or

stream sedimentation on or affecting Forest Service lands, PG&E should develop sitespecific erosion control plans that will be approved by the Forest Service. The plans

would include measures to control erosion, stream sedimentation, dust, and soil mass

movement.

Ground-disturbing activities have the potential to disturb soil integrity. Forest

Service condition 18 specifies that if PG&E proposes additional future ground-disturbing

activities, PG&E should consult with the Forest Service to determine the scope of work

and potential for project-related effects, and whether additional information would be

required to proceed with the planned activity. This condition and the licensee alternative

are discussed further in section 3.3.7, Land Use and Aesthetic Resources.

NMFS filed a 10(j) recommendation, with concurrence from FWS, stating that as

soon as listed salmonids are documented as within the McCloud River and affected by

the project, PG&E should implement flow regimes and non-flow-related measures

necessary to mitigate impacts of the project’s facilities and operations on sediment

movement and deposition, river geometry, and channel characteristics. According to the

10(j) recommendation, these actions would include mitigation of impacts on stream

competence, capacity, floodplain conductivity, bank stability, and extent, duration, and

repetition of high flow events. This recommendation is discussed further in section 3.3.2,

Aquatic Resources.

In addition to formal 10(j) recommendations, NMFS also submitted comments on

the proposed action, specifically stating that the erosion and sediment monitoring and

control plan should consider the habitat and biological criteria needs of listed salmonids,

particularly because sediment could have adverse effects on spawning substrate and

water quality that are important for listed salmonids. The extent that plan would monitor

or reduce sediment inputs from the project may be beneficial to most aquatic biota,

including listed salmonids. The seasonal timing of these actions could affect listed

salmonids as well as the sediment/erosional inputs and resulting turbidity.

Although no measures are proposed to address reservoir sedimentation and the

few areas of surface erosion (including mass wasting and rockfalls), studies,

environmental site reviews, and agency and stakeholder discussions concluded that these

issues do not present significant risk during the term of the proposed license.

California Fish and Game recommends and Forest Service condition 19 specifies

that Iron Canyon dam safety valve testing should occur only between March 5 and 15

when the highest instream flows are released, in order to minimize impacts to the

reproductive success of breeding aquatic organisms, and that these flows should be kept
79

to the minimum level allowable (possibly in the range of 150 cfs) to minimize channel

damage.

Our Analysis

PG&E’s proposal for management and control of erosion and sedimentation would

provide for periodic monitoring, inventory, and prioritization of potential erosion sites,

identification of criteria and procedures for controlling/mitigating erosion sites,

development of emergency response protocols to manage erosion and sedimentation, and

establish annual mechanisms for reporting and agency review of procedures and actions.

This proposal would provide mitigation for existing erosion sites and prevention of

erosion and sedimentation associated with project infrastructure and future project

actions. It also assures consultation with Forest Service and other appropriate agencies in

developing the plan and periodic annual review by these agencies of the plan and actions

taken. The proposal will provide controls necessary to protect water quality, aquatic and

riparian habitat from the effects of erosion and sedimentation.

Designing and implementing an appropriate soil erosion control and revegetation

plan for construction activities, as specified by Forest Service condition 22, would

prevent the release of disturbed sediment into waterways, and therefore would prevent

effects on water quality, aquatic habitat, and public health and safety. Proper

revegetation and post-construction monitoring would ensure that disturbed areas are

restored with native species, and that gullying or other forms of erosion do not occur as a

result of construction disturbance.

NMFS and FWS 10(j) recommendation included general measures to affect

sediment movement and deposition, substrate quality, and channel characteristics to

support listed anadromous salmonids. No specific measures or procedures are

recommended. The Keswick and Shasta dams on the Sacramento River downstream of

the McCloud dam are existing barriers to upstream passage of anadromous salmonids

including Chinook salmon and steelhead. None of the listed anadromous salmonids

would be expected to have access to habitat in the lower McCloud River until upstream

migration of listed species is implemented through Lake Shasta. Therefore, the general

recommendations by NMFS would provide no benefit for listed species at this time.

Gravel and Coarse Sediment

McCloud dam and reservoir trap coarse sediment (>2 mm) delivered from

upstream sources, limiting available gravel and coarse sediment that could support and

enhance aquatic habitat downstream of the dam. Reduction in sediment supply to the

Lower McCloud River due to sediment trapping in McCloud reservoir decreases with

distance downstream of McCloud dam as a result of sediment input from tributaries; the

effect ranges from a 94 percent reduction at the Hawkins Creek confluence to a 78

percent reduction at the Squaw Valley Creek confluence. In response to project

operations, the reach from about 5 to 8 kilometers downstream of McCloud dam is the
80

most likely to exhibit degraded habitat through coarsening of the bed surface in addition

to reduction in the frequency and quantity of mobile sediment deposits.

Coarsening of the river bed surface may result in coarse sediment habitat that is

no longer considered optimal for salmonid spawning. As flows below the dam continue

to move coarse sediment downstream, no sediment is supplied to the reach to replenish it.

This causes gradual lowering of the bed as the smaller particles are moved downstream,

leaving only the largest boulders which are only moved by infrequent floods. This

process traps fine particles and locks the bed in a pavement-like state called “armoring,”

making it harder for salmonids to dig spawning redds, which typically consist of loose

gravel that can be easily excavated by the fish. Surface and subsurface substrate

sampling indicate that armoring is a significant problem below McCloud dam (NMFS,

2010), particularly between the dam and major downstream tributaries. Project

operations could result in long-term minor to moderate adverse impacts on aquatic

habitat.

Forest Service condition 23 specifies that PG&E should develop and implement a

gravel and coarse sediment management plan within one year of license issuance, in

consultation with the Forest Service, California Fish and Game, the California Water

Board, and other interested parties, and with approval of the Commission and the Forest

Service. The plan should require the annual addition of 150 to 600 tons (depending on

monitoring results) of gravel and coarse sediment (8-128 mm) to the Lower McCloud

River, with inputs specifically within the reach between the McCloud dam spillway and

the Hawkins Creek confluence. The Forest Service specifies that PG&E consider using

sorted gravel and coarse sediment from the Star City Creek inlet in McCloud reservoir as

the source of material for the plan. The plan should also include a monitoring component

for the Lower McCloud River between the McCloud dam and Bald Mountain Creek

confluence that is integrated into the biological monitoring plan, to evaluate the

biological population trends of trout and macroinvertebrates that are affected by gravel

and coarse sediment, long-term changes in channel morphology, and the fate of

introduced gravels and coarse sediment over the course of the license term.

PG&E alternative condition 23 proposes to revise the time to develop the gravel

and coarse sediment management plan to two years, to allow for receipt of license articles

from the Commission and collaborative plan development, and that gravel and coarse

sediment introductions occur periodically rather than annually. The licensee proposes

that the source of the coarse sediment would be the delta deposit at the head of the Star

City Creek arm of McCloud reservoir, where the coarse sediment will be excavated “in

the dry” and not dredged. Coarse sediment augmentation would occur as far upstream in

the specified Lower McCloud River reach (between the spillway and the Hawkins Creek

confluence) as operationally feasible and cost effective. The licensee proposes that the

monitoring component of the plan cover the Lower McCloud River between McCloud

dam and Ladybug Creek rather than Bald Mountain Creek. The licensee also proposes

that implementation would be contingent on receipt of section 401 water quality

certifications, a streambed alteration agreement from California Fish and Game, and a
81

section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with terms and conditions

that do not substantively alter the cost or specifications of the action proposed. If this is

not the case, or if for any reason the sediment currently stored in the Star City Creek delta

is considered to be of insufficient quantity or quality, the licensee proposes that it then

would be exempt from Forest Service condition 23.

California Fish and Game recommendations that PG&E prepare a gravel and

sediment management plan requiring the annual addition of 150 tons of gravel and

sediment to the McCloud River, between the dam spillway and the confluence with

Hawkins Creek. California Fish and Game recommends that PG&E consider using the

Star City Creek inlet as a material source. As part of the long-term monitoring

component of this plan, California Fish and Game’s recommendation incorporates

amphibians as an indicator species for assessing ecosystem health.

Forest Service condition 24 specifies that PG&E should prepare a reservoir

dredging plan in consultation with the Forest Service and approved by the Commission

and the Forest Service, if required for the purposes of increasing gravel and sediment

supply or for removing sediment from reservoirs to accomplish project management

objectives. The plan should be filed not less than 90 days prior to any proposed or

scheduled reservoir dredging operations and should include details regarding the

following: dredging location, amount, and timing; dredged material amount,

composition, and size; stockpile site identification; equipment, road access, and material

storage/staging needs; conditions to minimize related ecological impacts; and public

notification.

PG&E alternative condition 24 proposes that PG&E does not anticipate a need for

dredging during the license term, as PG&E alternative condition 24 for the gravel and

coarse sediment management plan would eliminate the need for dredging within

McCloud reservoir as a gravel source to support downstream gravel augmentation.

NMFS, with concurrence from FWS, recommends that, as soon as listed

salmonids are documented as within the McCloud River and affected by the project,

PG&E should design and implement a listed salmonid gravel substrate augmentation

plan, in consultation with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, NMFS, FWS, California Fish

and Game, and the Commission, and with the approval of the Commission and NMFS.

Our Analysis

The development and implementation of a gravel and coarse sediment

management plan, and monitoring and adaptive management of gravel and coarse

sediment augmentation as specified by Forest Service condition 23 would help mitigate

project effects on aquatic habitat. Gravel and coarse sediment augmentation below

McCloud dam would likely mimic patterns of sediment deposition created below

downstream tributary confluences in the Lower McCloud River. Gravel introduction

below McCloud dam would have the effect of contributing the gravel and sediment

equivalent of an additional tributary to the most supply limited reach of the Lower
82

McCloud River. Increasing the availability of gravel in the affected reach could benefit

aquatic resources by increasing the availability of salmonid spawning habitat. Increasing

the amount of gravel deposits could also increase the amount of invertebrate habitat that

is available within the stream substrate, and enhancing invertebrate production could

increase the biomass of fish species that can be supported.

Recommendations regarding the amount and timing of gravel augmentation

covered a broad range from California Fish and Game’s 150 annually to the Forest

Service’s recommendation to provide 150-600 tons of gravel and coarse sediment

annually. This range reflects the uncertainty as to how much and how quickly sediment

would be mobilized and distributed through the downstream reach. PG&E’s alternative

gravel and coarse sediment augmentation program is similar to the Forest Service, but

recommends placement of material periodically based on need given that spill flows

capable of mobilizing larger sediment material occur at a frequency of about 4 out of

10 years at McCloud dam. As opposed to a fixed annual augmentation schedule,

PG&E’s proposed periodic augmentation monitoring plan and adaptive management plan

would provide a more flexible mechanism for determining the volume and frequency of

sediment introduction necessary to maintain aquatic habitat.

PG&E proposes to use the Star City Creek delta as the source of gravel and

sediment, but does not propose to explore an alternate source of material if Star City

Creek proves to be inadequate for any reason. Similarly, Forest Service recommended

PG&E use delta deposits at one of the McCloud reservoir tributaries, such as Star City

Creek, as a source of gravel and sediment. The Forest Service further recommended that

PG&E should prepare a reservoir dredging plan, if required, for the purposes of

increasing gravel and sediment supply. While dredging would allow for the collection of

locally suitable source material, the technique is often costly, and may pose additional

environmental risks, including, but not limited to, the release of mercury. Use of

sediment deposits at the mouth of the Star City Creek tributary, located adjacent to the

McCloud reservoir, would provide material with a natural size range typical of the

regional sources. However, an evaluation of other potential local source locations would

identify the necessary volumetric, physical, and chemical characteristics, as well as the

logistics for collection of transport, would be prudent to ensure the suitability of source

material for augmentation. The proposed monitoring plan would provide procedures to

determine how the introduced gravel and coarse sediment are distributed downstream and

the potential benefit to aquatic resources, while the adaptive management approach

would provide a mechanism modifying the gravel and sediment augmentation program

based on the observations from the monitoring program.

In their alternative 4(e), PG&E recommended that monitoring for the gravel and

coarse sediment program focus on the measurement of changes to the physical

characteristics of the substrate through the reach targeted for augmentation. Forest

Service recommended that the monitoring plan be integrated with the biological

monitoring plan. Unlike PG&E’s recommendation, the Forest Service’s specification

would allow for the evaluation of the gravel augmentation program on the physical
83

habitat as well as the associated changes to the biological resources. Integration of the

two monitoring programs provides an effective and efficient means for analyzing the

success and potential benefits of the program to aquatic resources.

Forest Service specified that the geographic scope of monitoring encompass the

reach from the McCloud dam to Bald Mountain Creek. PG&E proposed that monitoring

extend to Ladybug Creek, about a mile and a half upstream of Bald Mountain Creek.

PG&E suggested this as the downstream limit to monitoring because pre-licensing

studies indicated a suitable mix of gravel substrate for spawning below Ladybug Creek.

Three of the Habitat Criteria Mapping (HCM) study sites (HCM-02, HCM-03, and

HCM-04) are located between Ladybug Creek and Bald Mountain Creek. The reach

between Ladybug Creek and Bald Mountain Creek could provide a good baseline for

evaluating the success of the program given the pre-licensing data for the three HCM

study sites and the fact that good quality spawning substrate exists in this reach.

California Fish and Game’s recommendation is generally consistent with the

Forest Service and PG&E’s alternative. Relative to the monitoring plan California Fish

and Game specifically recommended the use of amphibians as indicators of success of

the gravel and coarse sediment augmentation program. We note that while FYLF is the

only amphibian in the area likely to benefit from gravel augmentation, it is not found in

the lower McCloud River because water temperatures are generally too cold to support

the species. Within the proposed coarse sediment and gravel augmentation reach, fish,

particularly salmonids, and invertebrates are more likely to benefit from augmentation

than amphibians. Monitoring focused on fish and invertebrates would provide data that is

more indicative of a biological response to gravel and coarse sediment augmentation.

PG&E provides a rationale for completion of the gravel and coarse sediment management

and monitoring plans 2 years following issuance of the new license rather than one year

proposed by Forest Service. However, one year is typically adequate for consultation,

completion of the plan, and securing all approvals and permits.

The recommendations by NMFS and FWS are made relative to augmentation of

gravel substrate for listed salmonids when they are documented in the lower McCloud

River and affected by the project. The Keswick and Shasta dams on the Sacramento

River downstream of the McCloud dam are existing barriers to upstream passage of

anadromous salmonids including Chinook salmon and steelhead. None of the listed

anadromous salmonids would be expected to have access to habitat in the lower McCloud

River if and until upstream migration of listed species is implemented through Lake

Shasta. Therefore, management of gravel spawning substrate recommended by NMFS

and FWS would provide no benefit for listed species at this time. The proposed

monitoring program would provide a mechanism for adapting the augmentation program

to benefit listed anadromous species if and when they become present in the project area.
84

3.3.2 Aquatic Resources

3.3.2.1 Affected Environment

3.3.2.1.1 Water Quantity

Water Storage and Hydrology

The McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project includes two major storage reservoirs, two

regulating reservoirs, one afterbay, two tunnels, and three powerhouses and associated

transmission facilities. Key characteristics of the five project basins, including inflow,

surface area, length, storage capacity, releases, and drainage area are described below.

McCloud reservoir has a maximum surface area of 520 acres, is 5 miles long,

and has a maximum storage capacity of about 31,197 ac-ft. The reservoir shoreline is

14 miles long. The McCloud River watershed above McCloud reservoir includes the

highest altitude within the project vicinity and thus has the largest amount of snowmelt

influence of the four reservoirs. As a result, McCloud reservoir receives a large

component of base flow from springs (about 700 cfs) that discharge groundwater from

the aquifer to the east of Mount Shasta into the McCloud River and its tributaries.

Another noteworthy contribution comes from glacial melt from Konwakiton Glacier, one

of several glaciers located on Mount Shasta’s southeastern slopes just above Mud Creek.

A number of small tributaries flow directly into McCloud reservoir, including

Huckleberry Creek, which also carries most of the flow diverted from Mud Creek. Water

is normally released from McCloud reservoir to Iron Canyon reservoir via McCloud

tunnel and to the Lower McCloud River via the McCloud dam spillway and a low-level

outlet tunnel.

Iron Canyon reservoir has a surface area of 506 acres, is 1 mile long, and has a

maximum storage capacity of about 24,241 ac-ft. The reservoir shoreline is 11 miles

long. The majority of the water in Iron Canyon reservoir originates in the McCloud

River watershed and is diverted via McCloud tunnel. Iron Canyon reservoir is also the

confluence point of five small streams: Gap Creek, Little Gap Creek, Cedar Salt Log

Creek, Deadlun Creek, and McGill Creek. Water is normally released from Iron Canyon

reservoir to Pit 6 reservoir through the James B. Black powerhouse on the Pit River via

Iron Canyon tunnel, an associated pipeline, and a steel penstock. The minimum and

maximum recorded daily flows through James B. Black powerhouse are 0 and 2,280 cfs,

respectively, and the historical mean and median daily discharges are 900 and 863 cfs,

respectively (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] gage 11363910/MC-11). Iron Canyon

reservoir also releases to Pit 6 reservoir via a low-level slide gate to Iron Canyon Creek.

Pit 6 reservoir has a surface area of 265 acres, is 10 miles long, and has a

maximum storage capacity of about 15,619 ac-ft. The reservoir shoreline is 5 miles long.

The watershed contributing to Pit 6 reservoir begins on the Pit River at Pit 5 dam and

includes the mainstem Pit River and its tributaries, including Iron Canyon Creek

downstream of Iron Canyon dam. The watershed of one major tributary in this area,

Kosh Creek, constitutes almost half of the Pit 6 reservoir watershed. Water is normally
85

released from Pit 6 reservoir through the Pit 6 powerhouse to the Pit River and Pit 7

reservoir. The minimum and maximum recorded daily flows through Pit 6 powerhouse

are 0 and 8,650 cfs, respectively, and the historical mean and median daily discharges are

4,193 and 3,800 cfs, respectively (USGS gage 11364150/PH-63).

Pit 7 reservoir has a surface area of 468 acres, is 8 miles long, and has a maximum

storage capacity of about 34,142 ac-ft. The reservoir shoreline is 16 miles long. The two

primary tributaries to the Pit River in the watershed contributing inflow to Pit 7 reservoir

are Roaring Creek and Hatchet Creek. Water is normally released from Pit 7 reservoir

through the Pit 7 powerhouse to the Pit River and Pit 7 afterbay before continuing to

Shasta Lake. The minimum and maximum recorded daily flows through Pit 7

powerhouse are 0 and 9,080 cfs, respectively, and the historical mean and median daily

discharges are 4,231 and 3,760 cfs, respectively (USGS gage 11364800/PH-64).

Pit 7 afterbay has a surface area of about 69 acres at normal “maximum” surface

elevation of 1,067 ft, which is the maximum water surface of Shasta Lake. The afterbay

is located immediately downstream from the Pit 7 powerhouse and has no storage

capacity. Flows from Pit 7 reservoir are regulated with the V-notch weir in the Pit 7

afterbay dam. Changes in water flow from the Pit 7 dam and powerhouse are attenuated

by the afterbay.

Table 3-5 shows physical characteristics of each reservoir and the Pit 7 afterbay,

and figure 3-1 shows historic trends in storage for each reservoir. Table 3-6 provides

minimum required flow releases to Lower McCloud River and Iron Canyon Creek, and

tables 3-7 through 3-18 provide regulated and estimated unimpaired flow statistics for

each of the main project reaches. We provide a discussion of instream flow requirements

for aquatic species in section 3.3.2.1.3, Aquatic Biota.
86

Table 3-5. Reservoir and afterbay characteristics. (Source: Staff, based on

specifications provided in PG&E, 2009a)

Elevation (ft) Storage capacity

(ac-ft)

Basin Normal

Maximum

Normal

Minimum Gross

McCloud reservoir 2,680 2,635 31,197

Iron Canyon reservoir 2,664 2,593a24,241

Pit 6 reservoir 1,425 1,385 15,619

Pit 7 reservoir 1,270 1,235 34,142

Pit 7 afterbay 1,067b1,036c 0

a

2,615 ft during summer recreation season.

b

Shasta Lake at full pond.

c

Elevation of afterbay weir v-notch invert.
87

a) McCloud Reservoir

b) Iron Canyon Reservoir
88

c) Pit 6 Reservoir

d) Pit 7 Reservoir

Figure 3-1. Historic median and mean daily reservoir storage for McCloud-Pit

Hydroelectric Project reservoirs, water years 1974athrough 2006. (Source:

PG&E 2009a)

a

Pit 7 reservoir data represent water years 1975 through 2006.
89

Table 3-6. Current required releases to Lower McCloud River and Iron Canyon Creek.

(Source: Adapted by staff, from PG&E, 2009a)

Reservoir Gage Location

(USGS/PG&E No.) Date Required MinimumFlow (cfs)

McCloud McCloud Dam

(11367760/MC-7) All Years

May 1–Nov 30 50

Dec 1–Apr 30 40

Normal

Year

Dry

Year

Ah-Di-Na (11367800/MC-1) Jan 1–Feb 28 160 160

Mar 1–Apr 30 170 170

May 1–May 15 170 160

May 16–Aug 31 200 160

Sep 1–Dec 15 210 180

Dec 15–Dec 31 170 170

Iron

Canyon

Iron Canyon Dam

(11363930/MC-10) All Years

Year-round 3

Pit 6 N/A N/A N/A

Pit 7 Downstream of Pit 7 Dam

(11365000/PH-47)

When Shasta Lake

elevation <1,055 ft.

150

Pit 7

Afterbay

N/A N/A N/A
90

Table 3-7. Mean, minimum, and maximum unimpaired flows in the McCloud River

above McCloud reservoir for water years 1974–2006 (USGS gage

11367500/MC-3); all flows are unimpaired at this location. (Source:

PG&E 2009)

Regulated Flow (cfs) Unimpaired Flow (cfs)

Month Mean Minimum Maximum Mean Minimum Maximum

January NA NA NA 941 532 11,900

February NA NA NA 990 541 6,490

March NA NA NA 1,133 577 8,330

April NA NA NA 1,117 647 3,930

May NA NA NA 1,097 576 3,190

June NA NA NA 935 566 2,250

July NA NA NA 831 559 1,390

August NA NA NA 795 552 1,130

September NA NA NA 775 546 1,080

October NA NA NA 757 546 1,140

November NA NA NA 801 541 4,170

December NA NA NA 854 537 9,700
91

Table 3-8. Mean, minimum, and maximum regulated flows in the McCloud tunnel for

water years 1974–2006 (USGS gage 11367720/MC-8); all flows are

regulated at this location. (Source: PG&E 2009a)

Regulated Flow (cfs) Unimpaired Flow (cfs)

Month Mean Minimum Maximum Mean Minimum Maximum

January 879 271 1,620 NA NA NA

February 934 0 1,470 NA NA NA

March 1,051 0 1,580 NA NA NA

April 1,053 337 1,590 NA NA NA

May 957 266 1,460 NA NA NA

June 841 0 1,430 NA NA NA

July 769 321 1,420 NA NA NA

August 726 16 1,210 NA NA NA

September 689 296 1,320 NA NA NA

October 652 159 1,220 NA NA NA

November 668 180 1,420 NA NA NA

December 775 237 1,540 NA NA NA
92

Table 3-9. Mean, minimum, and maximum regulated and unimpaired flows in the

McCloud River at the McCloud dam for water years 1974–2006 (USGS

gage 11367760/MC-7, synthesized unimpaired hydrology data). (Source:

PG&E 2009a)

Regulated Flow (cfs) Unimpaired Flow (cfs)

Month Mean Minimum Maximum Mean Minimum Maximum

January 228 40 17,646 1,198 589 16,544

February 201 39 5,546 1,283 594 8,792

March 250 39 8,690 1,437 703 11,646

April 206 40 3,529 1,325 714 5,497

May 247 44 2,100 1,248 637 4,108

June 206 58 1,680 1,043 618 2,646

July 175 131 346 915 607 1,571

August 179 121 223 869 598 1,248

September 192 116 228 846 590 1186

October 193 45 251 829 592 1,557

November 200 47 4,630 917 585 6,546

December 163 39 3,025 1,035 585 13,096
93

Table 3-10. Mean, minimum, and maximum regulated and unimpaired flows in the

McCloud River at Ah-Di-Na for water years 1974–2006 (USGS gage

11367800/MC-1, synthesized unimpaired hydrology data). (Source:

PG&E 2009a)

Regulated Flow (cfs) Unimpaired Flow (cfs)

Month Mean Minimum Maximum Mean Minimum Maximum

January 384 153 25,200 1344 596 19,207

February 408 147 9,110 1452 604 10,081

March 484 143 11,800 1614 738 13,556

April 362 149 5,690 1,441 732 6,399

May 350 146 3,620 1,319 653 4,593

June 248 157 1,405 1,084 628 2,880

July 205 148 343 939 610 1,716

August 204 150 278 885 602 1,295

September 217 162 265 861 594 1,222

October 217 178 447 847 598 1,808

November 257 178 5,690 966 589 8,005

December 284 163 17,000 1,129 589 14,992
94

Table 3-11. Mean, minimum, and maximum regulated and unimpaired flows in the

McCloud River above Shasta Lake for water years 1974–2006 (USGS gage

11368000/MC-5, synthesized unimpaired hydrology data). (Source:

PG&E 2009a)

Regulated Flow (cfs) Unimpaired Flow (cfs)

Month Mean Minimum Maximum Mean Minimum Maximum

January 1,376 208 44,999 2,336 644 39,007

February 1,564 217 18,700 2,609 675 21,662

March 1,647 226 26,000 2,776 831 27,756

April 1,034 209 12,400 2,113 807 13,109

May 730 212 7,220 1,699 756 8,192

June 452 194 2,266 1,294 689 4,103

July 329 191 945 1,063 637 2,419

August 289 187 485 971 619 1,507

September 294 191 549 938 605 1,371

October 311 196 2,310 941 617 3,671

November 561 216 15,900 1,270 614 18,855

December 908 202 31,100 1,753 617 29,092
95

Table 3-12. Mean, minimum, and maximum regulated and unimpaired flows in Iron

Canyon Creek at Iron Canyon dam for water years 1974–2006 (USGS gage

11363930/MC-10, synthesized unimpaired hydrology data). (Source:

PG&E 2009a)

Regulated Flow (cfs) Unimpaired Flow (cfs)

Month Mean Minimum Maximum Mean Minimum Maximum

January 3.9a0.4a11.0a67 3 1,341

February 13.8a2.0a538.0a78 3 931

March 9.8a2.7a501.0a79 4 961

April 3.8a2.6a6.4a45 3 454

May 3.9a2.5a7.4a26 4 244

June 3.9 2.6 7 14 2 92

July 3.9 2.7 7 8.4 2 48

August 3.9 0.4 7.6 5.8 1.2 18

September 3.9 2.7 7.8 5.2 0.7 24

October 3.9a2.7a8.1a6 0.8 126

November 3.9a2.7a9.1a21 2 735

December 3.8a0.4a15.0a42 2 955

a Regulated data set is incomplete (0.25 percent missing data).
96

Table 3-13. Mean, minimum, and maximum regulated and unimpaired flows in the

Pit River below the Pit 5 dam for water years 1974–2006 (USGS gage

11363000/PH-27, synthesized unimpaired hydrology data). (Source:

PG&E 2009a)

Regulated Flow (cfs) Unimpaired Flow (cfs)

Month Mean Minimum Maximum Mean Minimum Maximum

January 1,014 46 30,200 4,255 2,076 32,529

February 1,252 47 36,500 4,812 1,884 36,882

March 1,586 50 15,700 5,347 2,220 20,517

April 1,004 45 12,000 4,440 2,037 17,020

May 805 67 17,500 3,930 1,812 20,328

June 274 107 5,460 2,946 1,724 9,533

July 145 78 322 2,411 1,620 4,220

August 155 72 1,940 2,305 1,618 3,438

September 143 89 3,160 2,358 1,627 3,783

October 149 88 2,770 2,525 1,655 3,745

November 240 48 7,450 2,941 1,865 12,110

December 459 39 15,200 3,409 2,035 19,721
97

Table 3-14. Mean, minimum, and maximum regulated and unimpaired flows at the Pit 5

powerhouse for water years 1974–2006 (USGS gage 11362700/PH-69); all

flows are regulated at this location. (Source: PG&E 2009a)

Regulated Flow (cfs) Unimpaired Flow (cfs)

Month Mean Minimum Maximum Mean Minimum Maximum

January 2,955 196 4,184 NA NA NA

February 3,179 0 4,330 NA NA NA

March 3,500 1,020 4,250 NA NA NA

April 3,233 114 4,330 NA NA NA

May 3,002 0 4,240 NA NA NA

June 2,517 0 4,140 NA NA NA

July 2,120 0 3,989 NA NA NA

August 2,032 0 4,000 NA NA NA

September 2,124 0 4,060 NA NA NA

October 2,286 0 4,058 NA NA NA

November 2,535 0 4,138 NA NA NA

December 2,699 0 4,520 NA NA NA
98

Table 3-15. Mean, minimum, and maximum regulated and unimpaired flows in the

Pit River at the Pit 7 dam for water years 1974–2006 (USGS gage

11365000/PH-47, synthesized unimpaired hydrology data). (Source:

PG&E 2009a)

Regulated Flow (cfs) Unimpaired Flow (cfs)

Month Mean Minimum Maximum Mean Minimum Maximum

January 6,216 466 43,500 5,533 2,144 52,183

February 7,017 376 49,000 6,302 1,985 42,933

March 7,765 740 32,800 6,844 2,702 33,957

April 6,428 291 32,400 5,305 2,254 25,088

May 5,419 533 22,200 4,419 2,005 22,173

June 3,876 145 10,800 3,217 1,825 10,219

July 3,216 30 8,240 2,571 1,677 4,679

August 3,024 62 6,940 2,415 1,667 3,569

September 3,080 71 7,980 2,458 1,669 3,968

October 3,325 140 14,500 2,647 1,727 5,798

November 4,046 356 20,000 3,333 1,932 22,384

December 4,752 257 32,600 4,212 2,115 37,874
99

Table 3-16. Mean, minimum, and maximum regulated and unimpaired at the James B.

Black powerhouse for water years 1974–2006 (USGS gage

11363910/MC-11); all flows are regulated at this location. (Source: PG&E

2009a)

Regulated Flow (cfs) Unimpaired Flow (cfs)

Month Mean Minimum Maximum Mean Minimum Maximum

January 973 0 1,950 NA NA NA

February 1,025 0 1,920 NA NA NA

March 1,142 0 2,020 NA NA NA

April 1,080 0 1,970 NA NA NA

May 972 0 2,060 NA NA NA

June 856 0 1,910 NA NA NA

July 835 0 1,970 NA NA NA

August 808 0 2,280 NA NA NA

September 779 0 1,970 NA NA NA

October 732 0 2,000 NA NA NA

November 744 0 2,010 NA NA NA

December 860 0 2,000 NA NA NA
100

Table 3-17. Mean, minimum, and maximum regulated and unimpaired at the Pit 6

powerhouse for water years 1974–2006 (USGS gage 11364150/PH-63); all

flows are regulated at this location. (Source: PG&E 2009a)

Regulated Flow (cfs) Unimpaired Flow (cfs)

Month Mean Minimum Maximum Mean Minimum Maximum

January 4,804 606 8,520 NA NA NA

February 5,236 48 8,090 NA NA NA

March 5,940 1,090 8,080 NA NA NA

April 5,477 279 8,200 NA NA NA

May 4,778 0 7,900 NA NA NA

June 3,755 56 7,680 NA NA NA

July 3,221 0 6,430 NA NA NA

August 3,061 0 6,680 NA NA NA

September 3,087 0 6,330 NA NA NA

October 3,194 0 6,380 NA NA NA

November 3,611 0 8,020 NA NA NA

December 4,207 0 8,650 NA NA NA
101

Table 3-18. Mean, minimum, and maximum regulated and unimpaired at the Pit 7

powerhouse for water years 1974–2006 (USGS gage 11364480/PH-64); all

flows are regulated at this location. (Source: PG&E 2009a)

Regulated Flow (cfs) Unimpaired Flow (cfs)

Month Mean Minimum Maximum Mean Minimum Maximum

January 5,068 136 9,240 NA NA NA

February 5,546 0 9,030 NA NA NA

March 6,228 772 9,080 NA NA NA

April 5,741 70 8,980 NA NA NA

May 4,999 330 8,990 NA NA NA

June 3,760 20 8,660 NA NA NA

July 3,155 0 8,240 NA NA NA

August 2,941 0 6,940 NA NA NA

September 3,022 0 6,620 NA NA NA

October 3,172 0 8,090 NA NA NA

November 3,605 0 9,050 NA NA NA

December 4,342 0 9,035 NA NA NA
102

Consumptive Use

The primary consumptive uses of water in the Lower McCloud and Pit Rivers

within the project area are for recreation and wildlife/aquatic habitat. The majority of

recreational use of project waters (primarily boating, fishing, and camping) occurs at

McCloud and Iron Canyon reservoirs, with limited recreational use at Pit 6 and Pit 7

reservoirs. Lower McCloud River is used for fishing below McCloud reservoir.

3.3.2.1.2 Water Quality

The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley

Regional Water Board) defines water quality criteria for the Sacramento River and its

tributaries and formally designates existing and potential beneficial uses and water

quality objectives. The McCloud River is designated in the Central Valley Regional

Water Board Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River

Basins (basin plan; Central Valley Regional Water Board, 2007) for municipal and

domestic water supply, contact and non-contact recreation, power production, cold

freshwater habitat, coldwater spawning, and wildlife habitat. The Pit River in the project

area is designated for all of the beneficial uses designated for the McCloud River, as well

as for water supply for irrigation and stock watering, warm freshwater habitat, and

warmwater spawning. Basin plan objectives that are applicable to project-affected waters

are described in table 3-19.

The McCloud River is not listed under section 303d of the CWA as an impaired

water body. However, the Pit River is listed for nutrients, organic enrichment/low

dissolved oxygen (DO), and water temperature, with agriculture and grazing cited as the

probable sources of impairment; the river is targeted as low priority for the development

of total maximum daily load (TMDL) standards, with proposed TMDL completion in

2013 (California Water Board, 2006).
103

Table 3-19. Water quality objectives to support designated beneficial uses in the project

area. (Source: PG&E, 2009a)

Water

Quality

Objective

Description

Bacteria Fecal coliform concentration: less than a geometric average of 200 per

100 milliliters (ml) water on five samples collected in any 30-day

period and less than 400 per 100 ml on 10 percent of all samples taken

in a 30-day period.

Escherichia coli concentrations: less than a geometric average of

126 per 100 ml of water on five samples collected in any 30-day period

and less than 235 per 100 ml on 10 percent of all samples taken in a

30-day period. Basin plan criteria for fecal coliform will be replaced

with criteria for E. coli following approval of the amendment (Central

Valley Regional Water Board, 2002) by the State Board, Office of

Administrative Law and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Biostimulatory

Substances

Water shall not contain biostimulatory substances that promote aquatic

growth in concentrations that cause nuisance or adversely affect

beneficial uses.

Chemical

Constituents

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that

adversely affect beneficial uses. Although certain trace element levels

have been applied to particular water bodies, no portion of the project

affected area is cited within the basin plan. In addition, waters

designated for municipal or domestic use must comply with portions of

title 22 of the California Code of Regulation.

Color Water shall be free of discoloration that causes a nuisance or adversely

affects beneficial uses.

Dissolved

Oxygen

Monthly median of the average daily DO concentration shall not fall

below 85 percent of saturation in the main water mass, and the

95 percent concentration shall not fall below 75 percent of saturation.

Minimum level of 7 milligrams per liter (mg/l). When natural

conditions lower DO below this level, the concentrations shall be

maintained at or above 95 percent of saturation.

Floating

Material

Water shall be free of floating material in amounts that cause nuisance

or adversely affect beneficial uses.

Oil and Grease Waters shall not contain oils, greases, waxes, or other materials in

concentrations that cause nuisance, result in a visible film or coating on

the surface of the water or on objects in the water, or otherwise

adversely affect beneficial uses.
104

Water

Quality

Objective

Description

Pesticides Waters shall not contain pesticides or a combination of pesticides in

concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

pH The pH of surface waters will remain between 6.5 to 8.5, and cause

changes of less than 0.5 in receiving water bodies.

Radioactivity Radionuclides shall not be present in concentrations or accumulate in

the food web to an extent that is harmful to human, plant, animal or

aquatic life.

Sediment The suspended sediment load and suspended-sediment discharge rate of

surface waters shall not be altered in such a manner as to cause a

nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses.

Settleable

Material

Waters shall not contain substances in concentrations that result in the

deposition of material that causes a nuisance or adversely affects

beneficial uses.

Suspended

Material

Waters shall not contain suspended material in concentrations that

cause a nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses.

Tastes and

Odor

Water shall not contain taste- or odor-producing substances in

concentrations that impart undesirable tastes and odors to domestic or

municipal water supplies, fish flesh, or other edible products of aquatic

origin, or substances that cause nuisance or otherwise adversely affect

beneficial uses.

Toxicity All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations

that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant,

animal, or aquatic life. Compliance with this objective will be

determined by analysis indicator organisms, species diversity,

population density, growth anomalies, and biotoxicity tests as specified

by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Turbidity In terms of changes in turbidity (nephelometric turbidity units [NTU])

in the receiving water body: where natural turbidity is 0 to 5 NTU,

increases shall not exceed 1 NTU; where 5 to 50 NTU, increases shall

not exceed 20 percent; where 50 to 100 NTU, increases shall not exceed

10 NTU; and where natural turbidity is greater than 100 NTU, increase

shall not exceed 10 percent.
105

Water

Quality

Objective

Description

Water

Temperature

The natural receiving water temperature of interstate waters shall not be

altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional

Water Quality Control Board that such alteration in water temperature

does not adversely affect beneficial uses. Increases in water

temperatures must be less than 2.8 degrees Celsius (oC) above natural

receiving-water temperature.

Water Quality Standards

Water quality in the project area was determined to be generally in accordance

with basin plan objectives, with only one potential exceedance of basin plan criteria for

pH, which PG&E considered to be insignificant, and no exceedances for other

parameters. Monitoring results and the observed exceedance are summarized below.

Chemical Constituents

Sampling has demonstrated low levels of chemical constituents regulated under

title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. Although limited data are available on

metals in the McCloud and Pit Rivers, samples collected in 1985-1986 indicated

generally low metals concentrations near or below laboratory reporting limits. Levels of

minerals in samples collected in the project area and surrounding watershed in 2007 did

not exceed the applicable maximum contaminant levels.

Although little data exist on anthropogenic pollutants such as oil and grease,

pesticides, and herbicides in project-affected waters, pesticide screening samples

collected upstream of Shasta Lake in the Pit and Lower McCloud Rivers in 1999 and

2000, respectively, contained low pesticide levels.

Dissolved Oxygen

Generally, measured DO levels in project-affected waters remained above the

7 mg/l basin plan standard at all times. During one sampling event, DO saturation near

the bottom of McCloud reservoir dropped below 85 percent, and in one case, it dropped

below 75 percent. However, DO concentrations did not violate basin plan criteria for

beneficial uses, and PG&E could not establish exceedance based upon a monthly

average, as required by the basin plan criterion. During a short period in late June 2004,

PG&E reported DO concentrations near 3 mg/l in the McCloud River, downstream of

McCloud dam that quickly rose to 10 mg/l. PG&E attributed the anomalous DO

measurements to an equipment malfunction.
106

Toxicity

Ammonia levels measured for this study were well below toxicity thresholds. A

limited amount of rainbow trout tissue sampling for mercury was conducted in the Pit and

McCloud Rivers, with mercury concentrations of about 0.05 milligram per kilogram

(mg/kg).

Measurements were taken in summer, 2007, at the sediment-water interface of

McCloud and Iron Canyon reservoirs to assess oxidation-reduction potential (a measure

of anoxia sometimes used to indicate conditions suitable for mercury methylation); data

were above the range typically associated with methylation. No mining activities occur

within 1 mile from project boundaries, limiting potential sources and input of metals to

the project-affected portion of the system.

Water Temperature

McCloud Reservoir—The water temperatures and water quality conditions in

McCloud reservoir support a coldwater trout fishery. Although project operations

influence seasonal water quality conditions in McCloud reservoir and water temperatures

in the Lower McCloud River are affected by releases from McCloud reservoir,

measurements of water temperature in the reservoir (<20°C) were well within the

tolerance range of salmonids and generally met basin plan criteria.

Temperatures in McCloud reservoir reflect the large volume of cool water entering

the reservoir from the spring-fed Upper McCloud River and the relatively short residence

time of water in the reservoir. Daily average surface water temperatures at upstream

reservoir stations in McCloud reservoir ranged from 6.9oC in May to 16oC in August,

while downstream reservoir stations were somewhat warmer. For example, daily average

surface water temperatures at the most downstream reservoir station ranged from about

12.0oC in May to 20oC in August, cooling to less than 10oC in October. Overall, water

temperature changes from upstream of McCloud reservoir to downstream do not differ by

more than 1.6oC at any time and are comparable to the normal heating expected along the

pre-project river length. Despite surface water warming, hypolimnetic release

temperatures below McCloud dam are cold because of the steep thermocline and large

hypolimnion.

Reservoir temperature profiles in summer from 2006–2008 were characterized by

a relatively shallow (0–3 meters [m]) epilimnion, a 3-6 m thermocline (metalimnion)

characterized by sharply reduced temperatures with depth, and a deep (40-52 m)

thermally stable hypolimnion that extends beneath the thermocline to the reservoir

bottom. The stratification period typically extends from early June to late September in

the project area. A coldwater pool, operationally defined as all depths exhibiting water

temperatures less than 10.0oC, ranged in thickness from 137.8 ft (42 m) in August to

167.3 ft (51 m) in June, 2008.

Minimum flow releases from McCloud dam to the Lower McCloud River are

withdrawn from a low-level gate near the bottom of the reservoir. During 2007-2008,
107

daily average temperatures from the bottom of the reservoir ranged from 7.0oC in May to

10.1oC in August. Water temperatures at the elevation of the intake for McCloud tunnel

(elevation 2,556 ft), which leads to Iron Canyon reservoir, never exceeded 10.3oC.

McCloud River—River temperatures below McCloud dam as observed during

2008 monitoring efforts increased during spring and summer spill events, due to water

releases from the warmer epilimnion of the reservoir. Although these temperature

increases were conferred downstream, the effects of the spills diminished with tributary

flow augmentation from upstream to downstream, and water temperatures near Shasta

Lake did not exceed 19oC.

Under current minimum flows, water temperatures in the Lower McCloud River

remain below 18.8°C for the entire 24-mile-long reach year-round. Temperatures vary

seasonally, increasing from June to mid-July, remaining warmest in mid-summer, and

declining from mid- to late August through September. Hourly temperature averages

never exceeded 20oC, except at the most downstream site above Shasta Lake. During the

2006-2008 monitoring period, daily average water temperatures recorded in tributaries to

the Lower McCloud River ranged from 6 to 19.7oC from May through October and were

both slightly warmer and more variable than daily average temperatures in the mainstem

McCloud River. As expected, tributary temperatures varied with ambient air temperature

and the coldest tributary measured, Ladybug Creek, was generally 3-4oC cooler than the

lower elevation Claiborne and Squaw Valley Creeks.

Iron Canyon Reservoir— Water temperatures in Iron Canyon reservoir are

influenced by water delivered from the McCloud reservoir hypolimnion, some surface

water warming and entrainment within Iron Canyon reservoir, and the relatively short

residence time. The water temperatures and water quality conditions in the reservoir

include a well-developed thermocline and a deep thermally stable hypolimnion, which

supports a coldwater trout fishery. The temperature of flows from the bottom of the dam

was similar to the temperature of the McCloud River upstream of McCloud reservoir

(which reflects cold groundwater input).

The summer (June to September) temperature differences between monitoring

stations above the reservoir and below the Iron Canyon dam are small: a 0.14oC decrease

per mile was observed under hot meteorological conditions (water temperatures exceeded

13.1oC above the reservoir and 12.7oC below the dam no more than 10 percent of the

time), whereas a 0.03oC increase was observed under normal temperature conditions

(water temperatures exceeded 12.0oC above the reservoir, 12.1oC below the dam, and

15.0oC above the Pit River confluence no more than 50 percent of the time).

The thermal structure of Iron Canyon reservoir was characterized by a warmer

epilimnion underlain by a thermocline extending to about 4 to 10 m deep throughout the

spring to late summer. Surface water temperatures ranged from 12.3 to 22.5oC in July

2006–2008. In the hypolimnion strata, water temperatures near the bottom of the

reservoir ranged from 11.0 to 12.3oC in July 2006–2008. Although project operations
108

influence water quality conditions in Iron Canyon reservoir, water quality measurements

were well within the tolerance range of salmonids (<20°C) and met basin plan criteria.

Iron Canyon Creek—Water is discharged from the Iron Canyon reservoir

hypolimnion to Iron Canyon Creek at an elevation of 2,565 ft and the James B. Black

powerhouse intake at an elevation of 2,556 ft. Under current operating conditions, cold

hypolimnetic (deep) releases of water from Iron Canyon reservoir and low residence

times tend to reduce the temperature variability immediately below the dam, and result in

downstream Iron Canyon Creek temperatures that are virtually identical to temperatures

above the reservoir. Water temperatures in Iron Canyon Creek below the dam from June

through September of 2006-2008 exhibited daily average temperatures from 10 to 17oC.

Although the upstream site below the dam exhibited very small diel and seasonal

fluctuations due to reservoir releases of thermally isolated hypolimnetic water, water

temperatures downstream of Iron Canyon dam do not change significantly with change in

stream flow, largely due to the abundance of shade along the stream channel. Stations

located downstream exhibited patterns that more closely reflect ambient meteorological

conditions, increasing temperatures from May to July and declining from late August to

early October. Downstream from the monitoring station below the dam to the station

above the confluence with the Pit River, water temperature increased an average of about

0.64oC per mile under normal meteorological thermal conditions.

Pit 6 and Pit 7 Reservoirs—Water diverted from the McCloud River enters the Pit

River watershed at James B. Black powerhouse, having traversed through two tunnels

and Iron Canyon reservoir. Daily average temperatures at surface water monitoring sites

in the Pit River reservoirs were comparatively warmer than those observed in the

McCloud River Basin. The thermal structures of Pit 6 and Pit 7 reservoirs were similar

during the 2007-2008 monitoring period and reflected the large flow volume and short

residence time of water in the reservoirs. Water temperature and water quality conditions

in the Pit 6 and Pit 7 reservoirs support a transitional-zone fish assemblage including

native tule perch, hardhead, Sacramento pikeminnow, and Sacramento sucker, which is

similar to other Pit reservoirs upstream of the project area. Pit 7 reservoir also supports

small populations of largemouth and smallmouth bass, tui chub, and rainbow trout.

Unlike the Lower McCloud River and Iron Canyon Creek watersheds,

temperatures in the Pit River watershed did not exhibit increasing variability with

distance downstream. The differences on average (normal condition) between

monitoring stations above the reservoir and James B. Black powerhouse represented a

sharp decline in temperature: 5.6oC within less than 0.1 mile. After mixing with flow

from the upstream Pit 3, 4, and 5 Project, temperatures increase an average of about 0.1oC

per mile, which reflects the limited stratification and low residence time of water in Pit 6

and 7 reservoirs. Ambient daily average temperatures at stations above the project area

ranged from 12 to 22oC from June through September.

Pit River—Daily average temperatures below the interbasin transfer entering

through James B. Black powerhouse were cooler, with temperatures downstream of the
109

Pit 6 powerhouse less than 19°C. Below Pit 7 reservoir, the river water temperature

reaches a maximum of 18 to 20oC during the middle to late summer with a diel variation

of 2 to 7oC during the spring, summer, and early fall. There is a steady decline in water

temperatures in the fall and winter, with minimum water temperatures at all sites near

4oC. Samples collected in 2007 showed that the water temperature in the Pit River

watershed was well within the tolerance range of salmonids, native minnows, and suckers

and met basin plan criteria.

pH

Analysis of historical and recent data indicates that measured pH values

throughout the project area and surrounding watershed occasionally approach or exceed

the basin plan water quality objectives, which specify an acceptable pH range of 6.5-8.5.

Monitoring efforts in 2007 and 2008 revealed two potential exceedances: a pH of 8.9

was measured in the metalimnion of McCloud reservoir in June 2007, and a pH of 9.1

was measured in McCloud River downstream of Squaw Valley Creek in May 2008.

However, historical data show that comparable pH levels occur naturally in the system,

and lower pH measurements were typically recorded in the vicinity of these elevated

readings, which indicate that the exceedance was a natural episodic event and not likely

representative of conditions in the river as a whole.

Biostimulatory Substances

Although biostimulatory substances are of general concern in the Pit River

(California Water Board, 2006), levels of all nutrients measured throughout the project

area were low, and chlorophyll-a levels were below the method detection limit of

0.05 mg/l at every site sampled. Although in situ DO data suggested some localized algal

growth at intermediate depths in both McCloud and Iron Canyon reservoirs in the

summer, such growth is typical in lakes in the region.

Coliform Bacteria

The state water quality criteria for the protection of waters used for water contact

recreation are based on the collection of a minimum of five fecal coliform samples within

a 30-day period. Although there is no basin plan criterion for total coliform, the levels

found in project-affected waters in summer, 2007, were slightly in excess of the 230 most

probable number per 100 ml criterion in the U.S. EPA (2003) guidelines for water contact

recreation. Heavier recreational use associated with the 2008 Labor Day weekend in Iron

Canyon reservoir and its tributaries did not appear to significantly alter fecal coliform

concentrations. Overall, historical and recent sampling in project-affected waters,

including recreational areas in McCloud and Iron Canyon reservoirs, resulted in generally

low concentrations of total coliform, fecal coliform, and E. coli.

Sediment Transport and Supply

Mud Creek, a tributary upstream of McCloud dam, adversely affects water clarity

in the Lower McCloud River by periodically delivering large amounts of fine volcanic

sediment from the Konwakiton glacier on Mount Shasta directly into McCloud reservoir.
110

Project operations affect the volume, rate, and timing of sediment transport downstream.

The increased turbidity in McCloud reservoir and the Lower McCloud River associated

with these natural occurring events continues to be a fishery and aesthetic concern.

Increased turbidity is known to alter fish feeding behavior (Barrett et al., 1992; Tippets

and Moyle, 1978), as well as impair angling conditions (see section 3.3.5, Recreation

Resources). PG&E conducted an extensive suspended sediment monitoring program in

the project area during 2007 and 2008, and results of that monitoring are discussed

below.

Turbidity Upstream of McCloud Reservoir

Mud Creek stream flow is routed by an upstream landowner to Huckleberry

Creek, which flows into the head of McCloud reservoir. Suspended sediment levels

entering McCloud reservoir are largely a function of conditions in the Mud Creek

drainage.

Under base-flow conditions, synoptic sampling of total suspended solids (TSS)

at the mouth of Mud Creek / Huckleberry Creek ranged from 13 to 141 mg/l (2 to

113 NTU). However, because sampling was not continuous and spring-fed Huckleberry

Creek mixes with Mud Creek before it reaches McCloud reservoir, these data can underrepresent suspended sediment and turbidity levels in Mud Creek. Synoptic sampling of

TSS in Mud Creek above the Highway 89 bridge during non-event periods ranged from

54 to 1,260 mg/l (15 to 840 NTU), whereas continuous data from this site showed

turbidity exceeding 1,600 NTU on a regular basis.

The maximum continuous turbidity monitoring in Mud Creek during high flow

events was beyond the instrument maximum range of 1,602 NTU, and PG&E assumed

actual levels to be significantly greater than this maximum value. TSS sampling in Mud

Creek that occurred during these events showed concentrations of up to 9,360 mg/l.

Turbidity in McCloud Reservoir

There is sustained transport of sand and coarser material from Mud Creek into

McCloud reservoir during all periods of active transport. Project operations influence the

capture and re-sorting of coarse sediments stored in a McCloud reservoir deltaic deposit

downstream of the mouth of Huckleberry Creek, the capture and settling of finer

sediments stored in the distal portions of the reservoir, and sediment transport through the

reservoir to downstream reaches.

Depending on the elevation of the reservoir, bed materials collected from the

active channel in Mud Creek are deposited either at the confluence of Mud Creek /

Huckleberry Creek with the McCloud River or moved rapidly downstream to areas

exhibiting reservoir-like properties and deposited in a submerged delta. The leading edge

of this deltaic deposit terminates about 2.5 miles downstream of the Mud Creek /

Huckleberry Creek confluence and 2.5 miles upstream of the dam. As reservoir levels

are drawn down, this deltaic material is re-suspended and transported by incoming flows
111

to the next depositional zone, forming a wedge-shaped deposit that gradually moves

downstream.

During a Mud Creek event, the highest density sediment plume enters McCloud

reservoir and travels rapidly along the reservoir bottom to the low level outlet located

near McCloud dam. As the event pulse moves through the reservoir, a process of

diffusion takes place where turbidity spreads and disperses into the greater reservoir

water column, reducing its density and spreading into the upper hypolimnion and

metalimnion in areas with neutral density that can suspend the plume at mid-depths.

Depending on the size of the event and associated turbulent mixing and upward current

induced by surface winds, the mid-depth, lower density plume can, at times, reach the

surface layer and become visible. The stratification of turbidity in McCloud reservoir

within the water column allows reservoir fish to use other portions of the water column as

refugia. Depending on the size of the event pulse, the plume arrives at the dam anywhere

from 1 to 3 days after entering the reservoir.

Turbidity Downstream of McCloud Reservoir

Project operations can also alter sediment transport characteristics from McCloud

reservoir and into the Lower McCloud River as well as the introduction of sediments into

the Iron Canyon and Pit River watersheds through interbasin transfer.

Under base-flow conditions, suspended sediment values ranged from <2.0 to

4 mg/l TSS (0.5 to 3.6 NTU) in the Lower McCloud River. These base-flow conditions

are generally significantly lower than reported above for Mud Creek / Huckleberry

Creek. Although the absolute concentration of the event pulse is diluted by the reservoir

receiving waters, wave action and scour during reservoir drawdown can re-mobilize

sediments stored in the reservoir, and turbidity downstream of McCloud reservoir during

Mud Creek events is significantly higher than under base-flow conditions. Continuous

turbidity monitoring over five events in August-October 2007, and August-September

2008, showed downstream turbidity levels in the Lower McCloud River ranging from

65 to 300 NTU below McCloud reservoir, 12 to 155 NTU above Claiborne Creek, and

5 to 72 NTU above Shasta Lake. TSS sampling that occurred during these events showed

TSS concentrations of up to 167 mg/l below McCloud reservoir (nearly two orders of

magnitude less than the peak reported in Mud Creek). Depending on the size of the Mud

Creek wasting event, the post-event “cleansing” period can last anywhere from a few

days to more than a week. Turbidity levels typically spike on the day the event pulse

reaches the dam outlet and then decline significantly over the next several days (typically

4-8 days).

In the Iron Canyon watershed, turbidity levels within the interbasin transfer from

the McCloud River watershed during Mud Creek events were slightly above those found

during base-flow conditions due to a number of factors: dilution, dispersion, and

diffusion due to the large volume of the two upstream reservoirs, as well as the elevation

of the discharge intake/outlet structures relative to the elevations of turbidity plumes

associated with a particular event. Continuous data at Iron Canyon dam measured
112

maximum daily average turbidity during two August-September, 2008, Mud Creek

events of 5.5 NTU, representing a change of 4.2 NTU above pre-event levels.

Under base-flow conditions in the Pit River watershed, turbidity ranges were

0.8 to 2.1 NTU (3 to 6 mg/l TSS) upstream of James B. Black powerhouse, 1.5 to

4.1 NTU (2 to 3 mg/l TSS) below Pit 6 powerhouse, and 1.1 to 6.8 NTU (2 to 5 mg/l

TSS) below Pit 7 powerhouse. These baseline turbidity data indicate that conditions in

the Pit River upstream of the James B. Black powerhouse (above the interbasin transfer)

were similar to those measured downstream of the Pit 5 powerhouse (downstream of all

diversion inputs) during non-event periods.

During periods when mass wasting is occurring upstream on Mount Shasta, some

signal of Mud Creek turbidity reaching the Iron Canyon Creek sites was apparent, with

turbidity increases of up to 4 NTU above pre-event levels in August and September,

2008. However, the large volume of flow coming from the Pit 3, 4, and 5 project, as well

as settling that occurs in Pit 6 and Pit 7 reservoirs, attenuates any potential effects of

turbidity in the Pit River system. Only one of the two major turbidly events occurring in

2008 was measured by the continuous recording sensor in the Lower Pit River; the

maximum turbidity at this site during the August 2008 Mud Creek event was measured as

2.6 NTU, about 1 NTU above pre-event levels.

The increases in suspended sediment concentrations and turbidity in Iron Canyon

Creek and the Pit River, resulting from interbasin transfer between the McCloud River

basin and the Iron Canyon Creek and Pit River basins during episodic mass-wasting

events, caused temporary exceedances of basin plan criteria. However, as stated above,

the suspended sediment levels in the Pit River watershed resulting from water transfers

from McCloud reservoir during Mud Creek events were minimal (<4.5 NTU) and would

not deleteriously affect fish populations in Pit 6 reservoir or in downstream

impoundments.

3.3.2.1.3 Aquatic Biota

The project area supports both stream and reservoir fisheries. Project stream

reaches include a rainbow and brown trout fishery in the Lower McCloud River and Iron

Canyon Creek. The project reservoirs—Pit 6 and 7 reservoirs and Pit 7 afterbay—also

support native minnow, sucker, and tule perch populations. In this section we describe

the aquatic habitats and aquatic biota within project-area waters.

Important and Special Status Fish Species

Rainbow and brown trout support important recreational fisheries in the project

area. The McCloud River historically had the only bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus)

population in the state of California until it was extirpated in 1975. The river also

supported Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), steelhead (Oncorhynchus

mykiss), and occasional coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). The Pit 6 reservoir

supports a population of hardhead, a California species of concern and a Forest Service

sensitive species.
113

Coastal rainbow trout are the trout species native to most west-side watersheds,

and were historically found below an elevation of 4,900 ft, but have been introduced

throughout the western Sierra Nevada including most of the project area. Rainbow trout

spawn in the spring, although the specific spawning time is influenced by factors such as

the genetic strain of the fish, water temperature, and period of daylight. Spawning

usually occurs in gravel riffles or gravel pockets of small streams. Females excavate a

nest, or “redd,” in the gravel and, after spawning, cover the eggs with gravel. After

hatching, the fry remain in the gravels until their yolk sacs are absorbed. The fry then

venture into open water, feeding on plankton and aquatic macroinvertebrates. As they

mature, they begin to feed on aquatic and terrestrial insects, and large trout also feed on

fish and crayfish.

Brown trout are an introduced species in California, and occur mainly in low- to

mid-elevation ranges. Brown trout spawn in the fall, although the specific spawning time

is influenced by factors such as the genetic strain of the fish, water temperature, and

period of daylight. Spawning usually occurs in gravel riffles or gravel pockets of small

streams. Despite differences in timing, the spawning and rearing characteristics of brown

trout are similar to rainbow trout. Brown trout can be found in tributaries, rivers, lakes,

and reservoirs. Adults generally remain near the bottom of pools, while juveniles can be

found in riffles as well as in pools. Brown trout prefer temperatures below 20°C, and

have high growth rates at water temperatures between 12 and 20°C (Moyle, 2002).

Brown trout compete with other trout species for resources.

Hardhead are a large, native minnow generally found in undisturbed areas of

larger low- to middle-elevation streams (elevation between 30 and 4,760 ft in the

Sacramento and San Joaquin watersheds). Its range extends from the Kern River in the

south to the Pit River in the north. Hardhead inhabit areas that have clear, deep pools

with sandy, gravel/boulder substrates and slow water velocities (less than 0.05 ft per

second). Hardhead co-occur with Sacramento pikeminnow and usually with Sacramento

suckers, and tend to be absent from streams where introduced species, especially

centrarchids, predominate. Hardhead have been identified in the Pit 6 and Pit 7 reservoirs

during fish population surveys conducted in October 2007.

Prior to the completion of Shasta dam in 1942, Chinook salmon and other

anadromous fishes were able to travel up the McCloud River as far as the 20-ft-high

Lower Falls. Chinook salmon have been extirpated from the McCloud and Pit Rivers. In

addition, the extirpation of Chinook populations had further impacts by affecting other

species in the system, notably bull trout (originally identified as Dolly Varden) that feed

on early life stages of Chinook (California Fish and Game, 1990). In 1950, Keswick dam

was completed downstream of Shasta dam, further blocking anadromous fish passage

9 miles downstream of Shasta dam (Yoshiyama et al., 2001).

After the completion of McCloud dam in 1965, bull trout were present and

spawning access remained available within the Upper McCloud River (above McCloud

dam) and its tributaries, where both fry and juvenile rearing habitat are present. The
114

construction of McCloud dam, which blocked access to downstream adult holding

habitat, also created new adult habitat within the reservoir where cold, deep water was

abundant. However, following the construction of McCloud dam, the McCloud reservoir

was extensively stocked with rainbow trout, brown trout, and brook trout, and was

heavily promoted as a fishing destination. The brook trout did not survive or grow well,

and California Fish and Game ceased stocking brook trout but continued stocking brown

and rainbow trout. Bull trout harvest increased after McCloud reservoir opened to fishing

in 1966, and fish were present above McCloud dam up until around 1971 (California Fish

and Game, 1990). Although issues with the population were identified, angling

restrictions for bull trout were not adopted until 1976 (California Fish and Game, 1990)

when they had already been extirpated from the system. Given the loss of Chinook

salmon as a food source, over-harvesting by anglers, and the introduction of non-native

salmonids that most likely led to competition and hybridization between the species

yielding sterile offspring, the extirpation of bull trout within the Upper McCloud River

appears to be the cumulative effect of an array of stressors on the population to which

construction of the McCloud dam may have been but one contributing factor. Attempts

to reintroduce the species by California Fish and Game in the early 1990s were

unsuccessful and the effort was subsequently abandoned.

Following construction of the McCloud dam and other management objectives,

the fish community residing in the Lower McCloud River currently includes Sacramento

pikeminnow, riffle sculpin, Sacramento sucker, rainbow trout, and brown trout, with

additional fishes (e.g., smallmouth and spotted bass) likely entering the lower-most

section of the river from Shasta Lake periodically or on a seasonal basis.

Currently, the upper portion of the Lower McCloud River is managed as a

California Fish and Game wild trout stream, and is therefore no longer stocked; however,

California Fish and Game continues to stock sport fish in Shasta Lake. It is expected that

a portion of the trout that California Fish and Game releases in Shasta Lake migrate

upstream into portions of the Lower McCloud River. Monitoring conducted at a fish

counting weir near Ladybug Creek indicated that brown trout appear highly migratory in

comparison to rainbow trout within the Lower McCloud River (Moyle, unpublished;

California Fish and Game, 1994). In addition, California Fish and Game released 127,252

Chinook salmon in Shasta Lake as part of an ongoing mark/recapture study funded by the

licensee in 2005-2006 (letter from Jason F.R. Vann, License Coordinator, PG&E,

October 31, 2008). However, no Chinook salmon were observed during the fall, 2007,

McCloud River fish surveys.

Benthic Macroinvertebrates

The licensee conducted benthic macroinvertebrate sampling in the project-affected

reaches of the Lower McCloud River and Iron Canyon Creek in August and September,

2007, and November, 2008. During the 2007 sampling, the licensee also collected

reference samples from Squaw Valley Creek, a tributary of the McCloud River and Clear

Creek, a tributary to Iron Canyon reservoir. In addition, the licensee acquired historical
115

(1999–2008) benthic macroinvertebrate data for The Nature Conservancy’s McCloud

River Preserve for comparison purposes. From the 14 benthic samples collected by the

licensee in 2007 and 2008, a total of 6,970 organisms comprising 95 distinct taxa were

collected. Insects comprised a majority of the benthic community including 13 mayfly

taxa, 19 stonefly taxa, 18 caddisfly taxa, and 9 beetle taxa. Other invertebrates included

oligochaetes, clams, and gastropods.

A multimetric index (MMI) based on five metrics described by Rehn et al. (2007)

was formulated for each sample taken within the project area. MMI values of Iron

Canyon Creek were within or slightly below the range of MMI values of reference sites.

MMI values from the McCloud River sites were lower when compared to MMI values of

reference sites; however, MMI values generated from historical data collected over a

10-year period (1999–2008) on the McCloud River Preserve were consistently closer to

those of the reference sites and notably higher than those collected from the other Lower

McCloud River sites. Overall, the physical habitat data and benthic macroinvertebrate

samples collected over 10 years within the project area generally indicated good aquatic

habitat conditions and water quality.

Aquatic Mollusks

An aquatic mollusk survey was conducted in the summer and fall, 2007, to

inventory all mollusk species in the project vicinity including Forest Service special

status (FSSS) aquatic mollusk species. In total, three species of freshwater mussels, four

species of Sphaeriacian clams, and nine species of aquatic snails were found during the

2007 survey. The FSSS freshwater mussel species Anodonta californiensis/nuttalliana

was found in lentic habitat in the Pit 6 and Pit 7 reservoirs, and the FSSS aquatic snail

species Fluminicola seminalis was found in the Lower McCloud River at the confluence

of Chatterdown Creek. No FSSS aquatic mollusks were found in the proposed McCloud

or Pit 7 afterbay construction area surveys.

Reservoir Fish

In total, 20 different species have been documented in project reservoirs

(table 3-20). During fish surveys conducted in the fall of 2007 and 2008, a total of

15 species were observed, including four species (bluegill, brook trout, channel catfish,

and spotted bass) that had not been previously documented. Five species (bigeye

marbled sculpin, common carp, green sunfish, pit roach, and speckled dace) that were

historically observed in project reservoirs were not observed in the 2007 and 2008

surveys.
116

Table 3-20. Fish species documented in the McCloud-Pit Project reservoirs.

Species McCloud

Reservoira

Iron

Canyon

Reservoira

Pit 6

Reservoir

Pit 7

Reservoir

Pit 7

Afterbaya

bluegill ○

bigeye marbled

sculpin ●

brook trout ○

brown trout ○ ○ ●

channel catfish ○

common carp ●

green sunfish ●

hardhead ●○ ●○ ○

largemouth bass ● ●○

Pit roach ●

Pit sculpin ● ○

rainbow trout ○ ○ ● ●○ ○

riffle sculpin ●○

Sacramento

pikeminnow ●○ ○

Sacramento

sucker ●○ ●○ ○

smallmouth bass ● ●○ ○

speckled dace ●

spotted bass ○

tui chub ○

tule perch ●○ ●○

a No historical data available.

○ Species documented during 2007 and 2008 surveys.

● Species documented historically.
117

McCloud Reservoir

Fish species that occur in McCloud reservoir include naturally spawned rainbow

and brown trout and annually stocked hatchery raised rainbow trout. Brown trout, brook

trout, and rainbow trout were captured in the reservoir during the 2007 surveys. Rainbow

trout and brown trout were the more abundant species, representing more than 99 percent

of the total catch during gill net surveys. Both species were distributed evenly around the

reservoir and were captured in both shallow and deeper waters. Only one brook trout was

collected in the reservoir. During electrofishing surveys, brown trout and rainbow trout

were the only species collected. With the exception of brook trout, both juveniles and

adults of trout species were captured. No records of historic fish sampling in McCloud

reservoir were found for comparison to this study.

Iron Canyon Reservoir

Rainbow trout and brown trout were captured in the reservoir during the 2007

surveys. Rainbow and brown trout comprised 76 and 24 percent of the total catch,

respectively, during gill net surveys. Twenty-three fish consisting of rainbow trout and

brown trout were captured by electrofishing in the reservoir. About 8 percent of the

rainbow trout captured during fish surveys in Iron Canyon reservoir were identified as

hatchery-origin fish. Both juveniles and adults of rainbow and brown trout were

captured. No records of historic fish sampling in Iron Canyon reservoir were found for

comparison to this study.

Pit 6 Reservoir

Water temperature and water quality conditions in the Pit 6 reservoir support a

transitional-zone fish assemblage including native tule perch, hardhead, Sacramento

pikeminnow, and Sacramento sucker. During gill net surveys in 2007, tule perch and

hardhead represented 54 and 36 percent, respectively, of the total catch. Other species

collected in gill net surveys included Sacramento pikeminnow, Sacramento sucker, and

channel catfish. A total of two fish (one hardhead and one riffle sculpin) were captured

during electrofishing surveys. Six age classes of hardhead were identified in the

reservoir. Small sample sizes for Sacramento pikeminnow and Sacramento sucker

precluded definitive identification of age groups. Other fish historically documented in

the reservoir, but not captured in 2007, include rainbow trout, largemouth bass,

smallmouth bass, common carp, Pit roach (Hesperoleucus mitriulus), speckled dace

(Rhinichtyhs osculus), Pit sculpin (Cottus pitensis), and bigeye marbled sculpin

(California Fish and Game, 2001; PG&E, 2001). Additionally, channel catfish were

captured in 2007, but not reported in previous years.

Pit 7 Reservoir

Fish species that occur in the Pit 7 reservoir include tule perch, hardhead,

Sacramento sucker, Sacramento pikeminnow, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass,

rainbow trout, tui chub, and bluegill. During gill net surveys in 2007, tule perch was the

most abundant species, representing 47 percent of the fish captured, followed by
118

hardhead. During electrofishing surveys, Sacramento sucker was the most abundant

species, representing 42 percent of the fish captured. Three fish species captured in 2007

(bluegill, Sacramento pikeminnow, and tui chub) were not reported in previous years.

Pit 7 Afterbay

The reservoir fish assemblage in Pit 7 afterbay includes hardhead, Sacramento

sucker, rainbow trout, spotted bass, smallmouth bass, and Pit sculpin. During gill net

surveys in 2007, hardhead was the most abundant species, representing 86 percent of the

fish captured, followed by Sacramento sucker. All other fish species represented less

than 1 percent of the total fish captured. During the 2007 electrofishing surveys,

hardhead was the dominant species captured followed by Sacramento sucker, rainbow

trout, spotted bass, smallmouth bass, and Pit sculpin. Hardhead were primarily in the

upstream portion of the impoundment (below Pit 7 dam), which has a more riverine

character, while warmwater species (smallmouth and spotted bass) were primarily in the

downstream, lacustrine portion of the impoundment near the Pit 7 afterbay dam.

Additionally, more than 1,000 juvenile hardhead were observed within the upstream

riverine portion of the impoundment during electrofishing in Pit 7 afterbay.

Stream Fish Populations

PG&E conducted fish surveys at eight sites on the mainstem Lower McCloud

River in fall, 2007, and three sites on Iron Canyon Creek in 2007 and 2008. A total of six

species of fish were observed in the Lower McCloud River and Iron Canyon Creek

during these surveys.

Lower McCloud River

The Lower McCloud River travels about 24 miles over an elevation range of

1,425 ft (1.1 percent average gradient) from 2,500 ft at McCloud dam to 1,075 ft at

Shasta Lake (non-project). Groundwater springs provide a continuous source of cold

water to the upper McCloud River. Flow in the Lower McCloud River is regulated by

releases from McCloud dam, but receives significant groundwater discharge from springs

and tributaries; water temperatures supporting the coldwater fishery averaged 9.0°C

below McCloud dam and 14.6°C above Shasta Lake between May and October 2008.

This cold water supports a viable trout fishery throughout the entire 24-mile-long reach.

The Lower McCloud River also supports a Sacramento sucker / pikeminnow assemblage

just above Shasta Lake; these species are typically associated with foothill elevations and

transitional zone water temperatures and probably enter the lower river from Lake Shasta.

The current license establishes minimum instream flows below McCloud dam for

the protection of aquatic resources and the high quality coldwater fishery. Flow in the

Lower McCloud River ranges from a minimum monthly mean of 204 cfs in August to a

maximum monthly mean of 484 cfs in March (as measured at gage MC-1). The Lower

McCloud River hydrograph indicates a relatively stable base-flow regime with relatively

minimal annual variance outside of high flow events driven by snow melt or prolonged

moderately intense rainfall. The limited base-flow variability in the Lower McCloud
119

River at gage MC-1 under regulated conditions is affected by minimum flow releases

from McCloud dam for aquatic resources. Variability in the flow regime increases with

distance downstream, due to significant tributary inflow at various locations. The

licensee, as required by the current license (article 31), provides minimum instream flow

releases with compliance determined at two locations: McCloud dam and the Lower

McCloud River at Ah-Di-Na. At McCloud dam, required minimum flows are 50 cfs

from May 1 through November 30, and 40 cfs from December 1 through April 30; actual

flow releases are usually much higher in order to meet downstream requirements at the

Ah-Di-Na gage. For the Lower McCloud River at Ah-Di-Na (gage MC-1), there are dual

minimum flow requirements for dry and normal years: dry year minimum instream flow

requirements range from 160 to 180 cfs, depending on the month. During normal years,

the minimum instream flow requirement at Ah-Di-Na ranges from 160 to 210 cfs,

depending on the month.

Mud Creek, a tributary upstream of McCloud dam, can adversely affect water

clarity in the reservoir and Lower McCloud River by periodically discharging large

amounts of sediment composed of fine volcanic material released naturally from the

Konwakiton glacier on Mount Shasta. Discharge of this suspended material from Mud

Creek continues to be a fisheries and aesthetic concern affecting turbidity in the Lower

McCloud River.

The dominant substrate in the Lower McCloud River is coarse-grained

boulder/cobble with many large boulders and bedrock outcrops. Total spawnable gravel

quantity increases gradually from McCloud dam downstream to near Ah-Di-Na

Campground. Below Ah-Di-Na, overall spawnable gravel quantity increases down to

Ladybug Creek. The quality of spawnable gravel improves from McCloud dam to

Ladybug Creek; gravel quality upstream of Hawkins Creek was “fair” to “poor,” whereas

gravel quality below Hawkins Creek was “good” on average. The number of brown trout

redds observed also increased downstream to just below Ah-Di-Na Campground. Below

Ah-Di-Na, the frequency of redds observed was low, although the abundance of

spawnable gravel continued to increase. Overall, the majority of gravel patches were less

than 100 square feet in size and ranged from “poor” to “excellent” in quality.

LWD in the river channel can provide a significant source of cover for juvenile

and adult fish. A review of existing LWD inventories shows that there is very little LWD

stored in the Lower McCloud River channel between McCloud dam and Shasta Lake.

LWD transported from the upper watershed is trapped at McCloud reservoir and not

distributed downstream to the Lower McCloud River.

Fishes observed in the Lower McCloud River in 2007 included rainbow trout,

brown trout, riffle sculpin, unidentified sculpin species, Sacramento sucker, Sacramento

pikeminnow, and unidentified minnow species. Rainbow trout and brown trout were

observed in similar relative abundance at all sites. Rainbow trout were numerically

dominant overall with the exception of the downstream-most site, which included a

higher percentage of sculpin. Trout and sculpin species were distributed throughout the
120

Lower McCloud River. Sacramento suckers were only observed at the sites immediately

upstream and downstream of Tuna Falls. Minnow species (including Sacramento

pikeminnow) were observed only at the downstream-most site. During 1984-1987,

surveys at a fish weir installed about 1 mile upstream of Shasta Lake on the Lower

McCloud River documented brown trout, rainbow trout, Sacramento sucker, Sacramento

pikeminnow, smallmouth bass, Chinook salmon, and kokanee. Observation from an

upstream fish weir installed on the Lower McCloud River near Ladybug Creek during the

same period documented brown trout and rainbow trout.

Iron Canyon Creek

Iron Canyon Creek travels 4.6 miles over an elevation range of 1,041 ft

(4.3 percent average gradient), from 2,470 ft at Iron Canyon dam to 1,430 ft at the

confluence with Pit 6 reservoir. Iron Canyon Creek receives water from Iron Canyon

reservoir, which receives water diverted from McCloud reservoir and from a few small

tributary streams. Minimum stream flow in Iron Canyon Creek is maintained by a yearround minimum release of 3 cfs from Iron Canyon reservoir. Accretion from small

tributary streams increases flow in Iron Canyon Creek by 2 to 3 cfs under low flow

conditions. During non-runoff periods in 2007, moderate accretion sources increased

flows at the mouth of Iron Canyon Creek by 2 to 4 cfs over the minimum release flow.

Once a year, typically in the late fall or early winter, high flows are released down Iron

Canyon Creek for a short period (usually under 30 minutes) during a valve exercise.

Flow releases during this exercise vary depending on reservoir water levels, but were

about 280 cfs in 2008, and are high enough to mobilize some LWD and transport fine

sediments downstream.

Mean daily water temperatures at the mouth of Iron Canyon Creek ranged between

8.4°C and 17.3°C from May through October 2007. Temperatures immediately

downstream of Iron Canyon dam exhibit minimal daily and monthly fluctuations,

reflecting reservoir releases of cold hypolimnetic water. Pools make up 25 percent of the

stream channel, with flatwater and riffle habitat accounting for the remaining 37 and

38 percent, respectively. The stream channel has an abundance of riparian shade and

ample vegetative, structural, and LWD cover for fish. Excluding the lower and upper

0.5 mile, spawning substrate is evenly distributed longitudinally along the stream

channel. Iron Canyon Creek supports a self-sustaining trout population.

During 2007 and 2008 surveys, three fish species were observed in Iron Canyon

Creek including rainbow trout, Pit sculpin, and brown trout. Rainbow trout were

observed at all sites and were numerically dominant overall, whereas brown trout were

observed at the lower and upper sites and Pit sculpin were observed at the two lower

sites.
121

3.3.2.2 Environmental Effects

Minimum Flows

Reduced flow and limited seasonal variation in flow associated with project

operations at McCloud and Iron Canyon reservoirs and diversion of water to the project

powerhouses affect habitat for aquatic biota and recreational opportunities in downstream

reaches. Therefore, minimum instream flow requirements for the reaches in Lower

McCloud River below McCloud dam, Iron Canyon Creek below Iron Canyon dam, and

the Pit River below Pit 7 dam are established to meet both aquatic biota and recreational

needs. Minimum flow levels may also substantially influence other resources including

foothill yellow-legged frog breeding (see section 3.3.3, Terrestrial Resources), wading

conditions for anglers and boating opportunities (see section 3.3.5, Recreation

Resources), and project generation (see section 4.2, Comparison of Alternatives). Flows

that support optimal conditions can differ significantly among these various resources

and users. Therefore, the regulated flow regime under the proposed action seeks to

balance these various objectives. Resource agencies and several other non-government

stakeholders provided recommendations regarding minimum flows in each reach.

Flow Recommendation

In its final license application, PG&E proposed a minimum flow regime for each

of these reaches that varies by month and water year type in order to more closely reflect

a natural hydrograph for the system and support aquatic resources and other users.

Additionally, PG&E alternative condition 19 proposes modifications to instream flows.

In all cases, the proposed flows (tables 3-21 through 3-24) are equal to or greater than the

flows that are required in the current project license (table 3-6).

Forest Service condition 19 specifies seasonal flow regimes for each of these

reaches: lower McCloud River (tables-3-21), Iron Canyon Creek (table 3-22), and Pit 7

(table 3-23). Additionally, California Fish and Game and NMFS filed a 10(j)

recommendation for the Lower McCloud River below McCloud dam (table 3-21).

California Fisheries and Water Unlimited, and the California Salmon and Steelhead

Association, support the existing daily flow requirements for the Lower McCloud River

below McCloud dam. The McCloud River Club states that any significant increase in

flows on the lower McCloud River during the early fishing season could harm trout

populations and the ability of anglers to safely fish during the spring season (see section

3.3.5, Recreation Resources) and cite the state classification and reputation of this reach

as a world class wild trout fishery under existing conditions.

Trout Unlimited, California Trout, and McCloud River Club alternative condition

19 recommends modifications to instream flows when flows are increasing between midMarch and mid-April (table 3-24). By recommending the minimum flows increase at a

lower rate in relatively normal water years and decrease at a higher rate in wetter years,

the Trout Unlimited, California Trout, and McCloud River Club alternative would

increase the number of available angling days in late April and May. Trout Unlimited,
122

California Trout, and the McCloud River Club support the Forest Service’s proposed

minimum baseflow of 200 cfs at Ah-Di-Na (MC-1) but suggest that summer base flows

at Ah-Di-Na should be the higher of (1) 200 cfs, or (2) the historic average summer base

flows during normal years under the existing license (about 210 to 220 cfs).

McCloud RiverKeepers filed alternative condition 19 flows that proposed

minimum flow releases at McCloud dam (MC-7) of 100 cfs year-round and a second

compliance point at MC-7 with minimum flows ranging from 160 to 210 cfs (table 3-25).

McCloud RiverKeepers’ basis for their proposed flows is that they allow the project to

produce more power than the Forest Service condition 19 flows and keep similar

minimum flows as those under the current license will support existing fish populations.

NMFS filed a 10(j) recommendation that, as soon as listed salmonids are

documented as within the McCloud River and affected by the project, PG&E should

consider and implement NMFS’s instream flow release ranges from McCloud dam

during July-September to meet the thermal summer spawning requirements for winterrun Chinook salmon. Additionally, in its comments on the proposed action, NMFS

recommended establishing a higher base flow downstream of McCloud dam so that

winter/spring spill and its cessation would not result in appreciable differences in habitat

conditions.

In addition to formal 10(j) recommendations, NMFS also submitted comments on

the proposed action, specifically stating that release volumes (and instream flows)

downstream of McCloud dam should be within a range acceptable for meeting the

physical habitat and biological criteria requirements of listed salmonids. According to

the NMFS comment, in the event of a turbine shutdown, a continuous flow bypass would

be required to maintain suitable ranges of flow releases beneficial to listed salmonids.

American Whitewater recommended the following flows at McCloud dam: peak

flows of 600 cfs during April and ramping down through May in wet and above normal

years; at least 400 cfs during the month of April in below normal water years; and flows

of 300 cfs ramping down to 200 cfs base flows by the opening day of trout season in dry

and critically dry years.

Flow Compliance

PG&E and the resource agencies also propose ways to comply with the minimum

flows that differ. PG&E proposes that the minimum flow requirements be met on the

basis of the seven-day running average of mean daily flow. PG&E proposes the

following: (1) individual mean daily flows may be less than the required minimum

stream flow; (2) the instantaneous 15-minute stream flow should be at least 90 percent of

the required minimum stream flow; and (3) the seven-day running average of the daily

mean be equivalent to or greater than the required minimum flow.

California Fish and Game recommends and Forest Service condition 19 specifies

that compliance be based on two measurements of flow: instantaneous and mean daily

average. Instantaneous measurement of instream flows for the Lower McCloud River
123

and Iron Canyon Creek should occur at time intervals not to exceed 15 minute; mean

daily flow would be calculated from all instantaneous readings between midnight of one

day and midnight of the next. California Fish and Game and the Forest Service specify

that the instantaneous flow should be at least 80 percent of the specified mean daily flow

for minimum flows less than or equal to 10 cfs, and at least 90 percent of the specified

mean daily flow for minimum flows greater than 10 cfs. California Fish and Game and

the Forest Service specify that, should the mean daily flow be less than the required mean

daily flow, while the instantaneous flows are higher than the 80-90 percent required,

PG&E should begin releasing the equivalent under-released volume of water within 7

days of discovery of the under-release. Credit for such additional releases would not

exceed 20 percent of the instantaneous flow amount, when used to attain the equivalent

of the under-released volume.

California Fish and Game and Forest Service specify that compliance with

minimum instream flows at Pit 7 (table 3-23) should be based on instantaneous flow

measurements.
124

Table 3-21. Minimum flows proposed, specified, or recommended for gage MC-7 below McCloud dam (USGS gage

11367760) by PG&E, the Forest Service, California Fish and Game, and NMFS. (Source: Staff)

Release from McCloud Dam (cfs) by Water Yeara

All Water Years Normal Dry

Critically

Dry

Month

PG&E Final

License

Application

(FLA) PG&E Alt 4(e) FS (revised 3/1/2010) DFG & FS (original 1/29/2010) NMFSe

October 150 175f175f200

November 150 175f175f200

December Min. 200,

Target 220 175f175f200

January Min. 200,

Target 220 175f175f200

February

1-14

Min. 200,

Target 220 175f175f200

February

15-29

Min. 200,

Target 220

0-75%

ROb No flow change 0-75% RObNo flow change 0-75% RObNo flow change

76-89%

ROb No flow change 76-89% RObNo flow change 76-89% RObNo flow change

90-99%

ROb

Increase flow

by 75 cfs 90-99% ROb Increase flowby 75 cfs 90-99% ROb Increase flow by 50cfs

100-119%

ROb

Increase flow

by 125 cfs

100-119%

ROb

Increase flow

by 125 cfs

100-119%

ROb

Increase flow by

100 cfs

≥120%

ROb

Increase flow

by 175 cfs ≥120% ROb Increase flowby 175 cfs ≥120% ROb Increase flow by150 cfs
125

Release from McCloud Dam (cfs) by Water Yeara

All Water Years Normal Dry

Critically

Dry

Month

PG&E Final

License

Application

(FLA) PG&E Alt 4(e) FS (revised 3/1/2010) DFG & FS (original 1/29/2010) NMFSe

March

1-15

Min. 200,

Target 220

0-75%

ROb No flow change 0-75% RObNo flow change 0-75% RObNo flow change

76-89%

ROb

Increase flow

by 50 cfs 76-89% ROb Increase flowby 50 cfs 76-89% ROb Increase flow by 50cfs

90-99%

ROb

Increase flow

by 50 cfs 90-99% ROb Increase flowby 50 cfs 90-99% ROb Increase flow by 50cfs

100-119%

ROb

Increase flow

by 100 cfs

100-119%

ROb

Increase flow

by 100 cfs

100-119%

ROb

Increase flow by

100 cfs

≥120%

ROb

Increase flow

by 150 cfs ≥120% ROb Increase flowby 150 cfs ≥120% ROb Increase flow by150 cfs

March

16-31

Min. 200,

Target 220

0-75%

ROc No flow change 0-75% ROcNo flow change 0-75% ROcNo flow change

76-89%

ROc No flow change

76-89% ROc

No flow change 76-89% ROcNo flow change

90-99%

ROc

Increase flow

by 50 cfs 90-99% ROc Increase flowby 50 cfs 90-99% ROc Increase flow by 50cfs

100-119%

ROc

Increase flow

by 100 cfs

100-119%

ROc

Increase flow

by 100 cfs

100-119%

ROc

Increase flow by

100 cfs

≥120%

ROc

Increase flow

by 150 cfs ≥120% ROc Increase flowby 150 cfs ≥120% ROc Increase flow by150 cfs
126

Release from McCloud Dam (cfs) by Water Yeara

All Water Years Normal Dry

Critically

Dry

Month

PG&E Final

License

Application

(FLA) PG&E Alt 4(e) FS (revised 3/1/2010) DFG & FS (original 1/29/2010) NMFSe

April 1-15 Min. 200,

Target 220

0-75%

ROc No flow change 0-75% ROcNo flow change 0-75% ROcNo flow change

76-89%

ROc No flow change 76-89% RO

c

No flow change 76-89% ROcNo flow change

90-99%

ROc No flow change 90-99% ROcNo flow change 90-99% ROcNo flow change

100-119%

ROc

Increase flow

by 50 cfs

100-119%

ROc

Increase flow

by 50 cfs

100-119%

ROc

Increase flow by 50

cfs

≥120%

ROc

Increase flow

by 50 cfs ≥120% ROc Increase flowby 50 cfs ≥120% ROc Increase flow by 50cfs

April 16-

last

Fri/Sat

Min. 200,

Target 220

April 15

MC-7

Release ≥

200 cfs

Decrease flow

by 50 cfs each

Friday after

April 15 until

flow is 200 cfs

& maintain 200

cfs release at

MC-7 through

June 30

April 15 MC7 Release ≥

200 cfs

Decrease flow

by 50 cfs each

Friday after

April 15 until

flow is 200 cfs

& maintain 200

cfs release at

MC-7 through

June 30

0-89% ROd Decrease flow by

50 cfs (maintain

min. 200 cfs)

April 15

MC-7

Release

<200 cfs

175 cfs at MC7; maintain at

least 200 cfs at

Ah-Di-Na (MC1)

April 15 MC7 Release

<200 cfs

175 cfs at MC7; maintain at

least 200 cfs at

Ah-Di-Na (MC1)

≥90% ROd No flow change

Last

Fri/Sat in

AprilApril 30

Min. 200,

Target 220

Decrease flow 50 cfs each Friday

to 200 cfs

May 150 200 200 200

June 150 200 200 200
127

Release from McCloud Dam (cfs) by Water Yeara

All Water Years Normal Dry

Critically

Dry

Month

PG&E Final

License

Application

(FLA) PG&E Alt 4(e) FS (revised 3/1/2010) DFG & FS (original 1/29/2010) NMFSe

July 150 175f175f200 400-600 400-600 ~600

August 150 175f175f200 300-400 300-400 ~400

September 150 175f175f200 150-300 150-300 ~400

Notes:

a Using most recent California Water Resources Sacramento Valley Water Year Type Index forecast.

b

February 1 McCloud runoff (RO) percentage from DWR Bulletin 120.

c March 1 McCloud runoff (RO) percentage from DWR Bulletin 120.

d April 1 McCloud runoff (RO) percentage from DWR Bulletin 120.

e

Flows recommended when listed salmonids are present in McCloud River.

f Mean daily flow at USGS gage 11367800 (MC-1) at Ah-Di-Na should be at least 200 cfs.

Shaded values are consistent with flows specified in Forest Service condition 19 (revised 3/1/2010).

The release requirement for the current license is 50 cfs from May 1 to Nov 30 and 40 cfs from Dec 1 to Apr 30 in all years.
128

Table 3-22. Minimum flows proposed, specified, or recommended for gage MC-10 below Iron Canyon dam (USGS gage

11363930). (Source: Staff)

Release from Iron Canyon Dam (cfs) by Water Yeara

Wet Above Normal

Below Normal, Dry, Critically

Dry

Month

PG&E

FLA

PG&E

Alt

4(e)cFS DFG

PG&E

FLA

PG&E

Alt

4(e)dFS DFG

PG&E

FLA

PG&E

Alt

4(e)eFS DFG

October 10 10 10 7 7 7 5 7 7

November 10 10 10 7 7 7 5 7 7

December 15 15f15 same 10 10f10 same 7 7

f

7 same

January 15 15 15 10 10 10 7 7 7

February 15 15g15 as 10 10g10 as 7 7

g

7 as

March 20 >20b,g >20b15 15g15 10 10g10

April 20 >20b,g >20bFS 15 15g15 FS 10 10g10 FS

May 15 15g15 10 10g10 7 7

g

7

June 15 15 15 10 10 10 7 7 7

July 10 10 10 7 7 7 5 7 7

August 10 10 10 7 7 7 5 7 7

September 10 10 10 7 7 7 5 7 7

Notes:

a Using most recent California Water Resources Sacramento Valley Water Year Type Index forecast.
129

b

In March and April of wet water years, the flow control valve on Iron Canyon dam should be fully opened. Mean

daily flow should be at least 20 cfs during this period.

c Defined as less than 100% of average April-July forecasted runoff in Bulletin 120 for McCloud River at Shasta Lake.

d Defined as 100-119% of average April-July forecasted runoff in Bulletin 120 for McCloud River at Shasta Lake.

e Defined as 120% or greater of average April-July forecasted runoff in Bulletin 120 for McCloud River at Shasta

Lake.

f

Flow changes during December would be performed as soon as weather and site accessibility permit.

g

Flow changes during these months would be made once, within five business days of the actual publication date of

that month's DWR Bulletin 120, or as soon as permitted by weather and site accessibility.

Shaded values are consistent with flows specified in Forest Service condition 19.

The release requirement for the current license is 3 cfs year-round. The previous month's flows would continue through the

first several days of the months where forecasts are used to determine flows, until the new flow has been determined and the

flow change made.

Table 3-23. Minimum flows proposed, specified, or recommended for gage PH-47 below Pit 7 dam (USGS gage

11365000). (Source: Staff)

Release from Pit 7 Dam (cfs)

PG&E FLA Alt 4(e) Forest Service

California Fish and

Game

150 (when Shasta

Lake elevation

<1,055 ft.)

NA 150 (year-round

instantaneous flow)

Same as Forest

Service

Notes: Shaded values are consistent with flows specified in Forest Service condition 19.

The release requirement for the current license is 150 cfs whenever the elevation of Shasta Lake is below 1,055 ft.
130

Table 3-24. Minimum flows proposed by the Forest Service, California Trout, Trout Unlimited, and McCloud River Club

for gage MC-7 below McCloud dam (USGS gage 11367760). Specified flow increases are relative to flows

specified in table 3-21 for the same date interval. Variations from Forest Service condition 19 are indicated in

bold. (Source: Staff)

Release from McCloud Dam (cfs) by Water Yeara

Month FS (revised 3/1/2010)

Trout Unlimited, California Trout, and McCloud River

Club alt 4(e)

March 16-

31

100-119% RObIncrease flow by 100 cfs 100-119% RObIncrease flow by 50 cfs

≥120% RObIncrease flow by 150 cfs ≥120% RObIncrease flow by 150 cfs

April 1-15 100-119% RObIncrease flow by 50 cfs 100-119% ROb No flow change

≥120% RObIncrease flow by 50 cfs ≥120% RObIncrease flow by 50 cfs

April 16-

last Fri/Sat

April 15 MC-7

Release ≥ 200

cfs

Decrease flow by 50 cfs

each Friday after April

15 until flow is 200 cfs

& maintain 200 cfs

release at MC-7 through

June 30

April 15 MC-7

Release ≥ 200

cfs

Decrease flow by 50 cfs each Friday after

April 15 (if 0-99%ROd) and by 75 cfs per

week (if ≥100%ROc) until flow is 200 cfs.

Decrease flow by 50 cfs each Friday after

May 1 until flow is 200 cfsd. Maintain 200

cfs release at MC-7 through June 30

Last

Fri/Sat in

AprilApril 30

April 15 MC-7

Release <200

cfs

175 cfs at MC-7;

maintain at least 200 cfs

at Ah-Di-Na (MC-1)

April 15 MC-7

Release <200

cfs

175 cfs at MC-7; maintain at least 200 cfs at

Ah-Di-Na (MC-1)

a Using most recent California Water Resources Sacramento Valley Water Year Type Index forecast.

b March 1 McCloud runoff (RO) percentage from DWR Bulletin 120.

c April 1 McCloud runoff (RO) percentage from DWR Bulletin 120.

d Matches Forest Service original condition 19.
131

Table 3-25. Minimum flows (cfs) proposed by the McCloud RiverKeepers for gage MC-7 below McCloud dam (USGS

gage 11367760) and for gage MC-1 at Ah-Di-Na (USGS gage 11367800) compared to revised Forest Service

condition 19 and PG&E alternative condition 19. (Source: Staff)

McCloud dam (MC-7) Ah-Di-Na (MC-1)

Month Forest

Service RiverKeepers Forest Service Normal year Dry Year

January 175 100 200 160 160

February 175-350 100 200 160 160

March 175-650 100 200 170 170

April 175-700 100 200 170 170

May 1-15 175-550 100 200 170 160

May 16-31 175-400 100 200 200 160

June 175-200 100 200 200 160

July 175 100 200 200 160

August 175 100 200 200 160

September 175 100 200 210 180

October 175 100 200 210 180

November 175 100 200 210 180

December 1-15 175 100 200 210 180

December 16-31 175 100 200 170 170
132

Our Analysis

To develop the flows proposed in their license application, PG&E used three flow

studies (HCM, Individual Base Modeling [IBM], and Physical Habitat Simulation

Modeling [PHABSIM]) as well as macroinvertebrate, fisheries, and riparian vegetation

studies to determine appropriate flows for aquatic and terrestrial biota. The HCM method

was used to estimate total available habitat area in the Lower McCloud River for each

trout life stage in order to evaluate the effects of varying stream flow on rainbow and

brown trout habitat. Evaluation of both rainbow and brown trout was also included in an

IBM based on two subreaches of the Lower McCloud River, which assessed key

population responses, such as persistence, abundance, biomass, and size distributions

under relevant hydrologic and thermal regimes. Instream flow incremental methodology

(IFIM) and PHABSIM modeling were used to evaluate flow conditions and habitat

criteria for each life stage of rainbow trout in Iron Canyon Creek downstream of Iron

Canyon dam. In response to comments from resource agencies on the final license

application, PG&E also performed PHABSIM model runs for the lower McCloud River

for comparison with HCM and IBM results.

PG&E used the HCM to estimate suitable habitat for trout below McCloud dam

under flows of about 200, 300, 400, 600, 800, and 1000 cfs (as measured at the Ah-Di-Na

gage) at sites upstream of Squaw Valley Creek and at flows of about 300, 400, 600, 800,

and 1000 cfs at sites downstream of Squaw Valley Creek. PG&E, in cooperation with

interested relicensing participants, developed habitat criteria for rainbow and brown trout

based on a review of existing literature. The developed habitat criteria included water

depth and velocity criteria for fry, juvenile, adult, and spawning life stages. The results

of PG&E’s HCM study shows that the lowest study flows likely provide the most suitable

habitat for rainbow and brown trout in comparison to the other measured flows.

The Forest Service reviewed the results of the HCM to evaluate its value in

determining minimum flows for McCloud dam. The Forest Service determined that in

the upper reach of the study area, maximum trout habitat would occur at flows between

190 and 250 cfs. In the lower reach the Forest Service suggested that maximum trout

habitat would occur at flows between 250 and 450 cfs. However, the Forest Service also

concluded that the HCM analysis could not be used to accurately determine flows that

would provide maximum habitat.

PG&E also analyzed instream flows in the Lower McCloud River using IBM to

evaluate the responses of rainbow trout and brown trout to various flow regimes and

water quality conditions. PG&E evaluated five flow regimes in the model: unimpaired,

historic (1990-2006), constant year round, constant summer varying only in winter, and

constant winter flows varying only in summer. Results of the unimpaired and historic

flow evaluation predicted that trout abundance was higher under project flows compared

to pre-project unimpaired flows. The results of the year-round flow evaluation predicted

that increasing flow above about 200 cfs at Ah-Di-Na (MC-1) would not increase trout

abundance and would decrease the relative abundance of rainbow versus brown trout.
133

For varying summer flows, the model predicted that increasing summer flow above about

200 cfs would decrease relative abundance of rainbow trout. The varying winter flow

evaluation produced variable results between sample sites: at the upper site near MC-1,

the model predicted little change to trout abundance under simulated flows and at the

lower site near MC-5, increasing flows above 200 cfs produced a decline in trout

abundance. An increase in brown trout abundance was predicted as flows increased from

100 to 300 cfs. The results of the study suggest that more controlled flows at the

McCloud dam may result in more stable habitat conditions for resident trout populations;

however, PG&E noted that higher pre-project unimpaired flow regime may have been

more suitable for extirpated species including listed salmonids and bull trout compared to

resident trout.

PG&E used the PHABSIM model to compare spawning habitat in Iron Canyon

Creek under the existing minimum flows to that under unimpaired flows. Compared to

unimpaired conditions, the model results show the higher flows of the existing minimum

flow regime at the top of the reach provide lower spawning weighted usable area (WUA)

and the lower flows in the lower reach result in higher spawning WUA. The Forest

Service evaluated the PHABSIM model results and noted that flows need to exceed 8 cfs

before the entire channel and its margins are filled to some extent and flows in the range

of 16 to 20 cfs provide some depth of flow in side channel areas. Furthermore, the Forest

Service indicated base flow in the range of 7 to 10 cfs would be suitable for juveniles in

the summer/fall period (July through October), and a spawning period flow in the range

of 20 to 40 cfs is appropriate for March and April. Studies indicated that a self-sustaining

rainbow trout population currently inhabits the waters of Iron Canyon Creek. Increasing

the minimum instream flow from a year-round 3 cfs, to a seasonally variable flow, with a

minimum of 7cfs will provide more usable habitat for all life stages of rainbow trout,

while introducing a late winter-spring peak flow that mimics natural hydrologic

conditions will provide more suitable habitat for spawning trout. Additionally, providing

seasonally variable flow conditions will increase habitat heterogeneity, an important

factor in providing for overall aquatic species diversity, and therefore, ecosystem health.

The minimum mean daily flows specified by the Forest Service for lower McCloud

River, Iron Canyon Creek, and Pit 7 afterbay, shown in tables 3-21 through 3-23, are the

same as PG&E alternative condition 19 flows during all months; however, PG&E

recommended that flow changes during February through May at Iron Canyon dam

should be made within five business days of the actual publication date of that month's

DWR Bulletin 120 because of potential seasonal access issues to the site. Similarly,

PG&E recommended that flow changes in December be conducted as soon as weather

and site accessibility permit.

Flows recommended by California Fish and Game (see tables 3-21through 3-23)

are the same as those specified by Forest Service condition 19. California Fish and Game

recommended flows differ from the revised Forest Service condition 19 flows for the

reach below McCloud dam for the following time periods: February 15-29, April 16-30,

and May through February 14. Following review of the modeling studies conducted by
134

PG&E, California Fish and Game determined that a base flow of 200 cfs below McCloud

dam as measured at USGS gage no. 1136770 should be implemented (compared to 175

cfs proposed by PG&E and the Forest Service), with flow augmentation from February

14 to June 30 (3-WQ2). The flows recommended by California Fish and Game for Iron

Canyon dam and Pit 7 afterbay are the same as the Forest Service recommended flows.

As previously stated, during pre-license application consultation the resource

agencies proposed several methods (HCM, IBM, PHABSIM) to analyze the relationship

between flow and quality and quantity of aquatic habitat available to target species and

life stages in the lower McCloud River. Despite differences among methods, the

predicted optimum flow for peak available habitat demonstrated consistency. PHABSIM

modeling runs first using all study transects (TM-74) and second using a subset of

transects (TM-75) provided nearly identical estimates of flows for peak habitat for each

life stage evaluated, demonstrating the robustness of the model. Similarly results of IBM

and HCM generally indicated that flows at the lower end of the range studied (175-

200 cfs) provide greatest abundance or highest habitat values, respectively. The various

flow recommendations from licensing participants are all designed to create a seasonal

hydrograph that is more typical of natural patterns for the lower McCloud River with

increasing flows during late winter and early spring followed by decreasing flows

through late spring to base flow through the summer and fall. Differences among flow

recommendations among participants relate to base flow and where it is measured and the

rate of increase and decrease during late winter through late spring.

All recommendations concur that compliance should be measured at McCloud

dam (gage MC-7) in order to ensure the desired minimum base flow and seasonal flow

variation in the upper reach between the dam and Ah-Di-Na which is not created under

the current license conditions where minimum flow compliance is set at gage MC-1 at

Ah-Di-Na. Under the current license flow augmentation from Hawkins Creek provide

the seasonal flow structure downstream of Ah-Di-Na. Revised Forest Service condition

19 specifies and PG&E alternative condition 19 proposes a second compliance location at

MC-1 to assure that minimum base flow downstream of this point is 200 cfs even during

periods when flows from Hawkins Creek are very low. The Forest Service/PG&E

proposal for base flow would provide minimum flow at McCloud dam (175 cfs) that are

more than three times those under the current license (50 cfs). The difference in available

habitat (HCM or PHABSIM) or abundance of 1-year and older fish (IBM) between

175 and 200 cfs is generally less than 10 percent; area available at 175 cfs are generally

within 10 percent of peak area for fry, juveniles, and adults. Peak area for trout spawning

was predicted by PHABSIM and HCM at between 300 cfs and 400 cfs; spawning habitat

area at 175-200 cfs was predicted at less than 50 percent of peak. It should be noted that

rainbow trout spawn during spring when most of the recommendations augment

minimum flow to reflect a more typical natural seasonal hydrograph.

Forest Service, PG&E, California Fish and Game recommend increasing flow

twice a month beginning in mid-February depending on the relative rate of runoff in a

given year as determined in DWR Bulletin 120. The flow increase recommended by
135

Forest Service, PG&E, and California Fish and Game (table 3-21) for a given runoff

condition (0-75 percent, 76-89 percent, 90-99 percent, 100-119 percent, and greater

than120 percent) is the same between March 1 and April 15; the first increase

implemented on February 15 is 25 cfs higher in the Forest Service/PG&E condition than

in the California Fish and Game recommendation when the runoff factor is 90 percent or

higher. Forest Service/PG&E begin to decrease flow at weekly intervals beginning on

16 April (as long as the flow is greater than 200 cfs) until flows at MC-7 reach 200 cfs or

until 1 May when flows are set at 200 cfs at McCloud dam. On July 1, flow is decreased

to base flow conditions, 175 cfs at McCloud dam and 200 cfs at MC-1. On April 16. if

the runoff factor is less than 90 percent California Fish and Game recommends the same

flow decrease as Forest Service/PG&E; however, if the runoff factor is greater than

90 percent, California Fish and Game recommends maintaining the existing flow until the

last Friday in April then decreasing to 200 cfs at McCloud dam. California Fish and

Game’s recommendation would increase flows more slowly during the first two weeks at

the beginning of the late winter-spring flow augmentation, but maintain higher flows than

Forest Service/PG&E during normal to wet years for a 2 week period at the end of April.

The Forest Service/PG&E recommendation could benefit rainbow trout spawning for the

two weeks during the early in the season, while the California Fish and Game

recommendation could benefit late spawning rainbow trout during the last two weeks of

the flow augmentation program. The difference in the actual benefit from these two flow

scenarios to the trout population would probably vary from year to year depending on a

range of additional factors that can influence the onset, duration, and success of

spawning.

Although California Fish and Game recommend minimum flows at 200 cfs during

May through February 14 measured at one compliance point near the McCloud dam, the

Forest Service recommended minimum flows of 175 cfs during the same period as

measured at McCloud dam and 200 cfs as measured downstream of McCloud dam at

USGS gage no. 11367800 (MC-1/ Ah-Di-Na). California Fish and Game did not provide

quantitative evidence that an increase of 25 cfs at McCloud dam would provide a

substantial improvement in fish habitat. Various modeling exercises performed by

PG&E indicate that this 25 cfs increase would have a minimal effect on available aquatic

habitat. The Forest Service indicated that the lower 175 cfs release from McCloud dam

allows discharge from Hawkins Creek near Ah-Di-Na to exercise greater natural control

on fluctuations in the seasonal hydrograph downstream of Ah-Di-Na. California Fish and

Game did note that higher base flows from McCloud may provide better conditions for

recreation and reduce the potential for excessive harvest during low flows; such effects

on recreational fishing are discussed in section 3.3.5, Recreation Resources.

California Trout, Trout Unlimited, and McCloud River Club (California Trout)

submitted recommendations (table 3-24) for the late winter-spring flow augmentation that

differ slightly from Forest Service/PG&E and California Fish and Game. During the

second half of March, if the runoff factor is less than 120 percent (wet years), their flow

recommendation would increase flows 50 cfs, half of that recommended by Forest
136

Service/PG&E/California Fish and Game; during the first half of April if runoff is less

than 102 percent they recommend no flow increase compared to 50 cfs increase

recommended by Forest Service/PG&E/California Fish and Game. When flows begin

decreasing on 16 April, if the runoff factor is greater than 100 percent, California Trout

recommends decreasing flow by 75 cfs per week, 25 cfs higher than Forest Service

condition 19. The overall effect of the California Trout recommendation compared to the

Forest Service recommendation is to increase flows at a slower rate at the beginning of

the season during normal to dry years and decrease flows at a faster rate at the end of the

season during normal to wet years. These slight changes in the rate of increase and

decrease in spring flows are not likely to have a significant effect on available habitat for

various trout life stages, but could result in lower instream flows and associated more

wadeable conditions during the early trout fishing season.

California Trout, Trout Unlimited, and the McCloud River Club indicated that

their alternative flows would likely meet the needs of all life stages of rainbow and brown

trout and provide optimum fishing conditions in the Lower McCloud River. Under these

alternative flows, during the period March 16 to May 21 when the McCloud River runoff

factor is 100 to 119 percent, the number of days when flows greater than 300 cfs would

occur is about 60 days per year rather than about 95 days per year under the Forest

Service condition 19 flows. During periods when runoff is equal to or greater than

120 percent, the number of days that flows would be greater than 300 cfs would be about

94 and the number days flows would be greater than 600 cfs would be 37, compared to

116 and 45 days, respectively, under Forest Service revised condition 19. All other

seasonal flows for each runoff scenario would be the about same. The alternative flows

proposed by California Trout may provide more days with optimum wading-condition

flows (less than 300 cfs) for fishing (see discussion in section 3.3.5, Recreation

Resources); however, there is no substantial evidence that these flows would provide

additional benefit to resident fish populations.

The McCloud RiverKeepers recommended that minimum flows be established at

100 cfs year-round at McCloud dam and flows varying by month ranging from 160 to

210 cfs at MC-1 (table 3-25) with augmentation from Hawkins Creek. McCloud

RiverKeepers based this recommendation on the quality trout population and recreational

fishery that exists at lower flows under current license conditions and the significant

decrease in flow available for power generation under the other relicensing

recommendations for flows. While this recommendation would increase minimum flows

compared to the current license, it would not create a more natural seasonally varying

flow regime supported by the other recommendations. Seasonal variation in flow typical

of most streams in lower mountain and foothill landscapes can benefit aquatic habitat and

a balanced aquatic ecosystem with a diverse seasonal forage base and robust age structure

among species at the top of the food chain. PG&E did not perform a flow-habitat study

of the Pit 7 afterbay downstream of Pit 7 dam. However, PG&E proposed, California

Fish and Game recommended, and the Forest Service specified a minimum instream flow

of 150 cfs in the Pit 7 afterbay, downstream of Pit 7 dam. This minimum instream flow
137

proposal reflects current operating procedures. The Pit 7 afterbay is operated run-ofriver, therefore flow-habitat is largely influenced by natural seasonal variability. The

afterbay supports a diverse warmwater fish assemblage which exhibits a recurrent

exchange with populations in the Pit River arm of Lake Shasta. Maintaining the 150 cfs

minimum flow downstream of Pit 7 dam would ensure adequate flow to maintain habitat

for aquatic organisms even during critically dry periods. Furthermore, the 150 cfs

minimum flow would ensure continuity with the Pit River arm of Lake Shasta when Lake

Shasta’s water surface elevation is below 1,055 ft msl.

Ramping Rates

Rapid changes in streamflow have the potential to strand and kill young fish and

macroinvertebrates (Bradford et al., 1995; Hunter, 1992; Huntington, 2004), and may

also cause adverse effects on amphibians including the early life stages foothill yellowlegged frogs. Under the existing license, there are no ramping rate requirements

downstream of any project impoundments and no ramping is required when changing

between seasonal required minimum flow rates. However, occasional upramping is

conducted at the project prior to uncontrolled spill events in order to minimize effects to

downstream aquatic habitat and to ensure public safety.

PG&E does not propose to implement any ramping except prior to the start of an

uncontrolled spill event at McCloud dam, during which PG&E would make a good faith

effort to ramp up water flows at a target rate of no more than 100 cfs per hour. These

ramp rates are consistent with current practice, although the existing project license does

not require ramping requirements downstream of any project impoundment. No ramping

is proposed when making seasonally required changes to minimum flow rates.

California Fish and Game recommends and Forest Service condition 19 specifies

that PG&E ramp down all McCloud dam spill events once the spill reaches 1,000 cfs, at

which point the control valve could be used to control the discharge. Downramping

would proceed at a 150-cfs decrease every 48 hours until the prescribed minimum

instream flow value for that time period is reached. Additionally, operational

controllable spills would be upramped in increments not to exceed 200 cfs in a 24-hour

period. Upramping and downramping related to testing of the flow valve at Iron Canyon

dam should occur in 20-cfs increments, assuming a 200-cfs maximum. Ramping

increments would be spaced at least 15 minutes apart for upramping and 30 minutes apart

for downramping. In addition, valve safety compliance testing at Iron Canyon dam

should only occur between March 5 and March 15.

PG&E alternative condition 19 proposes the same ramping rates specified by the

Forest Service and recommended by California Fish and Game for McCloud dam and

Iron Canyon dam. PG&E alternative condition 19, however, proposes an extension of the

window available to perform valve safety testing for dam compliance at Iron Canyon

dam to between March 1 and March 31, to allow for potential road access issues resulting

from inclement weather conditions. NMFS filed a 10(j) recommendation that PG&E
138

should modify ramping to minimize impacts on listed salmonids, as soon as listed

salmonids are documented as within the McCloud River and affected by the project.

American Whitewater and Friends of the River alternative condition 19

recommends modified downramping and ramping rates. The American Whitewater and

Friends of the River recommend downramping all spill events based on stage rather than

flow at McCloud dam; that is, at a rate of 0.2 ft every 48 hours, as measured at MC-7,

until the prescribed minimum flow is reached. Upramping during operational

controllable spills would be conducted at a rate not to exceed 1.0 ft every 24 hours, as

measured at MC-7.

Our Analysis

PG&E did not conduct any analyses of the potential for fish stranding to occur in

the project reaches. There is, however, some potential for fish to be stranded at times

when flows are reduced following spill events or valve test flow releases. In these cases,

implementing the ramping rates recommended by the Forest Service and California Fish

and Game would help to limit the potential for stranding of fish and macroinvertebrates.

Additionally, implementing ramping rates would decrease the potential to disrupt

salmonid fry and foothill yellow-legged frogs, inhabiting shallow edge water habitats,

which are particularly vulnerable to water velocity changes during up-ramping.

Expansion of the valve testing window from March 1 to March 31 would provide

flexibility, given that late winter weather conditions can make access to Iron Canyon dam

difficult and road conditions unsafe during March. The timing, frequency, and

magnitude of natural peak spring runoff events can be highly variable depending of

storms and snowmelt; therefore shifting the valve test 1-2 weeks earlier or later to

accommodate safety and access is not likely to have adverse effects on aquatic resources.

The potential for stranding of fish and other aquatic organisms during rapid

changes in flow is a function of changes in water depth rather than directly of flow rate.

However the relationship between flow and water depth (stage-discharge) varies along

the stream channel depending on the complexity and configuration of the channel crosssection and in particular the dimensions of the floodplain. USGS gage locations are

typically selected specifically for uniform cross-sections with minimal complexity to

provide an accurate and reliable stage discharge relationship to estimate flow from water

surface elevation (not depth) for a wide range of flows. However, the gage location may

not be indicative of the stage discharge relationship throughout much of the reach that it

represents. The recommendation by American Whitewater to adjust the ramping rate

based on stage (water level) rather than flows was based on the shape of the stage and

discharge curves from the Ah-Di-Na gage. American Whitewater does not provide

evidence that using stage measurements at the Ah-Di-Na gage as a guide for ramping

would be any more appropriate for protection of aquatic resources than the use of flow

measurements.
139

Flow Monitoring and Determination of Water Year Type

PG&E proposes to monitor compliance with minimum flows using existing USGS

flow gages in each reach. For McCloud dam, minimum flows would be measured at two

compliance points including USGS flow gage no. 11367760 (MC-7) or directly at

McCloud dam and USGS flow gage no. 11367800 (Ah-Di-Na or MC-1); for Iron Canyon

dam, minimum flows would be measured at USGS gage no. 11363930 (MC-10), and for

Pit 7 dam, minimum flows would be measured at USGS gage no. 11365000 (PH-47).

Forest Service condition 19 specifies that PG&E operate and maintain existing

gages, under USGS supervision, that are needed to determine the river stage and

minimum streamflow on the Lower McCloud River below McCloud dam, Pit River

below Pit 7 dam, and Iron Canyon Creek below Iron Canyon dam. Forest Service

condition 19 also specifies the following: that any modification of these gage facilities

that may be necessary to measure the new minimum streamflow releases be completed

within 3 years of issuance of the new license; that flows be documented in publicly

available and readily accessible formats; that flow data at gage MC-1 be real-time data

and posted on the California Data Exchange Center (CDEC) or its successor website; and

that flow data be subject to quality assurance / quality control (QA/QC) review by PG&E

before it is made available to USGS for review and publication on the internet. Forest

Service condition 19 further specifies that flow values (generally 15-minute recordings)

used to construct the 24-hour average flows be made available to the resource agencies

upon request.

California Fish and Game filed a 10(j) recommendation that PG&E have only one

McCloud dam compliance point at the upper gage nearest the dam (MC-7/USGS

11367760), instead of at the Ah-Di-Na gage (MC-1/USGS 11367800) below the

confluence with Hawkins Creek. NMFS filed a concurring 10(j) recommendation,

specifically stating that PG&E should move the McCloud dam compliance point either to

McCloud dam or gage MC-7. This would allow accretion from Hawkins Creek 1 mile

downstream to provide seasonal variability to the Lower McCloud River flow regime.

The California Sportfishing Protection Alliance also supports moving the flow

compliance point to just downstream of McCloud dam. Forest Service condition 19

specifies that flows shall be measured for compliance at both the Ah-Di-Na gage and

either at gage MC-7 or directly at McCloud dam.

Forest Service condition 19 specifies the methodology that would be followed to

determine the water year type that would guide the implementation of minimum flows.

Forest Service condition 19 specifies that PG&E use the forecast of unimpaired runoff of

the Sacramento River near Redding that is provided by the DWR Bulletin 120 report.

Each month between January and April, PG&E would determine the water year type

based on the Bulletin 120 water year forecast and would manage release rates in the

minimum flow table for the month based on that forecast. The May forecast would be

used to establish the final water year type for the remaining months of the water year.

PG&E would implement minimum instream flows triggered by the water year within
140

two business days of the actual publication date of Bulletin 120. PG&E alternately

proposed that for Iron Canyon dam between February and May, given potential weatherrelated access difficulties, compliance with flow changes be implemented within

five business days.

Our Analysis

The continued use of two compliance points for minimum flows at McCloud dam

would ensure that adequate flows are provided in reaches directly below the dam and in

the lower reaches that receive flow input from other tributaries to the Lower McCloud

River.

Funding the continued O&M of the USGS gages in each of the affected reaches,

including any modifications that may be required to accurately measure minimum flows

or ramping rates that are included in a new license, would help to ensure that these gages

remain functional and can be used to effectively monitor compliance with flow-related

measures included in the license.

Funding the operation of the gages also would help to ensure that flow data

continues to be available to other water users in the basin and to the general public.

Provision of flow data recorded at 15-minute intervals to the agencies upon request

would help to verify compliance with any instantaneous flows and ramping rates that are

included in the license. Flow data, following a QA/QC review, should be available to the

public and accessible, including postings on the internet. Public availability of flow data

would provide recreational and other water users with useful information on the

conditions of project reaches and reservoirs. Specifying the methodology for

determining water year type would be an essential requirement for determining

compliance with minimum flows under the new license, because it would aid the licensee

in implementing the appropriate minimum flow release schedule and other measures that

are dependent on water year.

PG&E and Forest Service/ California Fish and Game have proposed different

methods to measure compliance with the proposed minimum flow releases, although the

two approaches appear to accomplish essentially the same goal by requiring

compensation for under release of minimum flows. Flow would be measured

instantaneously at 15-minute intervals and the instantaneous measurements would be

averaged over a 24-hour period for a mean daily flow. PG&E proposed that all

instantaneous measurements be within 90 percent of the target minimum flow (e.g., for a

target minimum flow of 175 cfs at McCloud dam all measurements should be greater

than 157.5 cfs). Forest Service/California Fish and Game provide more flexibility at Iron

Canyon dam where target minimum flows for much of the year are less than 10 cfs,

requiring minimum flows be no less than 80 percent of the target when the target is less

than 10 cfs, and no less than 90 percent of the target when the target is greater than

10 cfs. PG&E has proposed that compliance with the target minimum flow be

determined on the basis of the seven consecutive day running average of the daily means.

Individual daily means would not need to meet the target minimum flow as long as the
141

7-day average does and the instantaneous measurements meet the 80/90 percent criteria;

thus, if individual days failed to achieve the daily mean minimum flow, the under-release

could be averaged out by over-releases on other days within each successive 7-day

window (averaging period). California Fish and Game and the Forest Service

recommend that individual daily mean flows must meet the target minimum flow; the

failure to comply with the minimum flow on a given date must be corrected by releasing

an appropriate additional volume within seven days of identifying the under-release. The

proposals to measure compliance with minimum instream flows by PG&E and Forest

Service/California Fish and Game generally accomplish the same objective by requiring

compensation for dates where there is an under release of flow; however, the proposals

differ in the methodology used to calculate/document the compensation for under release

of minimum instream flows.

Water Quality Monitoring

PG&E proposes to prepare a water quality monitoring plan within 1 year after

license issuance. PG&E would prepare the plan in consultation with the California Water

Board, Forest Service, California Fish and Game, and other interested parties. The plan

would include monitoring methodologies, survey rationale, and water quality standards,

as appropriate, for temperature, turbidity, and bacteria (total or fecal coliform), as well as

a process and schedule for reporting survey and monitoring results.

Forest Service condition 20 specifies content for the water quality and temperature

monitoring plan for the project. Under the plan, the following would occur: periodic

monitoring of all project reservoirs once every five years for contaminants; periodic

monitoring of DO at McCloud, Pit 6, and Pit 7 reservoirs; annual monitoring (MaySeptember) for 10 years, of potential water temperature effects to beneficial uses

including recreation, aquatic habitats, and target species, as a result of modified instream

flows and reservoir operations, with potential additional monitoring if temperatures

above 20°C occur in reservoirs or downstream reaches; continuous turbidity monitoring

in the Lower McCloud River (at MC-7 or MC-1) during the fishing season, as well as in

Iron Canyon Creek (at MC-10) for at least five years after license issuance to ensure

PG&E’s repairs reduce sedimentation into the creek below the dam; and implementation

of BMPs to satisfy Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives within the Northwest Forest

Planning Area.

PG&E alternative condition 20 proposes that the water quality and monitoring

plan be filed within two years following issuance of license and appropriate consultation,

and noted that routine maintenance and deployment of temperature and turbidity sensors

may be delayed as a result of high flows or late snows during spring months. In addition,

PG&E recommended that if turbidity and sedimentation in Iron Canyon Creek is reduced

during the first five years of monitoring and with the consent of the Forest Service,

turbidity monitoring at this location would be terminated. Further, PG&E indicated that

maintenance and installation of temperature sensors on private lands would be subject to

landowner permission.
142

NMFS recommends that as soon as listed salmonids are documented as within the

McCloud River and affected by the project, PG&E should modify the project’s structures

or operations necessary to mitigate direct, indirect, or cumulative water temperature and

quality impacts or enhance water temperature and quality conditions. According to the

NMFS recommendation, these actions would include water temperature management to

ensure the optimal survival and distribution of all life stages of anadromous listed

salmonids within and downstream of the Commission-delineated physical project

boundaries.

Forest Service condition 16 reserves the right for the Forest Service to modify its

conditions to respond to any water quality certification issued for this project by the

California Water Board.

Our Analysis

Development and implementation of the water quality and temperature monitoring

plan would provide guidance for monitoring potential effects of project operations on

water quality for the term of the license and ensure proper conditions for aquatic biota.

Monitoring temperature annually for a 10-year period would ensure that new project

minimum flows and operations during all water-year types are not adversely affecting

habitat conditions for aquatic species. Continuous monitoring of turbidity in the Lower

McCloud River (at MC-7 or MC-1) during the fishing season and providing real-time

data monitoring on the data would be useful for determining the effects of mudflows

from Mud Creek on the project waters and inform the public of such occurrences. The

implementation of BMPs under the plan would also minimize potential affects to water

quality from new construction or maintenance activities at the project and satisfy Aquatic

Conservation Strategy objectives within the Northwest Forest Planning Area.

PG&E’s proposed construction of the Pit 7 afterbay transmission line may result in

soil erosion along inner gorge slopes, leading to increased sedimentation and turbidity in

the Pit River. PG&E’s plan to conduct erosion control below Iron Canyon dam and

monitor turbidity as specified by the Forest Service in Iron Canyon Creek for a minimum

of five years would ensure that the erosion control practices are effective in reducing

sedimentation in the Pit River.

Although measurements of fecal coliform or E. coli taken at McCloud or Iron

Canyon reservoirs or McCloud River have not exceeded basin plan criterion, the periodic

monitoring of all project reservoirs once every five years for E. coli and contaminants

would serve to ensure proper water quality conditions for recreational users at the project.

Periodic monitoring of DO at McCloud, Pit 6, and Pit 7 reservoirs for the term of the

license would evaluate habitat conditions for aquatic biota.

The Commission cannot require PG&E to access private land that is outside of the

project boundary. PG&E would need to coordinate with private landowners to gain

access to any private land outside of the project boundary, as proposed in PG&E

alternative conditions.
143

In its final license application, PG&E proposed to develop and implement a water

quality monitoring plan in consultation with agencies and stakeholders within 1 year of

license issuance. The proposed water quality monitoring plan did not provide specific

details associated with monitoring frequency, locations, or parameters. Development and

implementation of the water quality monitoring plan specified by the Forest Service

would ensure a consistent monitoring frequency and duration and provide specific

locations and water quality parameters to be monitored for the term of the license.

PG&E alternative condition 20 proposes a timeframe to develop an approvable

water quality monitoring plan of up to 16 months. Although coordination with agencies

and other stakeholders can be difficult, a time frame of one year from license issuance is

typically adequate to address the specific monitoring and management protocol,

scheduling, and reporting components of the water quality monitoring plan.

The lower McCloud River currently supports a thriving cold-water fishery. While

different species possess differing optimal water quality and temperature conditions,

current thermal conditions in the McCloud River are suitable to support salmonids,

including listed anadromous salmonids. The Keswick and Shasta dams on the

Sacramento River downstream of the McCloud dam are existing barriers to upstream

passage of anadromous salmonids including Chinook salmon and steelhead. As part of

the restoration plan for these listed species, studies are ongoing to assess the feasibility of

alternatives to facilitate fish passage at these two structures. None of the listed

anadromous salmonids would be expected to have access to habitat in the lower McCloud

River until upstream migration of listed species is implemented through Lake Shasta.

Therefore, at this time, the modification of project structures or operations to minimize or

eliminate water temperature and quality conditions as recommended by NMFS would

provide no benefit for listed species at this time.

Fish Entrainment at Project Tunnels and Intakes

Entrainment of fish into hydroelectric intakes typically causes injury or mortality

to a portion of the fish that are entrained, with mortality rates tending to be lower for

smaller fish and higher for turbines that operate under higher levels of head, with higher

rotational speeds, and with smaller passageways (Cook et al., 1997; Franke et al., 1997;

Winchell et al., 2000). PG&E evaluated the potential for fish entrainment in its license

application, and concluded that effects of the project on trout populations were likely to

be minor, and did not propose any measures to reduce or mitigate for fish entrainment.

NMFS submitted comments on the final license application proposed action and

action alternative, stating that if listed salmonid species become established in the

McCloud River and fish passage is prescribed over McCloud dam, then the powerhouse

intakes would require appropriate screening.

Our Analysis

PG&E developed and implemented a study in consultation with the agencies to

assess the potential for entrainment losses to affect fish populations in the project area.
144

The study included a tracking study, mark-recapture study, literature review, review of

the likelihood of entrainment based on the physical characteristics of each intake, and

assessment of fish populations upstream and downstream of each intake.

The results of PG&E’s entrainment studies and literature review indicate that

entrainment potential at the existing and proposed McCloud-Pit reservoir intakes is

probably low because of generally slow maximum intake velocities compared to the

swim burst rates of resident fish species, absence of obligatory migratory fish species,

and low instances of interbasin fish movement. Although the fish stocking program

indicated by PG&E and California Fish and Game is related to meeting recreational

fishing demands, supplementation of wild fish would serve to augment fish populations

in project reaches and offset the negligible effects of entrainment. PG&E and California

Fish and Game could use population assessment data to guide the fish stocking program

and ensure that the stocking effort is directed to reaches where it would provide the most

benefit to trout populations.

The Keswick and Shasta dams on the Sacramento River downstream of the

McCloud dam are existing barriers to upstream passage of anadromous salmonids

including Chinook salmon and steelhead. As part of the restoration plan for these listed

species, studies are ongoing to assess the feasibility of alternatives to facilitate fish

passage at these two structures. None of the listed anadromous salmonids would be

expected to have access to habitat in the lower McCloud River until upstream migration

of listed species is implemented through Lake Shasta. Therefore, the screening facilities

recommended by NMFS would provide no benefit for listed species.

Fish Population Monitoring

Monitoring of aquatic resources could provide a tool for assessing the success or

identify appropriate modifications to either the new prescribed flow regimes or the gravel

and sediment management plan. In its final license application, PG&E did not propose

developing and implementing a fish population monitoring plan. Forest Service condition

27 specifies that, within one year after license issuance, as a component of the aquatic

biological management plan, PG&E develop a plan to monitor fish populations in project

reaches, in consultation with the Forest Service, California Fish and Game, potentially

affected tribes, and other interested parties.

The plan specified by the Forest Service would involve:

 Collection of data on population trends, age-class structure, and condition

factors.

 A list of fish species to be monitored and use of same sampling methods

established during relicensing surveys.

 Fish surveys would be conducted once every three years, or at frequency

jointly agreed to by the agencies, potentially affected tribes, or other interested
145

parties, for the first nine years and then once every five years for the term of

the license.

 PG&E would provide the results of fish monitoring to the agencies as a

component of the aquatic biological monitoring technical report every five

years. In addition to describing the results, the report would include a map

(compatible with Forest Service geographic information system [GIS]) that

includes baseline data from the licensing study plan surveys and updated data

from periodic monitoring.

PG&E alternative condition 27 proposes the addition of a specific subsection to

the aquatic biological management plan specified by the Forest Service entitled “fish

populations” for clarity and specificity. In addition, PG&E indicated that fish population

monitoring of project reservoirs was unnecessary since McCloud and Iron Canyon

reservoirs are supported by trout stocking and there are no proposed changes to project

operations in Pit 6 and Pit 7 reservoirs; furthermore, the final license application did not

propose significant changes to reservoir operations and management that could

reasonably be expected to affect reservoir populations. PG&E supported fish population

monitoring in project streams as specified by Forest Service condition 27 with some

minor changes to the methodology.

PG&E alternative condition 27 proposes that one year to develop the aquatic

biological management plan following issuance of license specified by the Forest Service

would not provide adequate time to complete the plan. PG&E suggests that two years

would be necessary to complete the plan and provided rationale for this determination

based on the time required to receive license articles from the Commission; review,

accept, and implement the license articles; procure a contractor; develop the draft plan;

and schedule and complete relicensing participant meetings to review and finalize the

plan. PG&E alternative condition 27 proposes a timeline for plan development of up to

16 months.

Our Analysis

Monitoring fish populations would assist with determining the effects of any

changes in operation or measures that are implemented in the new license to enhance

resident fish populations, and for assessing whether any modifications or additional

measures are needed. The monitoring program would also provide information to guide

studies and management decisions of the Listed Salmonid Technical Integration

Committee. Potential changes to project operations under a new license could alter the

existing flows and water quality characteristics of project streams and affect resident

stream fish populations. Monitoring fish populations in project streams would help

determine if changes to project operations under the new license are affecting fish

populations. Because reservoir fish populations would likely be monitored as a

component of plans to stock fish in project reservoirs, and no substantial changes to

project reservoirs are expected as a result of the new license, additional monitoring of

reservoir fishes under the aquatic biological management plan would be redundant.
146

PG&E alternative condition 27 proposes that a separate subsection of the aquatic

management plan be included specifically outlining the conditions for monitoring fish

populations. Addition of a specific fish population monitoring subsection to the aquatic

management plan specified by the Forest Service would improve understanding of the

requirements of the plan specific to this aquatic resource, without altering Forest Service

condition 27.

PG&E alternative condition 27 proposes that the timeframe to develop an

approvable aquatic biological management plan could require up to 16 months. While

coordination with agencies and other stakeholders can be difficult and a time frame of

one year from license issuance should be adequate to thoroughly address the specific

monitoring and management protocol, scheduling, and reporting components of the

aquatic biological management plan.

Benthic Macroinvertebrates

The effects of project operations on sorting and distribution of stream substrate

affects benthic habitat and could affect the benthic invertebrate community, an important

source of forage for other aquatic biota including resident trout. Forest Service condition

27 specifies that, within one year after license issuance, as a component of the aquatic

biological management plan, PG&E monitor benthic macroinvertebrates in the Lower

McCloud River and Iron Canyon Creek, in consultation with the Forest Service,

potentially affected tribes, and other interested parties.

The monitoring specified by the Forest Service would involve:

 Collection of data on population robustness and heterogeneity, composition of

functional feeding groups, and pollution tolerance and intolerance trends.

 Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling would be conducted once every

three years during the first nine years and then once every five years for the

term of the license.

 PG&E may modify the number of sampling sites, site locations, and the

frequency of monitoring, following consultation with the Forest Service,

potentially affected tribes, and other interested parties.

 Ten percent of the benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring sites would be located

within the first one and one-half miles of the Lower McCloud River below the

McCloud dam.

 PG&E would provide the results of benthic macroinvertebrate sampling to the

agencies as a component of the aquatic biological monitoring technical report

every five years. In addition to describing the results, the report would include

a map (compatible with Forest Service GIS) that includes base data from the

study plan surveys and updated data from periodic monitoring.

PG&E alternative condition 27 proposes that periodic benthic macroinvertebrate

sampling specified by Forest Service condition 27 should initiate following the
147

“Commission’s acceptance of the monitoring plan” rather than following license

issuance. PG&E also indicated that required consultation concerning modifications to

sampling protocols should include only the Forest Service and other interested parties and

that the number of sampling sites and site locations should be consistent with sites

sampled during the relicensing studies on Forest Service lands. In addition, PG&E noted

that sampling methods and data protocols used to monitor benthic macroinvertebrates

should be the same as those used during the relicensing studies.

Our Analysis

Benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring would assist with determining the

effectiveness of measures implemented in the new license for enhancing water quality,

substrate characteristics, and resident fish populations, and for assessing whether any

modifications or additional measures are needed.

Initiating the benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring component of the aquatic

biological management and monitoring following Commission approval, would provide

adequate time to conduct sampling once every three years for the first nine years (i.e.,

three annual surveys) as specified by the Forest Service.

Sampling benthic macroinvertebrates using the sampling methods and data

protocols used during the relicensing studies would ensure the comparability of the

methods and the data from the two programs, and would minimize biases associated with

potential changes in sampling protocols. Sampling at site locations used during the

relicensing studies would help in identifying changes, if any, to the benthic

macroinvertebrate community following relicensing.

Fish Passage and Restoration

The design and condition of some culverts on reservoir tributaries at Forest

Service roads could act as impediments to fish passage. Forest Service condition 27

specifies that, within one year of license issuance, as a component of the aquatic

biological management and monitoring plan, PG&E develop specific management

actions and schedule for providing fish passage and monitoring for affected reservoir

streams, in consultation with the Forest Service, California Fish and Game, potentially

affected tribes, and other interested parties.

These management actions specified by the Forest Service would include:

 Constructing or correcting fish passage structures on Dudlun, McGill, Cedar

Salt Log, Little Gap, and Gap Creek on Iron Canyon reservoir and Tarantula

Gulch and Battle Creek on McCloud reservoir.

 Maintaining the fish passage structures on an annual basis, if needed,

concurrent with road condition surveys.

 Monitoring each stream reach every three years to determine fish passage

structure effectiveness
148

 PG&E would provide the results of fish passage monitoring concurrently with

aquatic monitoring reports.

PG&E alternative condition 27 proposes that roads impeding fish passage on

tributaries to the project reservoirs are not project roads. However, PG&E did indicate

that it would provide compensation to the Forest Service for fish passage maintenance as

part of an off-license road agreement specified in section 3.3.7, Land Use and Aesthetic

Resources.

NMFS recommends that, as soon as listed salmonids are documented within the

McCloud River and affected by the project, PG&E should, in consultation with the U.S.

Bureau of Reclamation, NMFS, FWS, California Fish and Game, and the Commission,

create and implement a Listed Salmonid Technical Integration Committee. According to

the recommendation, the Listed Salmonid Technical Integration Committee would assess

and mitigate the project’s affects on listed salmonids and could be integrated with the

existing Fish Passage Steering Committee (or affiliated Technical Advisory Committees)

to begin discussions of passage logistics at Shasta dam habitat assessments that include

studies of McCloud River historic anadromous salmonid habitats.

Our Analysis

PG&E conducted a survey of fish passage conditions within the inundation zone

of the project reservoirs in October 2007 and found no impediments to fish passage;

however, in the final license application, PG&E noted that upstream fish impediments

may exist at road crossings along FR 37N78 upstream of the influence of reservoir

fluctuations. The Forest Service owns and maintains the roads that may block fish

passage to project reaches. The Forest Service roads span the project reaches with the

use of culverts and bridges which may restrict flow and entrain large debris resulting in

project reaches becoming impassable to some fish.

The Keswick and Shasta dams on the Sacramento River downstream of the

McCloud dam are existing barriers to upstream passage of anadromous salmonids

including Chinook salmon and steelhead. As part of the restoration plan for these listed

species, studies are ongoing to assess the feasibility of alternatives to facilitate fish

passage at these two structures. None of the listed anadromous salmonids would be

expected to have access to habitat in the lower McCloud River until upstream migration

of listed species is implemented through Lake Shasta. Currently, no anadromous

salmonids have been documented within project reaches because of the existing barriers

to upstream passage, therefore, at this time, NMFS’s recommendation for PG&E to

create a Listed Salmonid Technical Integration Committee to assess and mitigate the

project’s affects on listed salmonids would provide no direct benefit to listed salmonids.

Further, continued agency and stakeholder consultation in combination with the

implementation of various proposed monitoring programs for aquatic habitat, biota, and

water quality parameters would provide a mechanism to allow for the various

management programs to adapt to changing conditions in the project area, including the

introduction of new species of concern, such as listed anadromous salmonids.
149

Special Status Aquatic Mollusks

During the relicensing studies, PG&E identified one special status aquatic mollusk

(California floater) in Pit 6 and Pit 7 reservoirs. In addition, PG&E identified nugget

pebblesnail inhabiting the Lower McCloud River, outside of the project boundary. Forest

Service condition 27 specifies that, within one year of license issuance, as a component

of the aquatic biological management plan, PG&E monitor special status aquatic

mollusks.

The monitoring specified by the Forest Service would involve:

 Monitoring population trends and changes in distribution of the California

floater, nugget pebblesnail, scalloped juga, and montane peaclam.

 Special status aquatic mollusk monitoring would occur once every three years

(or for a period determined by the Forest Service that is consistent with other

monitoring requirements) during the first nine years and once every five years

for the term of the license.

PG&E alternative condition 27 disagrees with the Forest Service language

specifying that periodic monitoring may be conducted “for a period determined by the

Forest Service to be sufficient that is consistent with other monitoring requirements”. In

addition, PG&E proposes that periodic monitoring would begin in the third year after

plan approval by the Commission. PG&E also proposes that sampling sites, locations,

methods, and data protocols used to monitor special status aquatic mollusks should be the

same as those used during the relicensing studies.

Our Analysis

PG&E alternative condition 27 did not provide rationale for PG&E’s disagreement

with the Forest Service’s specification to conduct monitoring for a period determined by

the Forest Service. Because all other components of the aquatic biological management

plan follow similar monitoring periods, it is assumed, that the Forest Service may alter

monitoring periods based on the results, and the potential for inclusion of new species

that might be found in the project area.

Monitoring special status aquatic mollusks using the methods and data protocols

used during the relicensing studies and consistent, to the extent possible, with the aquatic

biological monitoring plan completed during the relicensing of Pit 3, 4 and 5 project

would ensure the comparability of the data from the two periods and projects without

potential biases associated with any changes in sampling protocols. Sampling at site

locations used during the relicensing studies would help in identifying changes, if any, to

special status aquatic mollusks following relicensing.

The monitoring of special status aquatic mussels and the results from the

monitoring program would provide periodic information to evaluate the condition of

populations and the benefits to aquatic mollusks from improvements to water quality and

quantity. The sampling frequency specified in Forest Service condition 27 would ensure
150

consistency with other monitoring requirements under the plan and allow some flexibility

for determining a monitoring period that could be adapted to potential changes associated

with conditions (e.g., water temperature, sedimentation rates) in project reaches during

the term of the new license.

3.3.2.3 Cumulative Effects

The presence and operation of the McCloud-Pit Project contributes to cumulative

effects on water resources and fisheries resources within the McCloud and Pit River

basins. Project effects on water temperatures are the result of interbasin water transfer

from the McCloud reservoir to the Pit River watershed via the James B. Black

powerhouse. Although ambient water temperatures on the Pit River above the James B.

Black powerhouse ranged from 12 to 22°C from June through September, water entering

through James B. Black powerhouse was cooler, with temperatures below Pit 6

powerhouse less than 19°C. However, during periods when cooler water inputs occur,

there has been no observed affects to the native transition zone fish species in these

reaches. The lack of observable affects is likely the result of the tolerance of transition

zone fish to a wide range of temperatures. Therefore, the waters of the Pit River

combined with inputs from the McCloud River basin seem to be capable of supporting

both transition zone and coldwater fish species, and any cumulative effects are

insubstantial.

PG&E impoundments and tunnels also modify the duration, distribution, and

dissipation of natural mudflows from Mud Creek through the lower McCloud watershed

and support interbasin transfer of material from these events which contributes to

occasional cumulative increases of turbidity in the Pit River watershed. However, of two

significant turbidity events associated with Mud Creek in 2008, only one was detected in

the Pit River at about 1 NTU above ambient conditions, which did not exceed the basin

plan numerical criteria for turbidity. Continued monitoring of turbidity levels in Iron

Canyon Creek and the Pit River following future mud flow events would help to

determine cumulative effects, if any, on the Pit River watershed resulting from the

project.

The Lower McCloud River and Iron Canyon Creek support self-sustaining

populations of rainbow trout, with the McCloud River highly regarded as a productive

sport fishery. Operation of the project in accordance with the various proposed,

recommended, and specified flow regimes may improve the production, growth, and

condition of trout by providing more optimal flow-habitat during growth and spawning

seasons.

The McCloud and Pit River watersheds historically provided habitat for several

listed species including Chinook salmon and steelhead. Although the project dams acts

as barriers to upstream migration, construction of the Shasta and Keswick projects

downstream on the Sacramento River prevent access for these species to the upper

Sacramento River and its tributaries including the McCloud and Pit Rivers and their

tributaries. As part of restoration plans for these species, studies are ongoing to evaluate
151

options that would provide passage at the Keswick and Shasta projects, but it could be a

decade before these goals become reality and listed anadromous species are able to enter

the lower McCloud River to access available spawning habitat.

Bull trout, at the southern extent of its range, was historically an important part of

the aquatic community of the McCloud River. The extirpation of this species from the

watershed is postulated to have been the cumulative effect of a number of factors

including, but not limited to, loss of juvenile Chinook salmon, an important forage base,

excessive fishing pressure, competition from other managed game species, and reduction

of habitat associated with construction of McCloud dam. Efforts by California Fish and

Game in the1970s to restore the species through stocking were unsuccessful. Restoration

is not currently a primary management goal of the agency and no recommendations have

been proposed specifically to support restoration of this species.

3.3.3 Terrestrial Resources

3.3.3.1 Affected Environment

3.3.3.1.1 Vegetation

To provide baseline information on vegetation communities in the project area, the

licensee conducted vegetation mapping efforts to characterize and quantify all existing

vegetation types within 0.5 mile of the project boundary. Elevations in the study area

range between 1,100 and 3,500 ft msl, with moderate to very steep terrain.

The project area includes a variety of upland vegetation types typical of midelevation forests and valleys found in the southeastern Klamath Mountains and southern

Cascade regions, and is dominated by Douglas fir, Douglas fir-ponderosa pine, mixed

conifer and canyon live oak plant communities that together comprise about 84 percent of

the upland vegetation cover within the project area. Douglas fir-ponderosa pine is the

most common vegetation type within the project area and generally occurs throughout all

portions of the area. Associated understory species for the most common upland

vegetation communities include small specimens of canopy species as well as shrubs and

vine species. Groundcover varies from sparse to moderate for these communities and is

characterized by various species of grasses and forbs.

Vegetation mapping within the proposed new construction and transmission line

corridors identified a total of 17 vegetation series, three other vegetation types and three

non-vegetated features. The non-vegetated features included the McCloud Cemetery,

McCloud Golf Course, and paved roads. Together these three features encompassed

about 159 acres (2 percent). As identified within the existing project area, uplands were

primarily determined to be mixed conifer vegetation series (32 percent), ponderosa pine

(31 percent), Douglas fir (6 percent) and Douglas fir-ponderosa pine (5 percent). The

community of McCloud is represented by urban land (10 percent). Mixed willow

riparian vegetation community and California annual grasslands were also relatively

common (3 and 2 percent, respectively).
152

Other habitats encountered that are not defined by vegetation included littoral,

riverine, lacustrine, and barren areas. Littoral habitats within the study area consist of the

reservoir fluctuation zones surrounding lacustrine habitats. Most of these areas are

devoid of vegetation, particularly around the steep shoreline of the McCloud reservoir.

Portions of the littoral zone do support vegetation during draw-down periods, including

various woody and herbaceous riparian and upland species such as cheat grass,

intermediate wheatgrass, and prickly lettuce. Littoral habitats surrounding the more

gradual slopes adjacent to Iron Canyon reservoir are characterized by denser vegetation,

and in general, included a large number of weed species such as yellow star-thistle,

Himalayan blackberry, Kentucky bluegrass, and wooly mullein. Over the project area,

about 34 acres of littoral habitats were mapped.

Riverine habitat areas consisting of non-vegetated open water occur along the

free-flowing portions of the Pit and McCloud Rivers. These areas are highly variable and

range between moderate, low gradient, and steep, moderate gradient stream reaches in

moderate to well confined stream channels. About 240 riverine acres were mapped.

Lacustrine habitats within existing facilities are open water areas including areas

inundated by the two project reservoirs as well as the Pit 6 and Pit 7 reservoirs, and Pit 7

afterbay. A total of about 1,056 acres of lacustrine habitat were mapped within existing

facilities. A pond at the McCloud sewer treatment facility east of Squaw Creek Valley

Road is within the proposed transmission line corridor and is about 11 acres.

Barren areas consist mainly of non-vegetated, man-made features scattered

throughout the study area, such as fill slopes and old construction sites, non-vegetated

landings resulting from previous logging operations, and naturally occurring rock outcrop

and/or talus slope features. About 15 acres of barren areas were mapped in the project

area; 22 acres were mapped along the proposed McCloud transmission line route.

Riparian and Wetland Vegetation

Wetland and riparian habitats are dependent on particular hydrologic regimes and

are, therefore, considered particularly sensitive to potential project effects. Historical

photo analysis was conducted for the Lower McCloud River from McCloud dam

downstream to Shasta Lake to analyze longitudinal changes in riparian vegetation

distribution over time. Historical aerial photographs from the Forest Service were

compared with PG&E’s 2006 aerial photographs. Photographs of selected stream reaches

were available for the years 1944, 1952, and 1970 (the project was constructed in 1965).

Significant changes in the longitudinal and cross-sectional extent of riparian vegetation

due to project-related flow alterations were not detected during this analysis.

In addition to reviewing aerial photographs, vegetation mapping identified about

493 acres of riparian habitat and less than one acre of wetland habitat within the project

area; more than 631 acres of wetland habitat were identified along the proposed McCloud

line corridor due to the relatively low gradient, broad meadow features within the

corridor. Spikerush vegetation series accounted for 85 percent (540 acres) of wetland
153

vegetation. Overall, 121 vascular plant species, 10 vegetation series, and 18 provisional

plant associations were identified in the riparian zone of the Lower McCloud River.

The riparian zone of the Lower McCloud River, as defined by the presence of

riparian vegetation, is generally less than 75 ft wide because of the steep nature of the

surrounding valley walls that form a confined channel. White alder vegetation type was

the most common riparian plant community (65 percent of riparian cover) and occurred

along most of the drainages within the project area as narrow to moderately wide bands

of vegetation within and along the margins of river, stream, and other drainages. Mixed

willow and big-leaf maple vegetation communities were also common and together

comprised an additional 30 percent of riparian vegetation. Riparian habitat ground layer

was characterized as open to dense in cover and dominated by rushes, sedges, forbs and

grasses. Spikerush, sedges, cattail, bulrush, were species indicative of wetlands within

the project area.

Riparian studies in 2007 identified a gap in the age class distribution of white alder

resulting from flooding in 1997, the largest annual peak flow in the 45-year record. The

1997 flood mobilized the channel bed and the resulting scouring action removed the

existing riparian vegetation. Since then, no other bed-mobilizing flood events have

occurred. Young white alder trees and other riparian vegetation have colonized the lower

bank elevations of the Lower McCloud River and expanded laterally into the Lower

McCloud River channel. Alterations in riparian vegetation structure were evident on

gravel bar and split channel features in river reaches through Nature Conservancy and

McCloud River Club owned lands upstream of the Squaw Valley confluence. Results of

the aerial photograph interpretation of riparian vegetation determined that no distinct

difference in vegetation character or longitudinal extent of riparian vegetation was

apparent along the Lower McCloud River. Some areas of localized changes in density,

height, and age of riparian vegetation have occurred within the active channel. Longterm shifts in species composition of riparian vegetation on mid-channel gravel and

cobble bars versus along the channel banks were not evident during the study.

Noxious Weeds

Botanical surveys for invasive plant species were conducted within the project

area and included land adjacent to project facilities, designated and dispersed recreation

sites, and proposed infrastructure construction areas and their associated buffers. In

addition, incidental information on targeted invasive plant species located along cross

sections of the Lower McCloud riparian corridor between McCloud dam and Squaw

Valley Creek is included; this information was collected as part of the riparian vegetation

study.

In order to differentiate the level of survey effort necessary for each species, this

combined target list of species was divided into high, medium, and low priority species

based on their abundance in mapped areas. As a result, 16 high-priority, 9 mediumpriority, and 40 low-priority targeted, terrestrial invasive plant species were observed, for

a total of 65 species. No invasive aquatic weed species were observed. Of all the
154

targeted, high-priority invasive plant species that were surveyed, four species were

particularly pervasive: yellow star-thistle, bull thistle, Himalayan blackberry, and

spreading hedge-parsley. The most ubiquitous low-priority species were hedgehog

dogtail and common St. Johnswort. Existing roads and transmission lines were heavily

infested with noxious weeds due to the disturbed soils and maintenance activities.

Reservoir shorelines also have high levels of infestation due to fluctuating water levels

that allow noxious weeds to invade. New plants can become established as a result of

water-borne seed transport, or seeds may be present within the soil bank of the shoreline

and new plants can colonize newly emerging shorelines as water levels recede.

Recreational activities such as boating can also break off portions of plants that can

propagate.

Black locust, an invasive tree, occurs in the upland and riparian areas along the

Lower McCloud River. The origination of black locust is in a former homestead in the

Ah-Di-Na area, and the species’ occurrence is concentrated at Ah-Di-Na though it is

dispersed throughout the Lower McCloud River. No black locust was found at the most

upstream or the most downstream study sites. The species prefers habitat of coarsegrained sediment in areas of infrequent inundation.

Special Status and Special Interest Plant, Lichen, and Fungi Species

Consultation with agencies and a literature review were used to develop a list of

special status plant, lichen, and fungi species with the potential to occur in the project

area. Field botanical surveys were conducted to determine if populations of the listed

species were present in the project area. A total of eight special status vascular plant

species were located during the surveys. No special status lichen or fungi species were

documented in the study area.

Shasta eupatorium is a perennial shrub in the sunflower family and endemic to

Shasta County. It occurs from 1,300 to 5,900 ft msl in chaparral and lower montane

coniferous forest with rocky carbonate soils or on limestone cliffs. One small patch of

about five plants was found growing on a bank of exposed bedrock at a dispersed

recreation site adjacent to the Lower McCloud River.

Butte County morning glory is a perennial, rhizomatous herb in the morning glory

family endemic to California and found in the High Cascade Range, Klamath Range, and

San Francisco Bay Area, as well as in Butte, Contra Costa, Del Norte, Mendocino,

Shasta, and Tehama Counties. The Butte County morning glory prefers dry rocky soils

and occurs from 1,900 to 5,000 ft msl in chaparral, open areas of lower montane

coniferous forests and occasionally along roadsides. It blooms from May to July. Five

populations of Butte County morning glory were found in the study area. One population

was located in a shady location along Pit 6 Road, in lower montane coniferous forest

flats; a second population was located along the Pit 6 transmission line, and the

remaining three populations were all observed along the existing Pit 7 transmission line.
155

Northern clarkia is an annual herb in the primrose family and is endemic to

California (Shasta and Trinity counties) growing from 1,300 to 4,400 ft msl in chaparral,

cismontane (west of the Sierra Nevada) and foothill woodlands, as well as lower montane

coniferous forest. The blooming period is June to September. A total of 20 northern

clarkia populations were found throughout the study area: 16 populations along Oak

Mountain Road, two along Pit 6 Road, and two along the Pit 6 transmission line.

Butte County fritillary is found only in Tehama, Butte, and Shasta Counties in the

Cascade Range from 160 to 4,900 ft msl. A perennial herb in the lily family, Butte

County fritillary and is conspicuous between March and June on dry benches and slopes,

generally in chaparral, cismontane woodland, and in openings in lower montane

coniferous forest. Six populations of Butte County fritillary were found within the

proposed Pit 7 afterbay powerhouse and proposed access road to Pit 7 afterbay

powerhouse areas.

Howell’s lewisia is a perennial herb in the purslane family distributed from Idaho

through Oregon to Northern California. Specifically in California it is found in Shasta,

Del Norte, Trinity, Humboldt, and Siskiyou Counties. It blooms from April to July on

rock outcrops and canyon walls in broadleaf upland forest, chaparral, cismontane

woodland, and lower montane coniferous forest at elevations ranging from 490 to 6,600

ft msl. One population of Howell’s lewisia was found at a Lower McCloud River

recreation site, and a second population was found at a recreation site between McCloud

dam and Hawkins tunnel.

English peak greenbriar is a perennial, herbaceous vine endemic to California and

is found in the Cascade and Klamath ranges, as well as Del Norte, Shasta, Siskiyou, and

Trinity Counties, typically at elevations of 1,900 to 8,000 ft msl. It occurs primarily in

association with alder thickets marshes and swamps, lake margins, stream banks

including lake margins and stream banks within, lower montane and montane coniferous

forest and deciduous forests. It blooms from May to July or August. Five populations of

English peak greenbriar were documented along the Iron Canyon reservoir road.

Long-fruit jewel flower is a short-lived perennial herb in the mustard family

endemic to California and more specifically to Butte, Shasta, and Tehama Counties.

Recently described by Clifton and Buck (2007), long fruit jewel flower is limited to the

eastern side of the Klamath Range at the southern edge of the Cascade Range and the

western side of the northernmost Sierra Nevada Mountains. It occurs at elevations from

2,350 to 5,000 ft msl and blooms from April to September throughout cismontane

woodlands and lower coniferous forest openings with a variety of soil types, often in

disturbed areas. Three populations of this newly described species were documented:

two populations along Oak Mountain Road and one population along the Pit 6 road.

Slender false lupine occurs in the Klamath and North Coast ranges in California

north through Oregon, specifically in Del Norte, Humboldt, Shasta, Siskiyou, and Trinity

Counties. It is found at elevations ranging from 300 to 4,500 ft msl in open, often dry

sites (sometimes roadsides), including chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower montane
156

coniferous forest, meadows and seeps, and north coast coniferous forest. An herb in the

pea family, it blooms from March to July. Six populations of slender false lupine were

located across the study area, one along Pit 7 afterbay road, two along Oak Mountain

Road, and three populations along the proposed route for the Pit 7 afterbay transmission

line.

Special Interest Plants

Special interest plants include native plant populations suitable for revegetation

source material; culturally significant plant species, as defined by the Pit River and

Winnemem Wintu Tribes; and elderberry (Sambucus mexicana) plants suitable for

supporting the federally threatened VELB, section 3.3.4, Threatened and Endangered

Species.

A confidential list of culturally significant plants, including a threshold abundance

criterion for each species, was developed in consultation with the Pit River and

Winnemem Wintu Tribes during a series of meetings in early 2007. The list and survey

results related to culturally significant plants was presented directly to the Pit River and

Winnemem Wintu Tribes as a confidential report attachment and is also confidential. A

total of 95 populations, containing 32 species of culturally significant species were

located during the survey.

Elderberry is a large, deciduous, perennial shrub or small tree in the honeysuckle

family. It typically occurs along stream banks and forest openings below 9,840 ft msl

within a variety of habitats including chaparral, foothill woodland, red fir forest, riparian

forest and woodland, and yellow pine forest throughout California. Fifteen populations

of elderberry were documented in the McCloud reservoir, McCloud tunnel, Iron Canyon

reservoir, Iron Canyon tunnel, and Pit 7 afterbay areas. Most of the populations were

sparse, with between one and 10 individuals; however, two populations contained

between 11 and 50 individuals and one population had more than 100. Aside from

abundance, percent cover, and patch size, no additional VELB habitat-specific

information (i.e., number of stems greater than or equal to 1-in. diameter at ground level

and the presence or absence of VELB exit holes) was recorded for the elderberry

population.

3.3.3.1.2 Wildlife

General Wildlife

As a result of the diverse vegetation community structure within the project area,

wildlife resources are also diverse and include common, resident, and migratory species.

Invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, birds, small and large mammals, game species, and

special status species are represented. Wildlife resources were assessed using

methodologies that included literature review, agency consultation, and field surveys.

Unless otherwise noted, information for this section was derived from the license

application and technical memos resulting from specific surveys and provided in the

license application (PG&E, 2009a).
157

Sierran mixed conifer forest is the most common forest type in the project area,

and provides habitat for small mammals such as chipmunks, western gray squirrel, deer

mouse, and bats. Larger mammals typically found in Sierran mixed conifer forest

include gray fox, black bear, and mule deer. Dead trees (snags) and large trees provide

nesting sites for predatory birds (raptors) such as red-tailed hawks. Other species of birds

typically found in this vegetation community include dark-eyed junco, mountain

chickadee, Steller’s jay, western wood-pewee, and northern flicker. Western fence lizard

may also occur on the forest floor.

Montane hardwood is the second most frequent wildlife habitat type in the project

vicinity. This woodland vegetation provides habitat for many species that are reliant on

acorns as food. Many bird species such as western scrub jay, evening grosbeak, acorn

woodpecker, white-breasted nuthatch, and Hutton’s vireo utilize this habitat type (Forest

Service, 1995). Western gray squirrel, California ground squirrel, and chipmunks also

rely on acorns. All of these species inadvertently distribute acorns and, as a result,

enhance the growth of oaks in the community. This vegetation community also provides

habitat for raptors including owls and hawks.

Similar to Sierran mixed conifer forest, ponderosa pine forest provides habitat for

raptors including red-tailed hawk and small mammals such as western gray squirrel.

Other species that may use this vegetation community include mountain quail, western

scrub jay, and deer.

Blue oak-foothill pine woodlands are found between lower elevation grasslands

and the lower montane mixed coniferous forest and, consequently, generally share

species with adjacent vegetation communities resulting in a high diversity of wildlife

species.

Mixed chaparral occurs adjacent to the previously described blue oak woodlands.

Wildlife using chaparral habitat is varied and may include deer, bushtit, green-tailed

towhee, wrentit, and mountain lion (Forest Service, 1995).

Many species depend upon riparian, wetland, or littoral habitat including beaver,

muskrat, long-tailed weasel, American mink, California red-legged frog, black

salamander, yellow warbler, willow flycatcher, and Pacific fisher. Freshwater emergent

wetlands are used by aquatic and semi-aquatic species of wildlife including tailed frogs,

northwestern pond turtle, bald eagle, river otter, water shrew, ducks, geese, and

shorebirds (Forest Service, 1995).

Generally terrestrial wildlife species within the project area use the open water

associated with the creeks and forebays of the project as foraging habitat and water

source. The open water also provides resting and foraging habitat for aquatic bird species

(grebes, waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, gulls, and terns) and aerial insect foragers

such as swifts, swallows, flycatchers, and bats. Fish-eating species such as osprey, bald

eagle, and belted kingfisher are also found. Many common mammals use open water as a

source of drinking water, and raccoons forage for prey along the shoreline.
158

The developed/disturbed urban habitat surrounding the development facilities

attracts species that are tolerant of human activity and have adapted to maintained

vegetation (lawns and landscaped areas). Typical species include rock pigeons, western

scrub jay, northern mockingbird, house finch, house sparrow, opossum, raccoon, and

striped skunk.

A wide variety of game species occur within a variety of wildlife habitats in the

project area including game birds such as band-tailed pigeons, blue grouse, mountain

quail, mourning dove, ruffed grouse, wild turkey, California quail, ducks, and geese.

Mammal species that are hunted include black bear, elk, mule deer, wild boar, gray

squirrel, Douglas squirrel, hares, rabbits, bobcat, beaver, coyote, and gray fox (Forest

Service, 1995). Amphibian and reptile surveys located ensatina, black salamander,

western fence lizard, western skink, ringneck snake, and western rattlesnake in the

project area.

Bat species detected by acoustic and capture surveys in the project area, including

existing and proposed infrastructure areas, include Mexican free-tailed bat, big brown

bat, silver-haired bat, hoary bat, California myotis, long-eared myotis, fringed myotis,

Yuma myotis, and western pipistrelle. Five other species were detected (pallid bat,

Townsend’s big-eared bat, spotted bat, western red bat, and western mastiff bat) and are

discussed in the special status wildlife section below. Yuma myotis was the most

abundant species captured during surveys, and was captured at the highest number of

sites; this species was also detected at every acoustic survey site.

Survey results identified roost sites in the project area and include powergeneration and dam structures, siphons, campground structures, overflow spillways, and a

natural limestone cave complex on the west shore of McCloud reservoir. Two structures

were confirmed to support day roosts for maternity colonies: James B. Black

powerhouse and McCloud intake. Willow Creek siphon is also likely a maternity colony.

These sites are critical to bats during the reproductive season, generally spring to fall.

Winter hibernacula were observed at McCloud reservoir intake, McCloud dam

diversion/outlet tunnel, Ah-Di-Na campground old cellar building, and Iron Canyon

reservoir overflow spillway.

Special Status Wildlife Species

Special status wildlife species include species that may be protected by the state of

California as endangered or threatened, California species of concern, California fully

protected species, species identified as watchlist species by California Fish and Game,

and other species identified as special animals by California Fish and Game. Also

included are Forest Service Region 5 species of concern and species on the California

BLM Animal Sensitive Species List (BLM, 2006). Federally listed rare, threatened, or

endangered species; candidate species for listing; and any applicable designated critical

habitat for a listed species are discussed in section 3.3.4, Threatened and Endangered

Species.
159

Based on discussions with California Fish and Game and FWS, the licensee

developed a list of special status wildlife species that are known to occur or have the

potential to occur where suitable habitat exists in the project area: VELB; bald eagle;

golden eagle; northern goshawk; peregrine falcon; Northern spotted owl; willow

flycatcher; bank swallow; greater sandhill crane; American marten; Pacific fisher; Sierra

Nevada red fox; California wolverine; ringtail; pallid bat; spotted bat; Townsend’s bigeared bat; western red bat; western mastiff bat; Shasta salamander; tailed frog; foothill

yellow-legged frog; northwestern pond turtle; and 10 species of terrestrial mollusks, six

of which are considered Forest Service special status species and four of which are

considered BLM sensitive species. As federal-listed species, VELB, northern spotted

owl, Pacific fisher, and California red-legged frog are addressed in section 3.3.4,

Threatened and Endangered Species.

Other species considered but eliminated from further discussion include: great

gray owl, California spotted owl, bank swallow, southern torrent salamander and

Cascades frog. Great gray owls are not discussed due to the distance of the project area

from the typical range of the species (more than 150 miles) (California Wildlife-Habitat

Relationships [CWHR], 2010). The Forest Service identifies the range of northern

spotted owls as north of the Pit River, and California spotted owls as south of the Pit

River, and commented that the project is not within the range of the California spotted

owl; therefore, it is not further addressed (PG&E, 2006). The project area does not

provide suitable habitat for southern torrent salamander or Cascades frog.

Terrestrial Mollusks

Three of the 10 terrestrial mollusk species were detected within the project area:

Shasta chaparral snail, Shasta hesperian, and the Oregon shoulderband snail.

Shasta Chaparral Snail—The Shasta chaparral snail is endemic to Shasta County

and is generally found within 100 m of lightly to deeply shaded limestone areas. In the

project area it was detected at the Pit 6 and 7 reservoirs and facilities.

Shasta Hesperian Snail—The Shasta hesperian snail is found on damp ground near

springs, seeps, and at stream margins under or on loose rocks, woody debris, or decaying

leaves and is considered common along the middle reaches of the Pit River. It was the

most abundant and ubiquitous of the special status terrestrial mollusk species detected

within the project area. In the project area, it was found near year-round sources of water

under rocks, leaf litter, or woody debris. This species was found at McCloud reservoir,

Lower McCloud River; Iron Canyon reservoir, Iron Canyon Creek, Pit 6 reservoir and

project facilities, and Pit 7 reservoir and facilities. The Shasta hesperian snail was found

at the proposed Pit 7 powerhouse site and all of the sites along the proposed Pit 7

transmission line route. In the proposed McCloud construction site, the Shasta hesperian

snail was found in low abundance at Tarantula Gulch.

Oregon Shoulderband Snail—The Oregon shoulderband snail is associated with

talus and other rocky substrates wherever permanent ground cover such as rock fissures
160

or LWD, or moisture is available but is somewhat adapted to dry conditions during a

portion of the year. The Oregon shoulderband snail was found in the Lower McCloud

River, Iron Canyon reservoir, James B. Black facilities, Pit 6 reservoir and project

facilities, and the Pit 7 reservoir and project facilities. This species was also found in the

study area associated with the proposed Pit 7 afterbay construction area where it was

detected under boulders at the USGS gage building.

Amphibians and Reptiles

Shasta Salamander—The Shasta salamander is listed as threatened under the

California ESA and is a BLM sensitive species. The Shasta salamander primarily

inhabits limestone outcrops and caves and adjacent slope habitats in mixed forests of

Douglas-fir, foothill pine, and black and canyon oak, at elevations from 1,000 to 3,000 ft

msl, though it may also use a variety of non-limestone habitats within its known range.

The Shasta salamander lays and broods its eggs in limestone caves in summer.

Individuals were found at McCloud reservoir and Fenders Flat / Pit 7 afterbay dam during

surveys.

Tailed Frog—The tailed frog is a California species of special concern. This

species uses cold, rocky streams in humid forests of Douglas-fir, pine, spruce, hemlock,

redwood, maple, and alder, with interspersed grassland or chaparral (Stebbins, 2003).

Most breeding occurs in early fall; eggs are laid in June and July and attached to rocky

streambed. Hatching occurs in August and September. Adult and tadpole stages of tailed

frogs were found at Ladybug Creek, a tributary to the Lower McCloud River. The Forest

Service commented on November 18, 2006, that the tailed frog is known to be present in

the McCloud reservoir based on unpublished data from a Forest Service employee.

Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog—The foothill yellow-legged frog is a Forest Service

sensitive species, a BLM sensitive species, and a California species of special concern.

The foothill yellow-legged frog inhabits small streams below 5,000 ft msl where breeding

occurs in low to moderate gradient streams in shallow edgewater areas, often close to

confluences with tributary streams. In the spring, the foothill yellow-legged frog deposits

masses of eggs on the downstream side of cobbles and boulders in gently flowing water

once water temperatures reach about 53 to 55°F. Tadpoles tend to remain near the

hatching site; these areas are typically associated with edgewater habitat and are adjacent

to riffles, cascades, main channel pools, and plunge-pools that provide escape cover and

food. Tadpoles metamorphose into juvenile frogs in 3 to 4 months. Juvenile and adult

individuals prefer perennial streams and ephemeral creeks with pools and areas that

provide exposed basking sites and cool shady areas adjacent to the edge of the water.

During amphibian surveys in the project area, foothill yellow-legged frog

individuals were observed at seven sites located between river mile 1.4 and 5.7 on the

Lower McCloud River and in associated tributaries. Evidence of breeding (egg masses or

tadpoles and post-metamorphic frogs (adults, juveniles, or young of the year) were

observed at four mainstem sites. Post-metamorphic frogs were also observed in three

tributaries. Twelve egg masses were observed in the Lower McCloud River between
161

May 8 and June 10; seven of these showed evidence of successful hatching (tadpoles

were found nearby), and the other five failed due to scouring, fungal infestation, or

predation.

Northwestern Pond Turtle—The northwestern pond turtle, also called the north

Pacific pond turtle or the western pond turtle, is a species of special concern in

California. It is distributed from western Washington to northwest Baja California,

mostly west of the Cascade-Sierra crest, and may be found at elevations up to 6,696 ft but

mostly below 4,980 ft msl (Stebbins, 2003). It inhabits ponds, lakes, rivers, marshes,

streams, and irrigation ditches with rocky or muddy bottoms and herbaceous vegetation.

Natural Heritage records exist for this species in Shasta and Siskiyou Counties, and in the

McCloud, Upper Pit and Lower Pit watersheds.

Surveys for northwestern pond turtle were conducted by boat in 2007 and 2008 in

the McCloud, Iron Canyon, Pit 6, and Pit 7 reservoirs; individuals were found in the Pit 6

and Pit 7 reservoirs. In addition to the reservoir surveys, individuals were observed

during surveys for foothill yellow-legged frog at four sites on the Lower McCloud River,

in Pit 6 reservoir, and in Pit 7 reservoir.

All northwestern pond turtle individuals found in the Pit 6 and Pit 7 reservoirs

were sighted in the lower reaches of the reservoirs. Areas of suitable habitat in Iron

Canyon and McCloud reservoirs were found to be well above the waterline in 2008;

refuge areas in shoreline brush and basking areas were greatly reduced by low water

levels. It was surmised that it is unlikely that either Iron Canyon reservoir or McCloud

reservoir supports a northwestern pond turtle population, although there is potential for

individual turtles to escape detection. The tributary streams upstream of Iron Canyon

reservoir are likely too small to support northwestern pond turtle populations. Those

tributaries upstream of McCloud reservoir may lack sufficient slow-water habitat and

may be too cold.

Birds

Bald Eagle—The bald eagle was removed from the federal endangered species list

in 2007; however, it continues to be protected by the federal Bald and Golden Eagle

Protection Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as a California listed threatened species

and fully protected species and as a Forest Service sensitive species.

The bald eagle tends to nest in areas of mature / late successional or old-growth

forest where large trees are available for nest building in fairly close proximity to large

bodies of water used for hunting. Winter habitat requirements include adequate food

supplies and the presence of roosting sites generally located close to open water but

which can be over 20 miles from foraging areas. Important perch and roost sites include

snags and dead-topped, live trees in areas with minimal human disturbance. Fish are the

primary diet, although waterfowl, gulls, and other birds; mammals; and carrion may also

be taken.
162

The licensee has monitored all known bald eagle territories since the mid-1980s

located within the area defined in the Pit River Management Zone of the Pacific Bald

Eagle Recovery Plan, developed and implemented by FWS in 1986. Overall, the

population of eagles has increased in the project area; nest success and productivity is

below average for the state; and nests along reservoirs have had better productivity than

those along rivers, suggesting that as the population increases in the area some territories

are established in marginal habitat affecting nest success and productivity.

Prelicensing surveys located eight bald eagle nesting territories within the project

area including two previously unknown territories on Chatterdown Creek and McCloud

Bridge. Other territories in the project area located at McCloud reservoir, McCloud

River, Iron Canyon reservoir (two), Pit 6 reservoir, and Pit 7 afterbay near Pit 7 dam.

Winter sightings of adult bald eagle individuals near known territories indicate that pairs

are likely year-round residents. Bald eagle prey studies in the 1980s at McCloud and Iron

Canyon reservoirs revealed a diverse diet of salmonids; water and land birds; and

mammals including deer and squirrels; though it is suspected that salmonids make up a

large portion of the diet of these eagles (Nevares et al., 2008a).

Golden Eagle—The golden eagle is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle

Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and is a California fully protected

species. Golden eagles use a variety of habitats including conifer, hardwood or mixed

woodland, alpine, grassland, cliff, desert, savannah, and tundra. Golden eagles were

noted as occurring in the project area for the Pit 1 new license environmental assessment,

about 50 miles from the McCloud-Pit project (PG&E, 1999). No surveys were conducted

in the McCloud-Pit project area for golden eagles.

Northern Goshawk—The northern goshawk, a large forest-dwelling raptor that

uses a wide variety of habitat types, is a federal species of concern, California species of

concern, and Forest Service sensitive species. The northern goshawk prefers dense, late

successional stage forest for nesting that is interspersed with meadows and other

openings, and low-elevation riparian habitats for foraging. The goshawk nesting period

extends from mid-February through mid-September.

Surveys of potentially suitable habitat were conducted to determine if northern

goshawks were present and if active nesting was occurring. The broadcast acoustical

method was used for initial surveys, and the stand search method was used for follow up

surveys. Two surveys occurred during the breeding season (June 1 through August 15)

of 2007 and 2008. Although no active nests were identified, there were six northern

goshawk detections during the 2007 survey season; no detections were documented

during 2008 surveys. The majority (four) of the detections were associated with a

suspected northern goshawk activity center located on Forest Service land about 0.5 mile

south of Ah-Di-Na Campground. This area is considered a suspected northern goshawk

activity center due to detections occurring in each survey period and the observation of at

least two birds displaying aggressive/territorial behavior. The remaining detections
163

occurred at the southeast end of the Pit 6 transmission line about 1.5 miles northwest of

Wengler (Nevares and Lindstrand, 2008a).

Peregrine Falcon—The peregrine falcon was officially removed from the federal

list of endangered species in 1999 and from the California state list in 2009 (California

Fish and Game, 2010), but remains a California fully protected species, and is protected

under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. Individuals feed primarily on birds from

warbler- to mallard-sized, taken in flight over various habitats including forest edges,

meadows, and water bodies (reservoirs, rivers, and streams). Steep-walled canyons and

limestone outcroppings provide potential nesting habitat for peregrine falcons. Eggs are

laid and young are reared on ledges or in small caves. The breeding season extends from

about March to mid-August, although timing can vary.

Several territories have been documented in the vicinity of the project area, and

surveys to assess habitat and presence of nesting individuals resulted in the

documentation of nesting pairs along almost all major project water bodies within the

project area. Peregrine falcon nesting pairs were documented in large rock outcroppings

along the McCloud River, Iron Canyon Creek, Pit 7 reservoir, and Pit 6 reservoir. The

2007-2008 surveys also documented breeding at four territories and each nesting pair

produced at least one young and, in most cases, two young were observed (Nevares et al.,

2008b).

Willow Flycatcher—Willow flycatcher is a California listed endangered species

and a Forest Service species of concern. Suitable habitats occurring in the project area

include “monotypic, willow, marsh-lake margin” and “mixed shrub riparian–varying

stream size” habitat types and meet willow flycatcher protocol criteria of having patchy

shrubby riparian vegetation, and at least some surface water or saturated soil during the

early portion of the breeding season. Surveys conducted in 2008 detected non-territorial

individuals in suitable habitat at the Cedar Salt Log, McGill Creek, and Fenders Flat /

Pit 7 afterbay dam survey areas. The individuals detected are considered migrants;

however, it is possible that some individuals may breed in the project area (Nevares and

Lindstrand, 2008b).

Bank Swallow—In California, the state-listed threatened bank swallow relies on

naturally eroding habitats of major lowland river systems (California Fish and Game,

2003). This species nests in colonies and creates nests by burrowing into vertical banks

of fine-textured soils. Currently, individuals are locally common only in portions of

California where sandy, vertical bluffs or riverbanks are available. The current range for

this species does not appear to overlap the project area.

Greater Sandhill Crane—The greater sandhill crane is a California fully protected

species, and is state-listed as a threatened species. This species feeds on a variety of prey

items (amphibians, snakes, invertebrates) as well as grasses and grains in wet meadows,

flooded grain fields, pastures, shallow water habitats, and wetlands. Pairs return to the

same territory and even the same approximate nest location every year (California Fish

and Game, 2003). Based on the survey data recorded since 1981, areas of suitable
164

wetland and meadow habitat in Shasta and Siskiyou Counties support breeding

individuals; however, individuals in the project area are on the edge of their range

(CWHR, 2010).

Mammals

American Marten—American marten is a Forest Service species of concern.

Natural heritage records exist for American marten in Shasta and Siskiyou Counties, and

the Lower Pit and McCloud watersheds (NatureServe, 2009). Martens are medium-sized

carnivores that inhabit dense, coniferous, mixed, or deciduous forests and occupy holes in

tree stumps. Loss or degradation of habitat due to timber harvesting is the primary threat

to this species. The project area is within the known range of American marten (CWHR,

2010); surveys were not conducted in the project area for this species.

Sierra Nevada Red Fox—The Sierra Nevada red fox is a state-listed threatened

species. The range of the Sierra Nevada red fox is described as the southern Cascade

Range in northern California, southeastward to the northern Sierra Nevada, and then

south along the Sierra Nevada crest to Tulare County. Preferred habitat for the Sierra

Nevada red fox appears to be red fir and lodgepole pine forests in the sub-alpine, and in

the alpine of the Sierra Nevada. The current status of the Sierra Nevada red fox is

unknown, and threats to the species have not been identified. This species is assumed to

be present in the project area though it was not detected during prelicensing surveys

(PG&E, 2006).

California Wolverine—The California wolverine is a California listed threatened

species and is also considered a California fully protected species. This species requires

dense cover for resting and reproduction, and open areas for hunting. The home range

size of the California wolverine is extremely variable (less than 39 square miles to over

347 square miles) and appears to depend on the abundance and distribution of food.

Dens are found in trees, dead standing trees (snags), downed logs, abandoned beaver

lodges, among boulders, rock ledges, in old bear dens, and in caves. Riparian areas are

used as travel corridors. The environmental assessment for the Pit 1 license lists

wolverines as present in the Pit 1 project area, which is located about 50 miles from the

McCloud-Pit project (table 11, PG&E, 1999). The project area is within the known range

of the California wolverine (CWHR, 2010), but no survey was conducted for this species.

Though it was undetected during prelicensing surveys, the California wolverine is

assumed to be present in the project area (PG&E, 2006).

Ringtail—The ringtail is an omnivorous, raccoon-like mammal and a California

fully protected species found in desert scrub, chaparral, pine-oak or conifer woodland

habitats with rocky areas and fallen log debris (NatureServe, 2009). It is known to occur

near the project area in the Central Valley. The licensee reported ringtail in the Pit 1

environmental assessment for a new license; the Pit 1 project is located about 50 miles

from the McCloud-Pit project (PG&E, 1999). No surveys were conducted in the project

area for this species.
165

Special Status Bats— Four special status bat species—pallid bat, Townsend’s bigeared bat, spotted bat, and western red bat—were detected during acoustic and capture

surveys in the study area which included existing project structures, reservoirs, and

project-affected stream reaches.

Pallid Bats. A California mammal species of special concern and Forest Service

sensitive species, the pallid bat roosts in structures, cavities, and live or dead trees

anywhere from the riparian zone to ridges above, or in rock features on slopes of river

drainages. A pallid bat colony can range from 35 to 300 individuals. The pallid bat has

one litter per year and often gives birth to twins. This species forages primarily on

ground-dwelling arthropods, most frequently in riparian zones, open oak savannah, and

open mixed deciduous forest habitats, and uses pools in rivers and streams as a source of

water.

Individuals were captured at the Pit 6 and 7 dams and along the existing Pit 7

transmission line corridor. The capture of a juvenile at Pit 7 dam confirmed the presence

of a reproductive population and acoustic records document the presence of this species

throughout the proposed McCloud and Pit 7 afterbay infrastructure sites during the

summer breeding season (July through September). This species is not known to be

migratory, and likely hibernates in the area, as suggested by one acoustic detection record

from February, 2009, at the McCloud dam spillway.

Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat. Townsend’s big-eared bat is also a California

mammal species of special concern and a Forest Service sensitive species and is widely

distributed in the lava bed and limestone areas of Shasta, Siskiyou, and Modoc Counties

where it roosts in tunnels, caves, mines, or rock shelters that are close to water.

Townsend’s big-eared bat forages in riparian zones as well as creek and river drainages

feeding primarily on moths, and, like the pallid bat, uses pools in rivers and streams to

drink. Colony size ranges from 35 to 500 individuals and adult females give birth to a

single young per year. Acoustic records document the presence of Townsend’s big-eared

bat only in association with the exposed limestone along the margin of McCloud

reservoir where one adult female (non-reproductive) was captured.

Spotted Bat. The spotted bat is a mammal species of special concern in California

and, although rare and patchily distributed, is known to occur in the project vicinity. The

spotted bat forages over open areas and along forest areas, particularly in association with

wet meadows, and uses creeks and rivers as a source of water. This species roosts in rock

features, often on steep slopes or rock outcrops associated with river drainages. The

spotted bat is thought to be non-colonial, and females give birth to a single young each

year.

Documented in the Pit 4 development area in 2000, individuals were detected

acoustically in spring and late summer in a clearing adjacent to an inactive sewage lagoon

near the town of McCloud, within the proposed construction footprint for the McCloud

transmission line.
166

Western Red Bat. The western red bat is a California mammal species of special

concern and a Forest Service sensitive species that is known to occur in the project

vicinity, and likely uses the Pit and McCloud Rivers as migration corridors. This species

roosts in riparian vegetation and uses riparian edge habitats as well as a variety of

terrestrial and aquatic habitats for foraging. The western red bat is non-colonial, and

females give birth to one litter of twins per year. Individuals were detected at proposed

McCloud infrastructure sites, Pit 7 afterbay sites including the afterbay powerhouse

construction site, and both proposed transmission corridors. During the survey effort,

most acoustic records were between late July and early October, at a time when this

species begins to move south in fall migration. Individuals were detected year-round at

the proposed Pit 7 afterbay and existing Pit 7 transmission line sampling sites indicating

that the Pit River may be a fall migration corridor for the western red bat, and that not all

individuals migrate. No western red bat activity was recorded during the winter at

proposed McCloud infrastructure sites.

Western Mastiff Bat—The western mastiff bat is found in rock features, often

steep slopes or rock outcrops associated with river drainages, under slabs of exfoliating

granite, or in basaltic columns. Colony size ranges from 35 to 200 individuals. Females

give birth to a single young each year. This species is an open-air forager, and has been

detected flying/foraging over reservoirs elsewhere in their range. Individuals were

detected acoustically at the Pit 6 dam in September, 2007, the first record of this species

for the Pit River.

3.3.3.2 Environmental Effects

3.3.3.2.1 Vegetation

Upland Vegetation

The vegetation community within the project area is relatively stable and is subject

to disturbances from non-project related influences (rock slides, fire, disease, insect

infestation). Periodic maintenance work along existing transmission lines, roads, tunnels,

gages, powerhouses, associated facilities and reservoirs would cause short-term, minor

localize disturbance or removal of vegetation. Mechanical activities such as

snowplowing, road grading, ditch cleaning, and slide removal could cause surface to

shallow depth disturbance of vegetation and top soil layers; however, no adverse affects

to the existing seed bank within the soil would be expected. Over time, vegetation would

be expected to reestablish as a result of pioneering of plant species in adjacent areas and

growth of plants from the existing seed bank. The spraying of herbicides as part of O&M

activities to control undesirable vegetation such as non-native invasive or noxious weed

species (section 3.3.1.1, Noxious Weeds) could cause localized loss of upland vegetation

susceptible to the herbicide(s) being used.

Proposed construction of the two new powerhouses and the Pit 7 afterbay

substation are associated with primarily developed areas surrounding the existing project

dam structures. There would be temporary minor disturbance to upland vegetation
167

during construction of the facilities and a permanent loss of vegetation within the

footprint of the construction area.

The proposed Pit 7 afterbay transmission line would potentially remove vegetation

along a corridor about 1.6 miles long and 150 ft wide. Disturbance or removal of

vegetation along the construction corridor would be short-term. Upon completion of the

transmission line, a 40-ft-wide corridor would undergo periodic maintenance to protect

the transmission line from vegetation encroachment and allow access for maintenance

and repairs. The McCloud transmission line is proposed as a corridor of about 14 miles

in length and during construction would be about 150 ft wide; the final width of the

transmission line is expected to be 25 ft. Construction of the proposed McCloud

transmission line would require significant tree and vegetation clearing to establish the

150ft-wide construction corridor. Tree removal would result in a long-term alteration of

vegetation community structure. Post-construction, it is expected that the area would

gradually return to natural vegetation through pioneering from adjacent species,

revegetation from the existing seed bank, and natural succession.

PG&E has proposed protection and enhancement measures that are designed to

minimize the environmental effects of project operations and proposed construction on

vegetation within the project area. In PM&E Measure 13, PG&E has proposed to

develop a vegetation management plan (VMP) in consultation with the Forest Service

and other appropriate agencies. The VMP would guide the management of vegetation

within the project and project affected area including transmission line and would address

vegetation-related issues at the project for the term of the new license. The VMP would

contain specific elements including: (1) identification, protection and monitoring of

special status species potentially affected by project-related activities to maintain welldistributed, viable populations within the project-affected area; (2) protection of

culturally significant plant populations potentially affected by project-related activities

and to enhance populations when feasible opportunities exist; (3) invasive plant species

management and monitoring to minimize the introduction and spread of noxious weeds

and to assess the success of noxious weed management activities associated with project

O & M activities; (4) use of BMPs to avoid and / minimize effects on wetlands;

(5) restoration of native vegetation in relevant areas disturbed by project-related O&M

activities within the project-affected area; (6) invasive plant species management and

monitoring; and (7) the restoration of native vegetation in relevant areas disturbed as a

result of project related operations and activities. In addition, employees would receive

employee awareness training that would provide employees working within the project

area with the knowledge base to ensure effects from disturbance and direct removal of

vegetation are minimized and that revegetation activities are monitored. Employee

awareness training would ensure the coordination of the implementation of the VMP with

other management plans. The VMP would include a process and schedule for reporting

survey and monitoring results and provide for periodic review and revision of the VMP.

Forest Service condition 25 specifies that PG&E file a Vegetation and Invasive

Weed Management Plan developed in consultation with the Forest Service, appropriate
168

County Agricultural Commissioner, California Department of Food and Agriculture,

potentially affected tribes and other interest parties. The plan specified by Forest Service

condition 25 would also be approved by the Forest Service and would be developed

within one year of license issuance. Components of the plan include: treatment

protocols and measures for removing or trimming vegetation within the Project and

project-affected area; protection of special status and culturally significant plants and

populations; invasive species management and monitoring and pesticide or herbicide use

restrictions and prohibitions. Each component would provide specific guidance elements.

Treatment protocols and measures for removing or trimming vegetation include:

(1) hazard tree removal and trimming and power line / transmission line clearing that

would include slash disposal for both management protocols; (2) vegetation management

for habitat improvement; (3) revegetation of disturbed sites, including standards of

success, monitoring schedule, and remediation measures; (4) soil protection and erosion

control including use of certified weed-free straw and other methods that minimize the

risk of introducing non-native invasive plant species; (5) establishment of and / or

revegetation with culturally important plant species; and (6) use of clean, weed-free seed

with guidance on the use of locally collected native seed, and a plan to collect and

propagate or otherwise acquire an adequate supply of appropriate native plant material

for use in erosion control.

The plan includes the development of a monitoring component for special status

and culturally significant plants approved by the Forest Service. Current locations,

(including boundaries) for populations of special status and culturally significant plant

species would be identified and delineated by GPS. Periodic monitoring of the known

locations would occur every five years and every ten years for the project and projectaffected area to determine if additional special status or culturally significant species have

become established in the project or project-affected area to provide measures for

addressing populations of newly established species. Surveys would also be conducted

for new, listed special status species potentially occurring within the project or projectaffected area; if identified species would be monitored. Information on locations,

protection, monitoring, and survey measures for sensitive, culturally significant, invasive

species and other rare plant locations would be shared with managers of O&M activities

of any power distribution lines that cross portions of the project area.

The special status species survey element would be initiated by consultation with

the Forest Service, concurrent with the annual consultation meeting as specified in Forest

Service condition 1, to review the most current list of special status plant species that

might occur on Forest Service lands in the project area or the project-affected area.

When species are added to any of the lists, consultation would determine if suitable

habitat occurs on Forest Service lands and, within one year, PG&E would develop and

implement a study plan in consultation with the Forest Service to reasonably assess the

effects of the project on the species. PG&E would prepare a draft report that provides the

objectives, methods, results, and recommended resource measures as appropriate,

schedule for implementation, to the Forest Service for review and approval; the final
169

report would be filed with the Commission and would include documentation of

consultation.

PG&E alternative condition 25 proposes modifications to specific elements of

Forest Service condition 25, including an alternate schedule for preparation. PG&E

assures that adequate protection and utilization of Forest Service lands would be

contained within PG&E alternative condition 25 because PG&E would protect, mitigate

and / or enhance populations of sensitive plant species potentially affected by project

operations by conducting management and monitoring.

In PG&E alternative condition 25, PG&E proposes that the preparation of the

Vegetation and Invasive Weed Management Plan be made consistent with the original

PM&E measure 13 schedule of “two years after license issuance” instead of the one year

that is specified in Forest Service condition 25. PG&E believes that providing two years

instead of one year to prepare the plan would allow more careful planning and adequate

schedule coordination among the various agencies and other interested parties involved in

drafting a plan. During relicensing meetings, Forest Service staff stated that it desired

consistency between McCloud-Pit license conditions and those developed for a nearby

licensee-owned project, Pit 3, 4, and 5. Two years would provide adequate time to

achieve consistency with license conditions for McCloud-Pit and Pit 3, 4, and 5. To

support its proposal of a two-year time frame for preparing and implementing a

Vegetation and Invasive Weed Management Plan, PG&E presents a time line of

approximately 9-16 months which would make the one-year schedule proposed by Forest

Service infeasible. PG&E also points out that there is nothing to preclude completion

prior to the two year schedule proposed.

The licensee further proposes to limit the scope of Forest Service condition 25 to

only culturally significant plant species associated with TCPs. Areas identified during

relicensing surveys, that support populations of these plant species, are not considered to

be TCPs subject to the requirements of section 106 of the National Historic Preservation

Act unless they were also specifically identified by Tribal members. As a result, PG&E

notes that there is no regulatory requirement to include culturally significant plant species

in any long-term monitoring component for special status plant species as specified for

inclusion in a Vegetation and Invasive Species Management Plan by Forest Service

condition 25.

Hearst Corporation expressed concern that Hearst lands surround the entire

McCloud reservoir and that Forest Service condition 25 would require PG&E to conduct

surveys on private land. Hearst Corporation has suggested monitoring and management

plans and surveys be limited to project-affected PG&E and national forest lands. In

addition, Hearst Corporation has suggested that annual meetings also be opened to

“project-affected” private landowners.
170

Our Analysis

Normal O&M activities currently have negligible effects on established vegetation

within the project area. Proposed new construction within the project would have a longterm minor to moderate adverse affect on upland vegetation within the project area.

Clearing for the construction of the Pit 7 access road and construction staging area would

result in minor, long-term effects to vegetation. Clearing along transmission corridors

would result in the loss of linear portions of existing vegetation communities; however,

we expect that over the long-term the width of cleared area needed for construction

would be revegetated and most vegetation would re-establish. Development and

implementation of a Vegetation and Invasive Species Management Plan would provide

guidance for the restoration of vegetation using native plant species as well as monitoring

to maximize the success of vegetation restoration efforts. Permanent loss of vegetation

communities along the proposed transmission line corridors would occur. Vegetation

within the permanent corridor would re-establish; however, the vegetation within the

corridor would be managed and maintained as necessary and would be permanently

altered from the original plant communities that existed prior to the construction of the

new transmission lines.

In PM&E measure 13, PG&E addressed vegetation-related issues at the project for

the term of the new license that contained generalized plan elements for management,

protection, restoration and control of vegetation within the Project boundary, a timeframe

for development and implementation, and a proposed schedule for completion of specific

monitoring and control elements. Forest Service condition 25 specifies that the licensee

file a Vegetation and Invasive Weed Management Plan also developed in consultation

with the Forest Service and specifically adds the County Agricultural Commissioner,

California Department of Food and Agriculture, potentially affected tribes and other

interest parties. The plan specified by Forest Service condition 25 would be developed

within one year of license issuance. PG&E proposed alternative condition 25 proposes

limitations to the scope of Forest Service condition 25 to only culturally significant plant

species and alters the time frame for development and implementation.

PG&E alternative condition 25 proposes a two-year schedule for a Vegetation and

Invasive Weed Management Plan to allow consistency with Pit 3, 4, and 5 license

conditions. This altered time frame is important to the treatment of vegetation

communities of the watershed in a consistent and comprehensive manner to ensure the

maintenance of viable plant communities. Implementation of the individual species’

monitoring schedule as proposed by the licensee would provide coordination and

efficiency of monitoring schedules and allow for multiple-element monitoring conducted

concurrently. PG&E alternative condition 25 incorporated into Forest Service condition

25 would minimize adverse affects to vegetation.

Regarding access to private lands, the Commission cannot require PG&E to take

action outside of the project boundary. PG&E would need to coordinate with landowners

if access is needed to lands outside of project boundary, as proposed in PG&E alternative
171

conditions. However, if private land is located within project boundary, then PG&E

would have access to that land. For any PG&E action that would potentially affect the

property of private landowners, PG&E would need to consult with the private landowner.

Riparian and Wetland Vegetation

Inundation frequency and annual peak flows influence the distribution of riparian

vegetation with inundation frequency having the greatest effect on lateral extent.

Relatively infrequent annual peak flows of high magnitude (once per 20 years) that can

mobilize cobble and gravel bars resulting in scouring riparian vegetation appear to occur

at a similar frequency as in pre-project conditions; the most recent occurring in 1997.

Annual peak flows of lesser magnitude that occur more frequently (< 10 years) have

decreased since project operations began. The decrease in magnitude of annual peak

flows and a decrease in duration of inundation from flooding during the growing season

as a result of project operations is increasing riparian vegetation along the lower reaches

of the river. The decreased magnitude of annual peak flows is also affecting the age

distribution of white alders at higher elevations; mature specimens are not being replaced

by younger white alder as a result of decreased flooding flows at higher elevations that

allow establishment of young trees.

Riparian vegetation encroaching on the channel could potentially affect the quality

and coverage of terrestrial riparian and aquatic habitat along the Lower McCloud River,

though the linear extent is not affected and appears to continue at the same level under

project operations as it existed under pre-project conditions.

The licensee proposes minimum instream flow regimes (section 3.3.2.1.1, Water

Quantity) that would provide additional flow volumes over an annual and seasonally

distributed schedule. In addition, upward ramping of flows prior to uncontrolled spill

events would return scouring flows to the stream channel, which would reduce the ability

of riparian vegetation to become established along the channel. California Fish and

Game recommends and Forest Service condition 19 specifies a minimum instream flow

regime for the Lower McCloud River in order to provide benefits for fisheries.

A total of 820.65 acres of wetland and riparian habitats were mapped within the

proposed McCloud transmission line corridor and could be affected by construction

activities. To protect wetland habitat, PG&E proposes to follow BMPs to avoid or

minimize effects on wetland areas, including pre-construction wetland mapping and

associated protection measures.

Our Analysis

Natural riparian systems are well-adapted to the periodic inundation and scouring

that flood events can produce. Under the proposed action, increased minimum flows

would increase inundation periods during the growing season, restricting growth and

encroachment of riparian vegetation and improving the channel width. The proposed

action would not alter low frequency, high magnitude scouring floods. As a result,

encroachment of riparian vegetation into the channel would be minimized and aquatic
172

and terrestrial riparian habitat would be improved. Flows would be sufficient to control

lateral expansion of riparian vegetation without necessitating manual removal that could

destabilize sediments and increase erosion.

Pre-construction wetland mapping prior to the initiation of any construction, and

avoidance of existing wetlands to the extent practicable, would minimize effects from

construction. Any required state and federal permits would be required prior to

construction and any regulatory restrictions, and required BMPs or other conditions

would be implemented. Regardless, some adverse effects to wetlands are likely during

the construction of the McCloud transmission line. We expect that employment of preconstruction mapping and avoidance in concert with BMPs and permit requirements

would minimize effects, and effects would be short-term since no permanent disturbance

to the hydrology of the wetland systems is expected to occur as a result of construction.

After completion of construction, wetland systems within the width of the construction

corridor would return to pre-construction conditions over time as vegetation becomes reestablished. Within the permanent corridor of the transmission line, wetland and riparian

vegetation could be permanently altered as a result of continued vegetation maintenance

and management. We expect that the development and implementation of the Vegetation

and Invasive Species Management Plan would also minimize effects on wetlands;

elements of the plan would provide restoration guidance, pesticide and herbicide

restrictions and prohibitions, and integrate employee training and awareness including

use of BMPs.

Noxious Weeds

Activities associated with project O&M, recreation, and construction can cause

disturbances to existing vegetation which could spread or facilitate introduction of

noxious weeds in the project area or beyond. Project O&M activities with the potential to

affect the distribution of noxious weeds include slide removal; road grading; vegetation

management activities along transmission lines, roads, tunnels, gages, project facilities,

and reservoirs; and ditch clearing. Reservoir fluctuations create disturbances in littoral

habitats that make them susceptible to colonization by noxious weeds. In addition,

recreation activities that move from outside of the project to recreation sites within the

project area can result in noxious weeds and invasive species being introduced into the

project area via recreational equipment and vehicles. Newly cleared soil from

construction areas can be colonized by seeds from surrounding vegetation or seeds

brought into the area by a variety of methods. In addition, seeds and portions of plants

that can facilitate propagation and establishment could be dispersed by earthmoving

equipment. Vehicles used to access construction sites have the potential to facilitate the

spread of noxious weed species into and out of the construction sites. Construction of

transmission corridors, especially the construction of the McCloud transmission line with

a linear distance of about 14 miles, have the potential to affect sensitive riparian and

wetland vegetation communities in the corridor with the spread of invasive noxious

weeds.
173

Black locust prefers shoreline areas where hydrologic conditions reduce the

frequency of inundation. No historical information exists to provide insight into the level

of abundance of black locust in the Lower McCloud River prior to project operations.

Because the decreased flows and less frequent inundation as a result of project operations

has likely allowed riparian vegetation to encroach into the Lower McCloud River

channel, it is possible that hydrological conditions resulting from project operations have

also resulted in conditions that provide opportunity for black locust to increase. A

literature review led to the conclusion that black locust seed dispersal is unlikely to be

affected by the project, but that germination of seeds could be more successful due to the

project-related decrease in inundation frequency.

Specific to invasive plant species monitoring and control, the original licensee

PM&E measure 13 proposed invasive plant species monitoring and management as part

of the VMP development to minimize the introduction and spread of noxious weeds and

to assess the success of noxious weed management activities associated with project

O&M activities.

The Vegetation and Invasive Weed Management Plan specified in Forest Service

condition 25 would contain several components targeting invasive species management

and monitoring and would include elements to: (1) monitor area with ground disturbing

activities associated with the license for three years after the completion of activities to

assess the presence of any invasive weed populations that may have been introduced as a

result of activities; and (2) monitor known invasive plant species populations annually for

the first three years after license issuance to determine if noxious weed populations are

expanding into any locations of existing special status or culturally significant plant

populations; or if other adverse impacts are occurring to these plant populations. After

annual surveys for the first three years, monitoring would occur once every five years for

the term of the license. All monitoring would occur in the appropriate season when

plants are conspicuous but can be coordinated with other concurrent surveys or tasks. In

addition, inventory and mapping of new populations of noxious weeds would be

employed to update the GIS database maintained by the Forest Service every five years

and protocols and strategies to prevent and control the spread of known populations or

introductions of new populations would be developed. Spot treatments would be allowed

for detections of new, small infestations at the time of detection. The protocols and

strategies to prevent and control the spread of known populations would address the

following elements: (1) cleaning of construction equipment prior to entering and exiting

the Project area (but would not apply to vehicles used for PG&E’s regular O&M

activities; and (2) the use of weed-free straw, sand and gravel for restoration and

construction and restoration activities, rice straw may be substituted. The invasive

species management and monitoring component would include additional elements

including: development of a schedule for control (containment or eradication of

populations of prioritized invasive weed species designated by resource agencies; annual

monitoring of know populations for the term of the license in locations tied to project

actions or effects, such as road maintenance, facilities, project O&M activity areas;
174

construction sites to evaluate the effectiveness of revegetation and invasive weed control

measures; employee awareness training on the location and identification of invasive

weed species that may occur in the area and proper mechanisms for avoiding transport of

weed seeds while working and notification of the Forest Service when new populations

of invasive weed species are identified. Consultation and coordination with the Forest

Service would determine control measures.

With respect to which invasive weed species would be monitored and controlled,

Forest Service condition 25 specifies the development of a schedule for control

(containment or eradication) of all know populations of California Department of Food

and Agriculture rated A, B, and Q species; California Invasive Plant Council “high” and

“moderate” rated species, and selected other rated invasive species designated by

resource agencies.

PG&E alternative condition 25 proposes a change to focus control on agreedupon “high-priority” species that are deemed of significant concern to the project and

considered to be controllable by current management methods. PG&E also proposes a

change to Forest Service condition 25 language that states that new infestations of “A”,

“B” or “high” and “moderate” agency rated species should be controlled within one year

of detection, or as soon as practicable and feasible to focus on the agreed upon “high

priority” species considered to be controllable by currently available treatment methods.

PG&E alternative condition 25 identifies a list of “high priority” invasive plant species

that is consistent with the Forest Service condition 25 list of “invasive species known to

occur in the project and project-affected area”.

Forest Service condition 15 specifies that PG&E exclude the use of pesticides and

herbicides on NFS lands unless prior written approval is received from the Forest

Service. Materials used would be limited to those registered by U.S. EPA and consistent

with those used by Shasta-Trinity National Forest.

Our Analysis

PG&E PM&E 13 proposes, Forest Service condition 25 specifies, and PG&E

alternative condition 25 proposes similar components for invasive species management

and all provide guidance, methods, and protocols for treatment and management,

monitoring, and other elements that are similar in structure and intent: the avoidance and

control of noxious weed species within the project and project-affected area. In

combination with employee awareness training and the use of BMPs prior to routine

project O&M or construction activities with the potential to increase the introduction or

dispersion of invasive noxious weeds, PG&E would monitor the distribution and species

composition of high-priority noxious weeds within the project and project-affected area

and prioritize populations for feasible management or control measures

We expect annual monitoring of areas that undergo ground or vegetation

disturbance including management treatments would be effective in discerning the

establishment of noxious weeds that are generally aggressive in pioneering new areas.
175

However, we consider that monitoring of all areas of “high priority” noxious weed

populations that remain undisturbed could be conducted at five-year increments

consistent with monitoring special status and culturally important plant populations and

the five-year interval inventory and mapping element proposed., as proposed in PG&E

alternative condition 25. Implementation of the monitoring schedule as proposed by

PG&E would provide coordination and efficiency of monitoring schedules and multipleelement monitoring could be conducted concurrently.

Special Status Plant, Fungi and Lichen Species

Project operations have the potential to affect documented special status plant

species that occur within the project area. Special status plant species were identified

along the proposed McCloud and Pit 7 afterbay transmission line corridors, along the

proposed access road to Pit 7 afterbay powerhouse, and at the proposed Pit 7 afterbay

powerhouse. Populations of English Peak greenbriar, northern clarkia, slender false

lupine, long-fruit jewel-flower, and Butte County morning glory could be susceptible to

project construction and maintenance activities along project roads. In addition, project

operations that alter flow in the Lower McCloud River could affect a population of

Shasta eupatorium that occurs within the high water mark of the Lower McCloud River if

flow regime alterations increase flows. Water level changes as a result of project

operations could affect the sole population of Shasta eupatorium within the project area.

Based on a list of culturally significant plant species developed in consultation

with the Pit River and Winnemem Wintu Tribes, a total of 32 species of culturally

significant species were located during surveys. Survey results for culturally significant

plant species results were presented directly to the Pit River and Winnemem Wintu

Tribes as a confidential report.

The Tribes have stated that they are concerned about the effects of herbicide

applications to culturally significant plant species that grow near McCloud dam and

tunnels and are traditionally used by the Tribes. The Tribes are also concerned about the

effects of construction of the proposed McCloud transmission line on culturally important

plants and habitats; chokecherry, hazel, bear grass, and medicinal plants are gathered in

the area between McCloud reservoir and the town of McCloud.

Forest Service condition 25 specifying the development and implementation of a

Vegetation and Invasive Weed Management Plan would include provisions for

identification, protection, and monitoring of populations of special status plant species

(including culturally significant plant species). Specifically, the Forest Service would

request that PG&E develop, in consultation with the Forest Service, and approved by the

Forest Service a special status plant species component that includes elements to protect

and maintain well-distributed, viable populations of special status and culturally

significant plant species within the project and project-affected area. The Forest Service

specifies that the component for special status plant species (including culturally

significant plant species) of the Vegetation and Invasive Weed Management Plan require

the delineation of current locations of special status and culturally significant plants using
176

a global positioning system and ensures that information on locations of special status

and culturally significant plant species is shared with other managers of transmission

lines that cross the project area. In addition, the component would provide for periodic

monitoring once every five years to assess expansion or contraction of existing special

status species populations; and include surveys once every 10 years to determine the

presence of any new populations of special status species including culturally significant

plant species or newly listed special status species. Annual consultation and review of

the most current Forest Service list of special status species would determine if any newly

listed species or un-surveyed suitable habitat could potentially occur within the project

area; additional monitoring would be initiated to detect the presence of the newly listed

species within the project area. Should a species be located, a monitoring plan for the

species would be developed in consultation with the Forest Service within one year to

assess the potential for project-related effects to the species.

In addition to the development of the Vegetation and Invasive Weed Management

Plan, PG&E would prepare, for Forest Service approval, a biological evaluation of the

potential effects to special status species of any proposed action to construct project

features on Forest Service lands. The evaluation would include procedures to minimize

any adverse effects, meet any management plan restrictions, and monitor implementation

and effectiveness of any measures taken as part the construction.

PG&E alternative condition 25 includes a component for special status and

culturally significant plant species proposing that monitoring would begin the first year

after the Vegetation and Invasive Weed Management Plan is approved by the

Commission and every five years thereafter for periodic monitoring; and surveys for

periodic assessment and inventory as well as those implemented for newly species would

occur the first year after the Vegetation and Invasive Weed Management Plan is

approved by the Commission and every ten years thereafter. In addition and specific to

culturally significant plant species, PG&E proposes to limit the scope of the Forest

Service condition by removing specific measures for culturally significant plant species

from the Vegetation and Invasive Weed Management Plan. Instead, PG&E alternative

condition 25 proposes that PG&E would share with managers information on the

locations of culturally significant plant populations so that these populations can be

considered prior to and during O&M activities and would be undertaken in consultation

with the Forest Service. In addition, PG&E would comply with the requirements of the

HPMP and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act with regard to areas

identified in the re-licensing study for cultural resources that are currently utilized by

Tribes to gather plants for traditional purposes and that qualify for inclusion in the

National Register of Historic Places as historic properties. Finally, culturally significant

plant species would be used during revegetation activities where feasible.

Our Analysis

Surveys for special status plant species resulted in the identification of eight

special status plant species. Coordination and consultation with the Forest Service during
177

the development of the Vegetation and Invasive Weed Management Plan would provide

ample protection of species and their habitats known to occur within the project area.

Elements of the Vegetation and Invasive Weed Management Plan provide potential

enhancement of existing populations and habitat by managing and minimizing

encroachment of invasive noxious weeds; providing measures to ensure proper use of

herbicides; training and awareness for employees on special status species and adaptive

management and education of the public. PG&E proposed measures are consistent with

Forest Service condition 25, and we expect that implementation of the Vegetation and

Invasive Weed Management Plan would minimize and mitigate for any project effects to

special status species that may occur as a result of project O&M for the term of the

license.

There is no regulatory requirement to include culturally significant plant species in

any long-term monitoring component for special status plant species. Pre-licensing

surveys not identify any locations of culturally significant plant populations that had been

specifically identified by Tribal members prior to and during meetings and populations of

culturally significant plant species that were identified are not considered to be TCPs

subject to section 106 requirements of the NHPA. PG& alternative condition 25

proposes to limit the scope of this element to only culturally significant plant populations

associated with TCPs. Gathering areas that qualify as TCPs would have management

measures incorporated into a revised HPMP prepared in consultation with the Tribes,

Forest Service, State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and the Commission. A

component of the Vegetation and Invasive Weeds Management Plan should be

considered to address culturally significant plant species populations and their protection

from ground-disturbing or vegetation management activities related to project operations

and / or construction activities. In addition, surveys every five years conducted

concurrent with other vegetation monitoring would determine the range and extent of

existing culturally significant plant populations. We also think that reference to the

measures contained within a revised HPMP be incorporated into the Vegetation and

Invasive Species Management Plan and that measures contained within the HPMP are

coordinated with and consistent with measures of the Vegetation and Invasive Weeds

Management Plan. Other, more general components in the Vegetation and Invasive

Weeds Management Plan such as employee awareness training and specific guidance on

pesticide and herbicide treatments would also protect culturally significant plant

populations. Restoration plantings should consider the use of culturally significant plant

species where habitat is appropriate. When additional populations of culturally

significant plant species are identified during monitoring, those new populations should

be assessed for applicability with section 106 requirements and provided in a revised

HPMP in coordination and consultation with the Forest Service, tribal members, and

California SHPO.
178

3.3.3.2.2 Wildlife

General Wildlife

Terrestrial wildlife species that occupy habitats within the project area as resident,

transient, or migratory species are not, in general, adversely affected by project O&M

activities. Noise, lighting, and human activity during all aspects of proposed construction

would result in temporary disturbance to wildlife species. Species intolerant of

disturbance that are mobile enough to flee or avoid the areas of activity would leave until

activity subsides. Activity associated with construction may also result in the mortality

of non- or minimally mobile wildlife species. In general, the effects would be short-term

and temporary and not severe enough to affect the survival of a species or population.

In the license application, the licensee proposes PM&E measure 14 to develop a

wildlife management plan with a primary goal to guide the management of wildlife

populations and habitat at the project for the term of the new license. PM&E measure 14

would, at a minimum, contain monitoring methodologies, preconstruction survey

protocols, and avoidance and protection measures as appropriate for special status

species. The wildlife management plan would also include a process and schedule for

reporting survey and monitoring results as well as a process for periodic plan review and

revision. In addition to PM&E measure 14, the licensee proposes PM&E measure 16 for

avian hazard reduction. As proposed in PM&E measure 16, PG&E would, within three

years after license issuance, upgrade segments of the existing distribution line that do not

currently meet avian transmission line standards recommended by the Avian Power Line

Interactions Committee (APLIC) to prevent bird electrocutions. In addition, PM&E No.

16 would require that all new construction of transmission and distribution of powerlines

meet APLIC-recommended avian transmission line standards.

Forest Service condition 26 specifies that, within one year of license issuance, the

licensee develop a TBMP, in consultation with the Forest Service, California Fish and

Game, potentially affected tribes, and other interested parties, and approved by the Forest

Service. The TBMP would include Forest Service special status species (Forest Service

Sensitive, Survey and Manage, and Management Indicator Species) potentially affected

by the project on Forest Service lands. The plan would be implemented upon approval

by the Commission.

The Forest Service requests that, to the extent possible, the development of the

TBMP be consistent with completed biological implementation plans for the nearby Pit 3,

4, and 5 Project to provide for similar data collection protocols for species that are found

within both project areas and adjacent Forest Service lands. The TBMP would include

but not be limited to: (1) monitoring of populations and locations occupied for special

status species; (2) periodic surveys throughout the term of the license within the project

and project-affected area to determine the location of any additional populations; and

(3) reporting every five years (or at species-specific frequencies identified by the Forest

Service) of terrestrial survey and monitoring results including suitable habitat,

populations, individuals, pairs and nest locations. Results would be compatible with
179

Forest Service GIS. In addition, and specific to disturbance or construction activities,

Forest Service condition 26 specifies pre- and post-construction surveys for Forest

Service special status species. All surveys and monitoring would be conducted under

Forest Service approved standard protocols. Post-disturbance / construction monitoring

would identify whether mitigation measures are necessary. Lastly, Forest Service

condition 26 specifies that the licensee observe limited operating periods where required,

excluding emergency situations. In order to protect special status avian species, the

Forest Service specifies that the licensee conduct surveys for Neotropical breeding birds

within suitable habitat prior to disturbance activities or observe annual limited operating

periods during April 1through August 30.

Forest Service condition 26 specifies that within one year of license issuance, the

licensee file with the Commission, an avian collision and electrocution hazards plan,

approved by the Forest Service in consultation with appropriate federal and state

agencies, that minimizes adverse interactions between project transmission lines and

avian species. All new or rebuilt power poles would conform to guidelines in Suggested

Practices for Raptor Protection – State of the Art in 1996 (APLIC, 1996) or updates of

the guidelines when they are issued. Any pole involved in a bird fatality would be

immediately repaired/replaced to meet the guidelines.

PG&E alternative condition 26 proposes to revise the length of time allowed to

prepare a TBMP from within one year as stated by the Forest Service to two years. The

licensee asserts that providing two years instead of one year to prepare the plan would

allow more careful planning and adequate schedule coordination among the various

agencies and other interested parties involved in drafting a plan. The licensee states that

two years would provide adequate time to achieve consistency to the extent possible, with

license conditions for McCloud-Pit and Pit 3, 4, and 5. To support its proposal of a twoyear time frame for preparing and implementing a TBMP, the licensee presents a time

line of approximately nine to 16 months which would make the one year schedule

proposed by the Forest Service infeasible. The licensee also points out that there is

nothing to preclude completion of the TBMP prior to the two-year schedule proposed.

PG&E alternative condition 26 proposes clarification regarding those survey areas

where access is unsafe (steep terrain or high water flows) or private property for which

the licensee does not have specific permission to access the property to perform surveys

would be excluded. Surveys would be conducted for disturbance/pre-construction

activities and monitoring for special status species as specified and clarified in PG&E

alternative condition 26.

Avian collision and electrocution hazards is also addressed under PG&E

alternative condition 26, with the licensee upgrading segments of existing distribution

lines that do not currently meet the APLIC standards within three years of license

issuance and ensuring that new lines would meet current APLIC standards. In addition,

PG&E alternative condition 26 proposes that any pole involved in a bird fatality would

first be assessed prior to repair or replacement; the pole involved in the collision or
180

electrocution could be a pole compliant with existing APLIC standards and may need

further assessment to provide additional safety modifications.

Regarding the licensee measure to develop a TBMP, Hearst Corporation expressed

concern that Hearst lands surround the entire McCloud reservoir and Forest Service

condition 26 would require the licensee to conduct surveys on private land. Hearst

Corporation has suggested that monitoring and management plans and surveys be limited

to project-affected and national forest lands.

Our Analysis

General wildlife species that use habitats found within the project area are welladapted to the project area under current conditions and are disturbed only during nonroutine actions. Isolated, short-term disturbances may occur to wildlife as a result of

activities associated with O&M activities tasks and could cause mobile wildlife species to

leave an area until tasks are completed. Less mobile species may, on occasion, incur

direct mortality as a result of actions such as trampling and those related to vegetation

management, but mortality would not be beyond what a population could absorb.

Proposed new construction within the project would have a short-term minor

adverse effect to wildlife species as a result of disturbance from construction noise and

human activity. Short-term and long-term alterations in habitat resulting from the

construction of facilities and associated structures, including transmission lines, would

result in wildlife species at least temporarily leaving areas of activity and long-term

habitat modifications or permanent loss of habitat. Clearing along transmission corridors

would result in the loss of linear portions of existing habitat, and wildlife within the

proposed transmission line routes would leave the area during activity.

PM&E measure 14 proposed by the licensee in the license application addresses

special status wildlife species-related issues at the project for the term of the new license

and, as outlined above, contains generalized plan elements for monitoring and protection

of special status wildlife species within the project boundary, a timeframe for

development and implementation, and a proposed schedule for completion of speciesspecific monitoring elements. Forest Service condition 26 specifies that the licensee file

a TBMP also developed in consultation with the Forest Service and specifically adds

California Fish and Game, potentially affected tribes, and other interest parties. The plan

specified by Forest Service condition 26 would be developed within one year of license

issuance. PG&E alternative condition 26, proposes revisions to specific elements of

Forest Service condition 26.

PG&E alternative condition 26 proposes a two-year schedule to develop and

implement a TBMP after license issuance to be consistent with original PM&E measure

14 monitoring and protection measures. In addition, coordination of a variety of agencies

and other stakeholders can be difficult and a time frame of one year from license issuance

may not be adequate to thoroughly address the specific monitoring and management

protocol, scheduling, and reporting components of a TBMP. As a result, we believe that
181

the development and implementation of a TBMP would require two years to complete. If

the plan were completed prior to that deadline, it could be implemented as soon as

approved by Forest Service and other applicable stakeholders.

PG&E alternative condition 26 proposes that within three years of license

issuance, PG&E would upgrade segments of the existing transmission lines that are not

currently compliant with APLIC guidance. The licensee asserts that a plan would not be

necessary if the appropriate upgrades were simply undertaken within three years of

license issuance. In addition, the licensee would construct any new transmission lines to

be compliant with current APLIC standards, and it feels that a plan would not be

necessary if construction of new transmission lines compliant with APLIC standards to

minimize avian electrocutions and collisions is completed.

Special Status Wildlife Species

The potential impacts from project O&M activities to general wildlife species also

applies to special status wildlife species.

Forest Service condition 26 specifies that beginning the first full calendar year

after license issuance the licensee would, in consultation with the Forest Service,

annually review the current list of special status wildlife species (species that are Forest

Service Sensitive, Survey and Manage, Management Indicator Species, or on the ShastaTrinity National Forest Watch List) that might occur on Forest Service lands in the

project or project-affected area. If it is determined that newly listed special status species

may occur within the project area, the licensee would develop and implement a study

plan in consultation with the Forest Service to assess the effects of project O&M on

special status species.

When a species is added to one or more of the lists, the Forest Service, in

consultation with the licensee, would determine if the species or unsurveyed suitable

habitat for the species is likely to occur on Forest Service lands within the project or

project-affected areas. If the Forest Service determines that the species is likely to occur,

the licensee would develop and implement a study plan in consultation with the Forest

Service to reasonably assess the effects of the project on the species. The licensee would

prepare a report on the study including objectives, methods, results, recommended

resource measures where appropriate, and a schedule of implementation, and would

provide a draft of the final report to the Forest Service for review and approval. The

licensee would file the final report, including evidence of consultation, with the

Commission. Upon Commission approval, the licensee would implement the resource

management measures.

Regarding annual consultation between the licensee and the Forest Service and

other agencies, Hearst Corporation has suggested that annual meetings also be opened to

“project-affected” private landowners.
182

Our Analysis

Wildlife, including special status species, has most likely adapted to the routine

activity surrounding projects and is disturbed only during non-routine actions. Isolated,

short-term disturbances may occur to special status wildlife species as a result of

activities associated with vegetation management (e.g., mowing, trimming) or

maintenance tasks and could cause mobile wildlife species to leave an area until tasks are

completed.

To ensure that continued O&M activities of the existing projects as well as O&M

of proposed facilities (if constructed) have minimal effects on special status species

potentially occurring within the project area, annual consultation with the Forest Service

and other appropriate agencies would be indispensable to the licensee’s planning and

implementation of normal O&M activities and for any necessary construction activities

that may be required. We expect that implementation of Forest Service condition 26 to

(1) annually consult and review the most recent listing of special status species, and

(2) develop and implement a plan containing resource management measures should a

species likely occur, would continue to provide habitat and protection within the project

area.

Regarding consultations, for any licensee action that would potentially affect the

property of private landowners, the licensee would need to consult with the private

landowner.

Terrestrial Mollusks

Terrestrial mollusks could be affected by changes in soil conditions, availability of

large rocks or woody debris as well as canopy cover, sources of food, and water. Nonnative invasive mollusk species also threaten native terrestrial mollusk species; several

species of invasive mollusks were identified within the project area in association with

the special status species. Project O&M activities that disturb ground or clear vegetation

can cause direct mortality as a result of crushing, injury, or desiccation through exposure.

Trampling in recreational areas could also result in mortality. Indirect mortality could be

caused by loss or modification of habitat adjacent to project facilities or recreation areas

as well as inundation or dewatering of habitat. Proposed construction could also affect

special status terrestrial mollusk species directly through various activities (ground

disturbance, vegetation removal) that are in the immediate vicinity of mollusk

occurrences.

PM&E measure 14, as proposed by the licensee, would contain monitoring

methodologies, preconstruction survey protocols, avoidance, and protection measures as

appropriate for terrestrial mollusks. Pre-construction surveys would be conducted in

areas of suitable habitat potentially affected by any planned construction, and a buffer

distance around the construction site would be defined based on existing standards and

protocols for mollusk species. Protection or relocation of species would be required

when located within the footprint of construction sites.
183

Forest Service condition 26 specifies that the licensee develop within the TBMP

special status species component an element to address terrestrial mollusks. For

terrestrial mollusks, the licensee would, within one year of license issuance, conduct

monitoring surveys once every five years, and survey potentially suitable habitat for new

populations every 10 years for the term of the license. Species to be monitored include

the Shasta sideband snail (Monadenia troglodytes troglodytes), Wintu sideband snail

(M. troglodytes wintu), Shasta chaparral snail (Trilobosis roperi), Tehama snail

(T. tehama), and the Shasta hesperian snail (Vespericola shasta) at known sites along the

McCloud reservoir, Lower McCloud River, Iron Canyon reservoir and Creek, and Pit 6

and 7 reservoirs. Protection or relocation of terrestrial mollusks would occur in

development sites.

PG&E alternative condition 26 proposes locations of monitoring or sites within

the project-affected area and specificity for survey protocols to be contained in a TBMP.

The licensee proposes to monitor only known populations of sensitive terrestrial mollusks

beginning the first year after licensee issuance and once every fifth year thereafter.

Monitoring proposed PG&E alternative condition 26 would be conducted within projectaffected areas within 200 ft of facilities and roads, a 16-ft-wide band surrounding

reservoirs, and along both sides of the Lower McCloud River and Iron Canyon Creek.

Also included would be limestone outcrops within 100 m of riparian zones or 200 m of

project facilities. A subset of sites surveyed would be chosen for monitoring based on

documented occurrences. Protection and relocation of any individuals detected within

the footprint of construction activities would also occur. PG&E alternative condition 26

proposes that pre-construction surveys in areas of suitable habitat potentially affected by

planned construction would be conducted to identify and protect any previously unknown

populations in construction areas.

Our Analysis

Terrestrial mollusks within the project area could be adversely affected by

construction activities within habitat where they occur, especially Oregon

shoulderbanded snail, Shasta hesperian snail, and the Shasta chaparral snail. PG&E

alternative condition 26 proposes pre-construction surveys for potential new populations

of terrestrial mollusks in suitable habitat identified within the construction footprint

instead of periodic monitoring for new populations every 10 years for the term of the

license as stated by the Forest Service. Pre-construction surveys in potential habitat for

terrestrial mollusks would adequately identify the presence of and potential affect on

terrestrial mollusk species from any proposed construction activities. include potential

habitat within areas of planned construction, protection by establishing a buffer around

construction areas, or relocation of snails, would be implemented prior to the initiation of

construction.

PG&E alternative condition 26 proposes monitoring of terrestrial mollusks once

every five years to require monitoring of “known” populations every five years. Surveys

of terrestrial mollusk populations that are known to occur within the project and project-
184

affected area once every five years along with any required pre-construction surveys

would be adequate to provide information on the existing populations of terrestrial

mollusks and their overall condition, and determine if project O&M and construction

activities are affecting terrestrial mollusk populations. Management would be adapted to

include new species or populations that are detected.

As a result, the elements of the TBMP specific to terrestrial mollusks along with

alternative proposed language described above would provide adequate protection to

those populations within construction sites. Periodic monitoring and surveys would

continue to protect and possibly enhance existing and potential future populations of

terrestrial mollusks within the project area for the term of the license.

Amphibians and Reptiles

There are no anticipated project effects on tailed frogs in tributaries to the Lower

McCloud River. No project activities are planned near Ladybug Creek or in any other

tributary to the Lower McCloud River that may harbor tailed frogs.

Shasta salamander could be adversely affected by normal project O&M in the

vicinity of the McCloud reservoir and the Pit 7 afterbay. Ground-disturbing activities

(e.g., vegetation management, LWD removal, road work, slide removal) can alter or

eliminate habitat for the Shasta salamander. Removing or crushing limestone can also

adversely affect the Shasta salamander through alteration or loss of preferred habitat.

Disturbance of wet areas or seeps, particularly during the reproductive season, can also

cause mortality to salamanders, their eggs, or young. Shasta salamanders are the only

special status amphibian or reptile species identified as occurring within proposed

construction sites.

Foothill yellow-legged frog individuals were found in the Lower McCloud River

where suitable habitat occurs. Environmental conditions that could affect the foothill

yellow-legged frog include water temperature, water depth, water velocity, substrate size,

food resources availability, and canopy cover. Predation and proximity to tributaries also

can affect the foothill yellow-legged frog; however, these factors are not related to project

O&M. Project O&M could affect water temperature, depth, and velocity, as well as food

availability. Vegetation management could potentially reduce canopy cover.

The northwestern pond turtle near the Lower McCloud River shoreline and the

Pit 6 and Pit 7 reservoirs could be adversely affected by unexpected, high volume flows

(such as those resulting from emergency shut-downs) that could inundate nest sites.

Spills that could cause these conditions are not a part of normal operations and could be

expected to occur infrequently. In addition, removal of LWD that provides underwater

shelter as well as basking areas could alter suitable nesting and overwintering sites.

The licensee proposed PM&E No. 14 has specific components addressing special

status amphibians and reptiles and would be developed in consultation with the Forest

Service and other relevant agencies and groups. Included in the wildlife management
185

plan would be a schedule for reporting survey and monitoring results for all special status

species amphibians and reptile monitoring surveys.

Forest Service condition 26 specifies conditions for special status species

regarding the development and implementation of a TBMP. Specific elements of the

TBMP for special status species are discussed below.

Shasta Salamander—Forest Service condition 26 specifies monitoring of Shasta

salamander at known locations once every five years along the McCloud reservoir and

Fenders Ferry Flat afterbay as well as surveys of suitable habitat every 10 years to

determine any new locations of the species. Estimates of population age and distribution

would be included in reports summarizing monitoring surveys.

PG&E alternative condition 26 proposes to eliminate Forest Service condition 26

language for monitoring Shasta salamander at known locations once every five years

stating that there is no project nexus for additional monitoring or surveying in areas that

are not affected by project operations. PG&E alternative condition 26 proposes to

include pre-construction surveys to protect and monitor Shasta salamanders. Preconstruction surveys following the standard protocol for Shasta salamander would be

conducted in areas of suitable habitat within 180 m of any proposed new

development/expansion or ground-disturbing activity. Protection or relocation of

individuals of Shasta salamanders would occur prior to any construction or grounddisturbing activities.

Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog— Forest Service condition 26 specifies surveys once

every 10 years for additional populations of foothill yellow-legged frog along the 5.4

miles of National Forest Service lands along the Lower McCloud River and along the Pit

6 and Pit 7 reservoirs and tributaries. Any individuals of foothill yellow-legged frog

found in areas proposed for disturbance or construction would be protected or relocated.

PG&E alternative condition 26 proposes that foothill yellow-legged frog surveys

begin the first year after plan approval and every tenth year thereafter in suitable habitat,

along the tributaries to Pit 6 and Pit 7 reservoirs but excluding 5.4 miles of National

Forest Service lands and tributaries to the Pit 6 and Pit 7 reservoirs. The licensee

proposes that preconstruction surveys be conducted in suitable habitat at or adjacent to

construction or maintenance activities for any proposed new developments or disturbance

areas, as well as existing sites to be expanded or redeveloped. The survey area would

include 0.8 kilometer (0.5 mile) upstream and downstream of all perennial tributaries that

intersect the linear transmission line footprint.

The Forest Service also filed a 10(a) recommendation that, within one year after

licensing, the licensee should develop a foothill yellow-legged frog monitoring plan that

would include the following provisions: (1) population monitoring during wet and dry

seasons for an initial five-year period; and (2) incremental population monitoring every

four years. Under the Forest Service recommendation, the licensee would survey foothill

yellow-legged frog distribution along the McCloud River from Claiborne Creek to the
186

confluence with Shasta Lake. Monitoring data would be used to evaluate any project

effects on the foothill yellow-legged frog, such as through the development of a

predictive tool for use in determining breeding period initiation and termination, in order

to prevent flow dynamics from adversely affecting the foothill yellow-legged frog.

The licensee submitted comments on the Forest Service 10(a) recommendation

regarding foothill yellow-legged frog population monitoring and specified alternative

approaches including the following: (1) submission of a foothill yellow-legged frog

monitoring plan within two years for license issuance; (2) annual monitoring during the

initial five-year study period; and (3) incremental monitoring every five years. Foothill

yellow-legged frog surveys would be conducted at selected sites and tributaries within

and along the Lower McCloud River from Tuna Creek to the confluence with Shasta

Lake, based on locations where foothill yellow-legged frog breeding and suitable habitat

were observed during relicensing studies. Monitoring data would be used to evaluate any

changes in foothill yellow-legged frog populations over the license term. The modeling

component proposed by the Forest Service would be simplified such that monitoring data

would be used to estimate initiation of the breeding period in future years in order to

avoid untimely uncontrollable spills or flow fluctuations that could detrimentally affect

foothill yellow-legged frog recruitment.

Northwestern Pond Turtle—Forest Service condition 26 specifies monitoring of

suitable locations for the northwestern pond turtle once every five years, and suitable

habitat would be surveyed once every 10 years to identify additional populations.

Estimates of population age distribution would be included in reports summarizing

survey results. Individuals located within the area of potential disturbance or

construction activity would be protected or relocated.

PG&E alternative condition 26 propose clarifying language for northwestern pond

turtle monitoring surveys to be initiated the first year after approval of the TBMP and

every fifth year thereafter, for northwestern pond turtle at “known,” occupied sites (Pit 6

and Pit 7 reservoirs). Beginning the first year after approval of the TBMP and every

tenth year thereafter, surveys would be conducted for the term of the new license in other

project reservoirs (McCloud and Iron Canyon reservoirs) to determine if additional

populations of northwestern pond turtle occur in suitable but unoccupied habitat. Visual

observations would estimate the number of individuals within the age classes of adults,

juveniles, and young-of-the-year.

Our Analysis

The licensee-proposed PM&E measure 14 to develop and implement a wildlife

management plan would provide monitoring and protection protocols as well as survey

procedures to minimize any project effects that could occur to amphibian and reptile

special status species occurring in habitats (or with the potential to occur) within the

project area. Forest Service condition 26, to develop and implement a TBMP, specifies

specific details for monitoring and surveys for listed special status species including

amphibian and reptile species. PG&E alternative condition 26 proposes clarifications to
187

locations and extent of monitoring and surveys. The addition of preconstruction surveys

as proposed in PG&E alternative condition 26, in conjunction with implementation of a

TBMP, would provide additional protection for individuals of all three species (Shasta

salamander, foothill yellow-legged frog, and northwestern pond turtle) when construction

or ground-disturbing activities are planned for known locations of these species and could

include protective relocation as necessary for individuals of these species located within

the footprint of activity.

Specifically for foothill yellow-legged frog, eliminating surveys along the Lower

McCloud River and along the Pit 6 and Pit 7 reservoirs would not be necessary as cold

water temperature in the Lower McCloud River and absence of appropriate habitat

surrounding the reservoirs would preclude the presence of the foothill yellow-legged frog

in those areas. Pre-construction monitoring would protect foothill yellow-legged frogs

within proposed disturbance activity and would be more effective at maintaining and

potentially enhancing populations of the foothill yellow-legged frog in the project and

project-affected area. Additionally, proposed flow regimes that include ramping prior to

spill events would minimize scouring of substrates reducing the potential for scouring of

egg masses of foothill yellow-legged frog from substrates.

Birds

Normal project O&M activities could disturb breeding, causing nest failures as a

result of nest abandonment, egg exposure to predation, and premature fledging of young

birds, and could result in complete abandonment of the breeding territory. Noise and

human activity associated with the proposed construction activities within the project

area could result in disturbance to birds, including raptors and special status species.

Some individuals may temporarily abandon the area.

Avian transmission line structures provide perching, roosting, and nesting

opportunities for raptor species, especially those that inhabit open areas or areas where

natural nest sites are absent or limited. Avian mortality can occur directly through

electrocution or indirectly from injuries sustained by impacting with lines. Existing

project transmission lines (James B. Black, Pit 6 and Pit 7), meet or exceed the APLIC

standards for protection of birds from electrocution. A distribution line associated with

Pit 5 contains some poles that are not compliant with current APLIC standards.

The licensee proposed PM&E measure 14 in the license application to develop a wildlife

management plan to address special status bird species and would be developed in

consultation with the Forest Service and other relevant agencies and groups. Included in

the wildlife management plan would be a schedule for reporting survey and monitoring

results for all special status bird species. Few specific details are provided and would be

developed in consultation with federal and state agencies as well as other interested

stakeholders.

Forest Service condition 26 specifies a list of special status bird species and

detailed monitoring and survey elements to be included in a TBMP. Forest Service
188

condition 26 specifies species-specific elements of the TBMP for avian special status

species in regards to construction. Dependent on the existence of suitable habitat

required by avian special status species within proposed construction areas including

transmission lines, pre-construction surveys for listed avian species would be conducted.

In lieu of a preconstruction survey, limited operating periods could be enforced and are

specific to the breeding season for a species. The limited operating periods determined

for specific special status avian species are: bald eagle, January 1 to August 1; northern

goshawk and peregrine falcon, February 1 to August 15; and willow flycatcher, April 1 to

August 30. PG&E alternative condition 26 proposes clarifications to the distance from

proposed construction activity for pre-construction surveys by species: northern goshawk

– within 0.5 mile; bald eagle – within 1 mile; peregrine falcon – within 1 to 3 miles; and

willow flycatcher – within 200 ft of private land where access has been granted to 300 ft

on public land.

Northern Goshawk

Forest Service condition 26 specifies northern goshawk monitoring would occur

within 0.25 mile of previously identified detection sites once per five years; suitable

habitat would be surveyed once per 10 years to identify any additional individuals or

pairs.

PG&E alternative condition 26 proposes to eliminate monitoring within 0.25 mile

of previously identified detection sites once per five years stating that there are no known

active nests in the areas affected by project operations.

Bald Eagle

Forest Service condition 26 specifies monitoring of bald eagle individuals, pairs,

and nest productivity annually at McCloud Reservoir, Iron Canyon reservoir, Pit 6 and

Pit 7 reservoirs, and any additional locations identified during surveys or monitoring as

approved by the Forest Service. Protective actions to minimize disturbance factors would

include: buffer zones around each known nest territory; potential zoning of water

surfaces in project reservoirs with respect to use and access of watercraft; coordination of

the licensee and Forest Service land management activities within bald eagle nest

territories such as timber harvest, mining, and woodcutting; periodic monitoring of

human use patterns to discern human / bald eagle interaction and development and

placement of interpretive signage at McCloud and Iron Canyon reservoirs addressing

bald eagles.

PG&E alternative condition 26 proposes to ensure that annual monitoring for bald

eagles would be consistent with the licensee’s ongoing bald eagle monitoring program

and clarifies locations of monitoring sites within the project-affected area.

Peregrine Falcon

Forest Service condition 26 specifies that annual monitoring of peregrine falcon

individuals, pairs, and nest activity occur within 0.25 mile of known sites on Forest
189

Service lands. In addition, Forest Service condition 26 specifies monitoring once per

five years in potentially suitable habitat.

The licensee alternative language proposes that surveys for peregrine falcon would

begin the first year after TBMP approval and every fifth year thereafter at known nesting

sites and at suitable cliff nesting habitat along Pit 6 and Pit 7 reaches of the Pit River

Canyon, the McCloud River reach downstream of McCloud dam, and Iron Canyon Creek

downstream of Iron Canyon reservoir to the confluence with the Pit River. Specifically

excluded are survey areas where access is unsafe or private property which the licensee

does not have specific permission to access to perform the survey.

Willow Flycatcher

Forest Service condition 26 specifies the licensee survey suitable habitat for

willow flycatcher habitat (including dispersed campsites) once every five years and that

habitat for willow flycatcher be restored or enhanced within the project or the projectaffected area where project activities affect willow flycatcher habitat vegetation.

PG&E alternative condition 26 proposes to survey suitable willow flycatcher

habitat beginning the first year after plan approval and every fifth year thereafter.

Although there are no known willow flycatcher nesting sites within the project or projectaffected areas, surveys would follow standard protocols for the species and would be

conducted in contiguous suitable habitat within 300 ft (on public lands) and 200 ft (on

private land where access has been granted to the licensee) from the following features:

(1) project-affected mainstem river reaches (the Pit River from the James B. Black

powerhouse tailrace to Shasta Lake, Iron Canyon Creek downstream of Iron Canyon

dam, and the McCloud River from McCloud dam to Squaw Valley Creek; (2) project

waterbodies (McCloud, Iron Canyon, Pit 6 and Pit 7 reservoirs, and Pit 7 afterbay); and

(3) project-related recreation sites (e.g., campsites, including dispersed campsites; dayuse areas; boat launches).

Specific to special species raptors such as bald eagle, golden eagle, and peregrine

falcon, licensee PM&E measure 16 would, within three years after license issuance,

upgrade segments of the existing distribution line that do not currently meet avian

transmission line standards recommended by APLIC to prevent bird electrocutions. All

new construction of transmission and distribution of power lines meet APLICrecommended avian transmission line standards.

Forest Service condition 26 specifies a request for the implementation of a Forest

Service approved avian collision and electrocution hazards plan that minimizes adverse

interactions between project transmission lines and avian species and includes

compliance of all new or rebuilt power poles with APLIC standards or updates of the

guidelines when they are issued. Any pole involved in a bird fatality would be

immediately repaired or replaced to meet the guidelines. PG&E alternative condition 26

proposes to eliminate the development and implementation of an avian collision and
190

electrocution hazards plan in lieu of bringing existing noncompliant transmission lines

into compliance within three years.

Our Analysis

Project O&M and construction activities within the project area all have the

potential to adversely affect avian species status species. Primary effects would result

from noise and activity disturbance near roosting or nesting sites and, in the case of

breeding pairs, could lead to loss of a breeding season from nest abandonment, increased

opportunity for nest predation, and premature fledging of young. With development and

implementation of specific elements of the TBMP specified in Forest Service

condition 26 for listed special status species, adverse effects to avian special status

species would be negligible. Specific to peregrine falcon and bald eagle nest sites within

the project area, buffers for active nest sites would protect them from disturbance due to

project O&M activities and could be applied to recreational activities in the vicinity of

active nests.

Specific standards for transmission lines developed by APLIC and employed

along existing power lines would minimize avian electrocution hazards for special status

raptor species. PG&E alternative condition 26 proposes to clarify survey and monitoring

locations where appropriate habitat is and identifies appropriate detail to include in the

TBMP; however, application of specific distances to be surveyed within specific

locations could be limiting to the protective intent of the TBMP.

For all special status species elements, PG&E alternative condition 26 proposes to

exclude survey areas where access is unsafe or private property for which the licensee

does not have specific permission to access the property to perform the survey(s).

Mammals

Bats

Current project O&M activities have the potential to affect bat species and their

habitat within the project area. Special status bat species within the project area utilize

project structures and facilities for day or night roosts as well as maternity sites during

the breeding season. Individuals could be harmed if directly disturbed or excluded from

the structures. Maintenance activities are seldom conducted at night, and would be

unlikely to disturb roosting individuals. Project O&M activities that occur during the day

at these locations when individuals are present could disturb individuals and cause them

to leave the facility; extended maintenance activity could cause individuals to relocate. If

facility openings that allow access for individuals are sealed at the wrong time, or

inappropriately exclude individuals from gaining access, adverse effects to bat species

including the special status species could occur, including indirect mortality and loss of

roost habitat. Maternity roost habitat was observed at McCloud intake structure, James

B. Black powerhouse, and Willow Creek siphon. Inappropriate exclusion of female bats

from maternity sites within these facilities could result in indirect mortality. Unscreened

vent pipes at campground restrooms may provide outside access to the vault underneath
191

the restroom and subsequently allow access into the restroom if the toilet lid is open or

absent. Routine maintenance of these restroom structures is unlikely to disturb roosting

bats.

Roost habitat could potentially be disturbed or removed as a result of construction

activity. Also, ground-disturbing construction activities could affect the entrance and

egress points for bats, and could alter patterns of air flow and groundwater dynamics,

potentially affecting the micro climate within the cave complex and altering the

suitability of habitat for bats using the cave. Transmission line construction along the

proposed route could also alter foraging habitat, because altering the vegetation structure

could change the composition of prey species. Some bat species may benefit from

changes in vegetation structure resulting from the construction if forest edge and open

habitats are increased. Night-time construction activity in these areas could result in

short-term disturbance to foraging bats; however, disturbance to foraging bats would be

negligible since bats could relocate to other undisturbed foraging areas.

Forest Service condition 26 specifies that the licensee conduct annual monitoring

for Forest Service special status bat species (Townsend’s big-eared bat, pallid bat, and

western red bat) at known locations around McCloud reservoir and Pit 7 reservoir, and

that the licensee conduct surveys once every five years in suitable habitat. All bathroom

vents at existing and proposed recreational sites would be screened to reduce bat

mortality and consultation with the Forest Service prior to implementing any batexclusion techniques. PG&E alternative condition 26 proposes monitoring at known sites

and other project-related suitable habitat that would occur beginning the first year after

plan approval and every fifth year thereafter. Appropriate sites for periodic monitoring

would be identified in collaboration with participating agencies and would focus on

Forest Service special status bat species. Survey methods could include a combination of

passive acoustic, active acoustic, and capture techniques such as mist netting and harp

traps. For any surveys capture methods, surveyors would have the necessary permits to

handle bats.

Forest Service condition 26 specifies pre-construction surveys to be conducted

prior to disturbance or construction would be scheduled outside of the limited operating

period from March 1 through September 30. Prior to construction or reconstruction

within 1 mile of known locations, a strategy/mitigation plan for the land-based bat

population at McCloud reservoir would be developed. PG&E alternative condition 26

proposes that preconstruction surveys would be conducted to assess the presence and

roosting within areas of suitable habitat potentially affected by construction activity, or

construction would be scheduled outside of the limited operating period during the

maternity period of May 1 to August 31. The licensee would develop a strategy and

mitigation plan that would include noise disturbance distances for the land-based bat

population at McCloud reservoir.
192

Our Analysis

Special status bat species can occur with other species of bats at day and night

roost sites. As a result, protection and conservation of roost sites as a result of the

development and implementation of Forest Service condition 26 would provide

protection to special status bat species (Townsend’s big-eared bat, pallid bat, and western

red bat) as well as other bat species, ultimately benefiting a number a bat species. The

TBMP would provide guidance and protocols for monitoring and surveying bat habitat

with project facilities and structures and project-related recreation sites. PG&E

alternative condition 26 proposes language specific to special status species bats that is

consistent with that of Forest Service condition 26, but provides additional details that do

not appear to significantly alter the intent of Forest Service condition 26. We expect that

during the development of the TBMP, coordination between the agencies and the licensee

would provide an opportunity for discussion of the detailed language proposed by the

licensee and possible inclusion in the final TBMP. We expect that overall, through the

development and implementation of the TBMP and its specific measures regarding

special status bat species, continued project operations or proposed construction would

not adversely affect special status bat species within the project area.

Forest Carnivores—Forest carnivores, Sierra Nevada red fox, California

wolverine, American marten, and ringtail, could occur in the project area based on

available habitat. Sierra Nevada red fox and California wolverine are assumed to be in

the project area; American martin is likely to occur, and ringtail has been documented

within 50 miles of the McCloud-Pit project.

Forest Service condition 26 does not specify forest carnivores. No other proposed

mitigation and enhancement measures or alternative conditions have been proposed by

the licensee.

Our Analysis

It is unlikely that normal project O&M activities would affect any of these species.

All are mobile and would probably avoid areas of human-induced activity. This would

be especially true of active construction sites that would occur during construction of

proposed project facilities. We expect that there would be no adverse effects from

project activities or proposed construction. Undeveloped lands within the project area

would continue to provide potential habitat for these species and as a result could provide

a long-term benefit to individuals that are creating new territories.

3.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species

3.3.4.1 Affected Environment

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle

The VELB (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) is listed as threatened under the

ESA. The VELB is associated with various species of elderberry (Sambucus spp.)

throughout the California Central Valley and foothills below 3,000 ft msl. Shasta County
193

is within the VELB range, though no critical habitat is designated for the VELB in the

county. The VELB occurs within riparian vegetation communities where it feeds

exclusively on elderberry in both adult and larval stages. Adult VELBs appear to feed

externally on the flowers and foliage of the elderberry. Adult females lay eggs in

crevices in the bark of the host elderberry plant (FERC, 2009). After hatching, larvae

spend one to two years feeding inside the plant. Prior to pupating, VELB larvae chew an

exit hole in the elderberry trunk for the emerging adult.

Botanical surveys documented 15 populations of elderberry containing plants with

stems greater than or equal to 1-in. diameter at ground level in areas surrounding the

McCloud reservoir, McCloud tunnel, Iron Canyon reservoir, Iron Canyon tunnel, and

Pit 7 afterbay. Most of the populations were sparse, with between one and 10

individuals. However, two populations contained between 11 and 50 individuals and one

population had more than 100. No survey of identified elderberry plant stems for exit

holes created by emerging VELB was conducted.

California Red-Legged Frog

The California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) is listed as threatened

under the ESA. This species occurs at elevations ranging from sea level to 5,000 ft msl

in wetlands; wet meadows; ponds and lakes; and pools in low-gradient, slow moving

stream reaches, with permanent sources of deep water and riparian vegetation. Eggs are

laid in ponds or backwater pools and attached to emergent vegetation. The tadpole larval

stage inhabits the same area as eggs, spending most of its time in submergent vegetation

or organic debris. Following metamorphosis, adults and juveniles are found in emergent

and riparian vegetation, undercut banks, semi-submerged root masses, open grasslands

with seeps, or springs with dense growths of woody riparian vegetation. Cattails,

bulrushes, and willows are good indicator species for potential presence of the frog.

Adults are typically associated with deep (greater than 0.7 m), still or slow-moving water.

Juveniles prefer open, shallow aquatic habitats with dense submergents. Potential habitat

for adult California red-legged frog may extend 1 mile from potential aquatic habitat.

Although the study area does not fall within the current distribution of the

California red-legged frog, the northern extent of the current range is in proximity to the

Lower Pit River. There are only six known populations of California red-legged frog in

the Sierra foothills, and their current range within that area is from Butte County to

El Dorado County. No California red-legged frog observations were made during

amphibian surveys in the project area. Although FWS has the California red-legged frog

on its species list for Shasta County, no records exist in the California Natural Heritage

Database (PG&E, 2006). Results of a survey conducted as part of a transmission line

separation project determined that the California red-legged frog has not been previously

identified at any location in the project affected area or in the project vicinity. In

addition, the licensee determined the project area does not provide suitable habitat for the

California red-legged frog based on aerial photos, aerial video, and ground

reconnaissance. No designated critical habitat is located in the project area.
194

Northern Spotted Owl

The northern spotted owl, a medium-sized nocturnal raptor that inhabits mature

forest habitats, is listed as threatened under the federal ESA. Critical habitat has been

designated for the species, and a final recovery plan was released in May, 2008 (FWS,

2008).

The northern spotted owl generally inhabits older forested habitats because they

contain the structural characteristics required for nesting, roosting, and foraging.

Specifically, the northern spotted owl requires a multi-layered, multi-species canopy with

moderate to high canopy closure. Competition with the barred owl and loss, degradation,

and fragmentation of habitat due to timber harvest, fuel load management (thinning), and

natural disturbances (e.g., wildfires and wind storms) are identified as the primary threats

to this species. To a lesser extent, linear development projects (e.g., pipelines, power

lines, and roads) have been identified as potentially adversely affecting northern spotted

owl habitat because of fragmentation and destruction of habitat. The northern spotted

owl reproductive period extends from mid-February through September. The nesting

season for northern spotted owl extends from early April to mid- to late June. In the

weeks after fledging, the young are weak fliers and remain near the nest tree, and adults

continue to feed the young until late September.

The survey area included reasonably accessible suitable habitat within a 1.3-mile

distance (buffer) of project facilities and project-affected areas in which project

operations or recreational use could significantly affect the northern spotted owl or its

habitat. Areas surveyed included project water bodies (i.e., McCloud, Iron Canyon, Pit 6,

and Pit 7 reservoirs, and Pit 7 afterbay); project facilities (dams and diversion structures,

powerhouses, transmission and distribution lines, project roads included in the FERC

project boundary, the Ah-Di-Na gage (MC-1) on the McCloud River, and the McCloud

tunnel siphon at Hawkins Creek); and recreational sites (e.g., campsites, day-use areas,

boat launches). Habitat types in the survey area included Sierran mixed conifer,

ponderosa pine, montane hardwood-conifer, montane hardwood, montane riparian,

montane chaparral, mixed chaparral, lacustrine, and riverine. Survey elevations ranged

between about 1,070 and 4,600 ft msl with gentle to very steep topography.

No northern spotted owl individuals or active nests were detected in the project

area. A single female northern spotted owl of unknown reproductive status was detected

just outside of the project boundary buffer in the upper Mink Creek drainage, east of Van

Sicklin Butte. Three northern spotted owl activity centers were noted in the Iron Canyon

reservoir watershed in 2005, but there has been no recent documented activity at that

location (Forest Service, 2005, as cited in PG&E, 2006). A barred owl pair was found in

the Flatwoods / Pit 6 dam survey area, west of the 1.3-mile survey buffer, in an area

known as Reynolds basin (Nevares and Lindstrand, 2008c); this species is known to be

expanding its range into this area of California and is known to compete for territory with

the northern spotted owl, but these are not project-related effects.
195

Pacific Fisher

In December, 2000, the West Coast population of Pacific fisher was proposed for

listing under the ESA. Listing of the West Coast population segment of the Pacific fisher

was determined to be “warranted but precluded by other, higher priority listing actions,”

although the Pacific fisher is still considered a candidate species for federal listing. The

Pacific fisher is a Forest Service sensitive species, a BLM sensitive species, and a

California Fish and Game species of special concern. Currently, only three small,

isolated populations of the Pacific fisher remain: native populations in northwestern

California and the southern Sierra Nevada, and a reintroduced population in the southern

Oregon Cascades (Sierra Forest Legacy, 2008). The Pacific fisher dens in hollow trees,

rotting logs, and rocky crevices of old growth forests. Its diet consists of small mammals,

fruit, truffles, and plants. This species are primarily nocturnal, and its home range is

from 50 to 150 square miles. Fishers hunt exclusively in forested habitats and generally

avoid opening areas.

The Forest Service and FWS have identified the Pacific fisher as potentially

occurring in the project vicinity based on tracks reported in the project vicinity in 1982,

and a Pacific fisher skull found on the ridge between Fisher Creek and Bald Mountain

Creek in the mid-1970s. More recently, a wildlife biologist observed a Pacific fisher

crossing FR 11 on the northeast side of Iron Canyon reservoir on April 25, 2007.

A field survey based on habitat mapping was conducted to identify potential

habitat for Pacific fisher within the project area. About 43 percent (15,607 acres) of the

study area was found to be potentially suitable Pacific fisher habitat, though the

distribution pattern and abundance of potentially suitable Pacific fisher habitat varied

throughout the study area, with changes often occurring in relation to elevation, aspect,

slope, or timber harvest history. Pacific fisher habitat types in the study area include

Sierran mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, montane hardwood-conifer, montane hardwood,

montane riparian, montane chaparral, and mixed chaparral, as classified using the CWHR

system. Survey elevations within the habitat ranged between 1,070 and 3,830 ft msl, with

gentle to steep topography.

Suitable habitat for Pacific fisher occurs in the vicinity of existing and proposed

project facilities, including project dams, powerhouses, and campgrounds. Connectivity

of suitable habitat is fairly high in most of the project area, with less suitability and

connectivity of habitat patches at the lower elevations around the Pit 6 and 7 reservoirs

and transmission lines, and at the upper elevations along the proposed McCloud

transmission line route (Nevares et al., 2009). The licensee’s relicensing approach

regarding Pacific fishers is to assume that the species is present, for at least part of the

year, in potentially suitable habitat within the project area.

3.3.4.2 Environmental Effects

Federally listed species could potentially be affected by project activities,

particularly construction activities that could alter habitat or disturb species.
196

The licensee proposes that before taking actions to construct new project features

on Forest Service lands (including but not limited to proposed recreation developments)

that may affect Forest Service special status species or their critical habitat, the licensee

would prepare a biological evaluation of the potential effect of the action on the species

or its habitat and submit it to the Forest Service for approval (PM&E measure 15). In

coordination with the Commission, the Forest Service may require mitigation measures

for the protection of the affected species. The biological evaluation would include

procedures to: (1) minimize adverse effects on special status species; (2) ensure projectrelated activities meet restrictions included in site management plans for special status

species; and (3) provide implementation and effectiveness monitoring of measures taken

or employed to reduce effects on special status species.

Forest Service condition 11 is generally consistent with the licensee’s proposed

measure.

Our Analysis

Identification of potential effects related to new construction is integral to

protection of federal listed special status species and the minimization or mitigation of

unavoidable effects that could occur. The proposed measure to require the development

of a biological evaluation to be submitted to the Forest Service would provide an

important step in identification of potential effects as well as mechanisms for minimizing

effects. In addition, federal agencies, including the Forest Service and the Commission,

could provide mitigative measures for protecting listed species. Both PM&E measure 15

and Forest Service condition 11 are consistent in providing the necessary guidance for

ensuring that the development of a biological evaluation would adequately identify,

protect, and mitigate potential effects related to new construction within the project.

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle

Project O&M activities that have the potential to adversely affect VELB habitat

include vegetation trimming or clearing and herbicide applications that could damage or

kill the elderberry host plant for VELB. Recreational uses including camping and offroad vehicle use have the potential to damage elderberry plants at Deadlun Campground,

Hawkins Landing Campground, and dispersed recreation sites at Iron Canyon and

McCloud reservoirs.

Measures for protection of elderberry are specified in the licensee’s programmatic

biological opinion and incidental take permit (FWS, 2003). This consultation outlines

routine operation, maintenance, and emergency activities associated with the licensee’s

gas and electric facilities that may have the potential to affect elderberry plants.

Avoidance, minimization, and conservation measures described in the programmatic

biological assessment include:

 Provide funding for the acquisition or long-term management of up to

1,000 acres of high quality habitat adjacent to existing VELB populations in

the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys.
197

 Conduct elderberry surveys within a minimum of 20 ft from a project

maintenance site. Flag and avoid elderberry plants found within the project

footprint.

 Provide environmental training and education of personnel and contractors

involved with project operation, maintenance, and emergency activities.

 Avoid use of herbicides within 20 ft of elderberry plants except for stump cut

treatment of removed trees and clearing at the base of certain power poles or

towers in compliance with California Public Resources Code section 4292.

 Where possible, fell trees directionally or remove in sections so as to avoid the

20-ft zone around existing elderberry plants.

 Implement erosion control measures if ground is disturbed during maintenance

activities in the 20-ft zone around elderberry plants.

 Where feasible, trim elderberry plants rather than remove them.

The licensee would apply these measures to routine O&M activities, including

development and maintenance of recreational areas. Incidental take or damage to

elderberry plants beyond that permitted by this Programmatic Agreement is not

anticipated. Forest Service condition 26 specifies that known suitable habitat should be

monitored once every five years for VELB individuals. If the VELB is detected,

elderberry plants should be protected from disturbance.

PG&E alternative condition 26 proposes that monitoring of known elderberry

populations would occur every five years concurrent with surveys conducted for the

vegetation and invasive noxious weed management plan. In addition, PG&E alternative

condition 26 proposes to conduct pre-construction surveys for elderberry plant

populations and the VELB consistent with the licensee’s Valley Elderberry Longhorn

Beetle Conservation Program developed and approved in the FWS-issued biological

opinion (FWS, 2003).

Periodic monitoring reports summarizing VELB habitat locations and annual

effects on elderberry at these locations would be submitted to FWS. Avoidance,

protection, or mitigation measures would follow those outlined in the VELB conservation

program, and the program specifications including the terms and conditions of the

30-year take permit would be described.

Our Analysis

Within the project area, the VELB conservation program established and approved

by FWS in its 2003 biological opinion provides adequate protection for elderberry

populations. Avoidance, protection, or mitigation measures would follow those outlined

in the VELB conservation program.

Forest Service condition 26 specifies monitoring for VELB once every five years

in suitable habitat; however, PG&E alternative condition 26 proposes to extend
198

monitoring to include pre-construction monitoring and states that avoidance, protection,

and mitigation measures for construction would be consistent with those outlined in the

VELB conservation program already in place and approved by FWS. We believe that

monitoring of known elderberry populations concurrent with the five-year monitoring

conducted as part of the vegetation and invasive weed management plan, as proposed by

the licensee, would be consistent with Forest Service condition 26. We expect that Forest

Service condition 26 and PG&E alternative condition 26 would, when implemented,

minimize any potential effects to elderberry populations within the project area from

O&M activities and most construction activity.

Implementation of pre-construction surveys and avoidance, protection, or

mitigation measures consistent with those outlined in the VELB conservation program

would minimize effects on the population of elderberry located along the proposed access

road corridor from the construction of the Pit 7 afterbay powerhouse and future

construction activities.

California Red-Legged Frog

No potential habitat was identified within the project area using aerial photos,

video, and ground reconnaissance. Project reservoirs have limited emergent vegetation

for breeding, limited availability of sheltered shoreline for adults, and predatory fish

species. In addition, no California red-legged frogs were observed during intensive

surveys of the project area for aquatic reptiles and amphibians, including northwestern

pond turtle and foothill yellow-legged frog.

No specific PM&E or Forest Service conditions have been developed for the

California red-legged frog.

Our Analysis

Because the project area does not support a California red-legged frog population

or appropriate habitat for the species, we believe that normal project O&M or proposed

construction would have no effect on California red-legged frogs.

Northern Spotted Owl

The northern spotted owl is known to be particularly sensitive to human

disturbance and habitat alterations during its reproductive period (February 15 through

September 30). Prolonged disturbance can reduce the ability of owls to detect prey,

disrupt flight responses, reduce nest attentiveness, and decrease the rate of food delivery

to the nest (FWS, 2008). These behavioral responses can lead to nest abandonment or

failure. However, because no individuals or active nests were detected within the project

area, project O&M or recreation activities are unlikely to affect this species.

Transmission line corridors can be lethal to birds, especially raptors such as the

northern spotted owl. Birds touching lines can be electrocuted or badly injured if directly

striking a line. Existing project transmission lines meet or exceed Avian Power Line
199

Interaction Committee standards to prevent electrocution of birds with the exception of

the Pit 5 distribution line that contains some poles that are not in compliance.

Forest Service condition 26 specifies monitoring for northern spotted owl within

0.25 mile of suitable habitat in the project area once every five years. Surveys conducted

once every 10 years in suitable habitat would identify new individuals, pairs, or nest sites.

Lastly, surveys would be conducted prior to any disturbance activities, or the licensee

could schedule construction or disturbance activities outside of the limited operating

period of February 1 through July 9.

PG&E alternative condition 26 proposes to eliminate the requirement for northern

spotted owl surveys within 0.25 mile of suitable habitat in the project area once every

five years, and within suitable habitat once every ten years. Instead, the licensee

proposes pre-construction surveys in suitable habitat within 1.3 miles of proposed

construction. Surveys would follow standard protocols for the species. Alternatively, the

licensee could schedule construction activity for outside of the limited operating period of

February 1 to July 9.

Forest Service condition 26 also specifies requirements to file with the

Commission an avian collision and electrocution hazards plan, approved by the Forest

Service in consultation with appropriate federal and state agencies that minimizes adverse

interactions between project transmission lines and avian species. PG&E alternative

condition 26 proposes, in lieu of an avian collision and electrocution hazards plan, to

upgrade the non-compliant sections of the existing distribution line within three years

after license issuance; construction of all new transmission lines would meet the APLIC

standards.

Our Analysis

The northern spotted owl is not known to exist within the project area, though

potential habitat does exist. We expect that pre-construction surveys as proposed by the

licensee would sufficiently minimize any effects from disturbance to northern spotted

owl that project construction activity could cause. Alternatively, avoidance of

construction activity during the limited operation period would also protect any

individuals within the project area from construction activity. We expect that specific

standards for transmission lines developed by APLIC that are employed along proposed

power lines and retrofitted on existing lines would avoid or minimize avian electrocution

hazards to this species if it occurs within the project area, and that if lines are brought into

compliance within three years of license issuance, an avian collision and electrocution

hazards plan would not be necessary. We believe that relicensing the existing project,

continued normal O&M activities, and proposed construction of new facilities are not

likely to adversely affect northern spotted owl in the project area.

Pacific Fisher

The Pacific fisher’s association with late successional forest habitats and its

avoidance of human activity makes the species highly sensitive to anthropogenic habitat
200

loss, degradation, and fragmentation related to forest management, development, and

noise disturbance. Prolonged disturbance, forest management, and infrastructure

development can affect Pacific fishers by altering normal behavior, causing displacement

from preferred habitat, and decreasing reproductive success and individual health (Powell

and Zielinski, 1994, and 50 CFR 17 as cited in PG&E, 2009a). Potentially suitable

Pacific fisher habitat was identified throughout the project area. The licensee does not

own or manage forest lands in the project area and therefore does not have an ongoing

effect on the general quality and quantity of Pacific fisher habitat. Although hazard tree

removal around project and recreational facilities does occur as part of project O&M, it is

unlikely that fishers would roost or den in proximity to human activity, and project

effects as a result of hazard tree removal are unlikely.

Forest Service condition 26 specifies that the development of a TBMP should

provide surveys be conducted once every five years in suitable habitat within the project

and project-affected areas. PG&E alternative condition 26 specifies, for the Pacific

fisher, to eliminate the requirement for surveys once every five years and, instead provide

for pre-construction surveys in areas of suitable habitat within 0.5 mile of any planned

construction. Methods for the surveys would involve passive detection systems, such as

baited camera stations; however, survey methods could be developed from review of

scientific literature and any available standard protocols species to fisher surveys.

Our Analysis

It is unlikely that normal project O&M activity or proposed construction would

have an effect on the Pacific fisher. We expect that preconstruction surveys, as proposed

by the licensee, are adequate protection for Pacific fisher that may inhabit the project area

based on this species’ known behavior and the large area for potential occurrence within

the project. As a result, relicensing of the existing project, continued normal O&M

activities, and proposed construction of new facilities are not likely to adversely affect

Pacific fisher in the project area.

3.3.5 Recreation Resources

3.3.5.1 Affected Environment

Regional Recreation Resources

Opportunities for recreation within the region surrounding the project are plentiful.

The project partially lies within and adjacent to the Shasta National Forest which

provides a variety of formal and informal recreational facilities and opportunities. Much

of the National Forest lands are open to the public for recreation. Regional recreational

opportunities include fishing, camping, boating, hiking, scenic/wildlife viewing, hunting,

and general day-uses such as picnicking and swimming (PG&E, 2008a).

Recreational resources outside of the project but within the region surrounding the

project include areas that provide river-based fishing opportunities similar to those

available in the lower McCloud River, or reservoir-related activities similar to those
201

available at McCloud and Iron Canyon reservoirs. These areas are all located in northern

California, and most are located within 100 miles of the project area (PG&E, 2008a).

Regional bank-fishing resources include the upper McCloud River, Fall River, Hat Creek,

Burney Creek, upper and lower Sacramento River, Pit River (above the project), Klamath

River, and Trinity River. Regional reservoir-based activity resources include Lake

Siskiyou, Shasta Lake, Medicine Lake, Lake Shastina, Castle Lake, Iron Gate reservoir,

Whiskeytown Lake, Lake Britton, Baum Lake, and Trinity Lake (PG&E, 2008a).

The project is geographically close to PG&E’s Pit 3, 4, and 5 Project (FERC

No. 233) with portions of the McCloud-Pit Project no more than 30 miles from the Pit 3,

4, and 5 Project (PG&E, 2008a). Thus, the regional recreational resources for the project

overlap with those of the Pit 3, 4, and 5 Project. Recreational opportunities at the Pit 3, 4,

and 5 Project generally occur in the area surrounding Lake Britton and within the

Pit River Canyon. Lake Britton provides opportunities and facilities for camping,

picnicking, boating, swimming, wildlife viewing, fishing, and hiking. Developed

facilities at Lake Britton include 155 developed campsites, two developed boat launches,

and three developed picnic areas (EDAW, 2001 as cited in PG&E, 2008a). The eastern

section of Lake Britton provides more primitive and dispersed recreational opportunities,

while the western portion of the reservoir upstream of the Pit 3 dam provides more

developed recreational opportunities, such as developed campgrounds and day-use areas

(FERC, 2004). The Pit River Canyon provides more undeveloped, dispersed recreational

opportunities, such as trout fishing, camping, hiking, whitewater boating, and sightseeing

(FERC, 2004).

Lake Siskiyou offers recreational opportunities such as boating, camping,

swimming, fishing, and windsurfing. The reservoir provides more than 300 developed

campsites, a boat launch, a marina, and two developed picnic areas (EDAW, 2001 as

cited in PG&E, 2008a).

Shasta Lake, located in the Whiskeytown Shasta-Trinity National Recreation

Area, offers recreational opportunities such as motorized (most notably houseboating)

and non-motorized boating, swimming, fishing, camping, picnicking, and hiking. Shasta

Lake provides seven developed boat launches, three developed picnic areas, and more

than 300 developed campsites (EDAW, 2001 as cited in PG&E, 2008a). Most of the

recreation facilities are operated by the Forest Service, except for a few private marinas

(PG&E 2008a).

Whiskeytown Lake, located in the Whiskeytown Shasta-Trinity National

Recreation Area, offers recreational opportunities such as motorized and non-motorized

boating, swimming, fishing, camping, picnicking, hiking, and sailing. Whiskeytown

Lake provides three developed boat launches and four developed picnic areas (EDAW,

2001 as cited in PG&E, 2008a). Many of the recreation sites are managed by the Park

Service, and day-use activities are encouraged rather than overnight use; however, there

are more than 100 developed campsites along the shoreline of the reservoir (PG&E,

2008a).
202

Baum Lake is located near the town of Cassel on Hat Creek. All motorized

boating (except electric trolling motors) is prohibited on the lake, making it open only to

non-motorized boating. The primary activity at Baum Lake is fishing, similar to the nonreservoir segments of Hat Creek. A formal fishing access with a primitive boat launch is

provided at the reservoir (PG&E, 2008a).

Trinity Lake is located entirely within the Whiskeytown Shasta-Trinity National

Recreation Area, and most of the recreation facilities are operated by the Forest Service,

except for a few private marinas (PG&E 2008a). Recreational opportunities at Trinity

Lake include motorized and non-motorized boating, swimming, fishing, camping,

picnicking, and hiking. There are nine developed boat launches, three developed picnic

areas, and more than 400 developed campsites at the lake in addition to many primitive

boat-in camping areas scattered along the shoreline (EDAW, 2001 as cited in PG&E

2008a).

Medicine Lake, located in the Modoc National Forest, provides fishing and

boating opportunities. It has one improved and two unimproved launch ramps and four

campgrounds suitable for tent, recreational vehicle (RV), or group camping. All boating

is allowed at Medicine Lake as well as water-skiing, jet-skiing, and swimming

(FishersNet, 2010). Iron Gate reservoir provides camping, boating, and fishing

opportunities with developed campgrounds suitable for tents, RVs, or trailers, and

improved boat launching facilities (FishersNet, 2010). Lake Shastina provides

opportunities for fishing, all types of boating, water-skiing, and swimming. Lake

Shastina also has a marina, tennis, golf, and a water slide (FishersNet, 2010). Fishing,

camping, and hiking are available at or near Castle Lake, located mostly within ShastaTrinity National Forest, including a trail that leads into the adjacent Castle Crags

Wilderness Area and connects to the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail (Forest Service,

2010b and 2010c).

There are a number of river-based fishing opportunities similar to those available

in the lower McCloud River located in the region surrounding the project. These include

the following: the McCloud River above McCloud reservoir which provides developed

campgrounds and dispersed camping opportunities; Fall River with limited developed

recreation facilities or dispersed camping opportunities; Hat Creek, which is partially

located in the Lassen National Forest with many nearby recreation facilities; Burney

Creek, which flows through Shasta National Forest lands and has developed recreational

facilities at the McArthur-Burney Falls State Park; the Sacramento River, which provides

angling opportunities, limited dispersed camping opportunities, and a developed

recreation facility at Castle Crags State Park; Pit River, which provides angling

opportunities with a few developed recreation facilities and dispersed camping

opportunities; and the Trinity River located nearly entirely in Shasta-Trinity National

Forest, which provides fishing opportunities and a number of developed recreational

facilities and dispersed camping opportunities (PG&E, 2008a).
203

Two Forest Service developed campgrounds, Ash Camp and Ah-Di-Na, and

The Nature Conservancy’s McCloud River Preserve, which is used by some anglers and

boaters, are located on the Lower McCloud River downstream of the project. The Lower

McCloud River extends 24 river miles from McCloud dam to Shasta Lake and is

considered one of the premiere trout streams in California. The Lower McCloud River is

accessible at the base of McCloud dam.

The Pacific Crest Trail, which is not part of the project, is a national scenic trail

spanning over 2,650 miles from Mexico to Canada. The trail crosses the Lower McCloud

River near Ash Camp via a wooden foot bridge. The trail follows the river for about

0.5 mile upstream of the campground. The Pacific Crest Trail crosses Ah-Di Na Road

(FR 38N53) about 0.5 mile upstream of the campground.

Project Area Recreation Resources

There are three developed recreation areas within the project boundary: Tarantula

Gulch boat ramp at McCloud reservoir; and Deadlun Creek Campground and Hawkins

Landing Campground and boat ramp at Iron Canyon reservoir. All of these are located

within the James B. Black Development (see figures 3-2 and 3-3).

McCloud Reservoir

The Tarantula Gulch boat ramp was constructed and is operated by the Forest

Service (table 3-26 and figure 3-2). Tarantula Gulch boat ramp has a boat launch ramp

and a developed picnic area. The single-lane concrete boat launch ramp has a loading

dock with parking for 22 vehicles with trailers and a nearby overflow parking area.

PG&E states that the bottom of the boat ramp is 1 ft below the normal minimum

operating reservoir level (elevation 2,634 ft) and typically provides boater access during

the entire recreation season. The Forest Service reports that sediment and debris

accumulate on the ramp and occasionally impede boat launching.

The majority of lands surrounding McCloud reservoir are privately owned, with

NFS and PG&E-owned lands that are accessible to the public located on the southern end

of the reservoir extending along FR 38N11 from near the access road to Tarantula Gulch

(FR 38N81) and continuing across McCloud dam to Star City Creek. Most of the

publicly accessible lands are located between FR 38N11 and the reservoir shoreline.

Dispersed recreation is allowed on PG&E and NFS lands, unless otherwise designated.

PG&E identified nine user-created dispersed recreation sites at lower-gradient access

points accessible from FR 11 or Star City Road (FR 38N04Y) around McCloud reservoir

and a dispersed campsite on an island in the reservoir. The Star City Creek area is the

largest dispersed site at McCloud reservoir with space to comfortably accommodate three

to five user groups at one time. The area is typically used for camping, although the site

is not formally designated for such use, and there is some disagreement between the

Forest Service and The Hearst Corporation over use of this site for overnight camping.

The Hearst Corporation is a private landowner with large property holdings that surround

McCloud reservoir. When the project license was issued in 1961, the Forest Service and
204

The Hearst Corporation were completing a land exchange to consolidate ownership in a

portion of the forest and to provide for public access to McCloud reservoir. In a 1963

agreement, The Hearst Corporation donated about 95 acres of land around the southern

shore to the Forest Service.

Table 3-26. Recreation Facilities at McCloud Reservoir. (Source: PG&E, 2009a and

2008b, and staff)

Site Name Facilities

Tarantula Gulch Boat

Ramp (also known as the

Lake McCloud Boat

Launch)

Single-lane concrete boat launch ramp, a loading dock,

3 picnic tables, 4 wildlife-resistant trash receptacles,

22 parking spaces for vehicles with trailers, vault

restroom with 2 unisex accessible stalls, overflow parallel

parking with unmarked spaces
205

Figure 3-2. Existing and proposed recreation facilities at McCloud reservoir. (Source:

PG&E, 2009a)
206

Iron Canyon Reservoir

There are two developed recreation areas at Iron Canyon reservoir: Hawkins

Landing Campground and boat ramp, owned and operated by PG&E, and Deadlun

Campground, which is operated by the Forest Service (table 3-27 and figure 3-3).

Hawkins Landing Campground and boat ramp have the only boat launch ramp on

Iron Canyon reservoir and provides campsites. None of the Hawkins Landing facilities

are Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible and facilities in the campground

are in poor condition. No formal parking is available at the boat launch and the number

of vehicles that the boat launch area can accommodate depends on reservoir elevation.

Normal project operations can cause the reservoir to fluctuate on a daily basis, which

affects the availability of parking at the shoreline near the launch. When the reservoir is

at full pool (2,664 ft), visitors park vehicles in the campground. As the reservoir

elevation lowers, exposing more shoreline, visitors park along the shoreline, thereby

increasing the potential number of vehicles that can park near the launch area. At the

minimum operating pool elevation (2,593 ft), the end of the boat launch (2,610 ft) is out

of water and visitors have difficulty launching or cannot launch boats. Since 1996,

PG&E has voluntarily maintained the reservoir water surface elevation above 2,615 ft to

keep the boat ramp useable during the primary recreation season from May 15 to

October 15.

The Forest Service Deadlun Campground has about twice as many campsites as

Hawkins Landing; however, the sites are positioned away from the shoreline at the back

of the Deadlun Creek Cove, making it less appealing to visitors.

Iron Canyon reservoir is easily accessible from Big Bend, California, via FR 11

and Oak Mountain Road, and is accessible via a lengthier route from the town of

McCloud (PG&E, 2008b). A section of FR 11 between McCloud reservoir and Iron

Canyon reservoir is narrow, rocky, and very rough. Hawkins Landing is the first

developed recreation area users pass when traveling north from the town of Big Bend,

California.

The majority of lands surrounding the reservoir are PG&E-owned or NFS lands.

User-created access trails (pedestrian and OHV) originate from both campgrounds and

nearby areas providing dispersed shoreline access. PG&E has identified 22 dispersed

recreation sites around Iron Canyon reservoir with heavily used dispersed recreation sites

at the areas adjacent to Deadlun Campground and Iron Canyon reservoir spillway.
207

Table 3-27. Recreation facilities at Iron Canyon reservoir. (Source: PG&E, 2009a and

2008b, and staff)

Site Name Facilities

Deadlun Campground 27 campsites with fire rings and picnic tables, 3 vault

restrooms with single, unisex, ADA-accessible stalls,

overflow parallel parking with unmarked spaces

Hawkins Landing

Campground and Boat

Ramp

Single-lane concrete launch ramp, 11 campsites with fire

rings and picnic tables, 1 working non-potable water hand

pump, trash receptacle, 2 vault toilets

Lower McCloud River and Hawkins Creek Crossing

Recreation areas downstream of McCloud reservoir include the area at Hawkins

Creek crossing (inside the project boundary) and the Lower McCloud River (outside the

project boundary). Hawkins Creek crossing is a cleared level area where the McCloud

tunnel crosses Hawkins Creek about one mile above the confluence with the Lower

McCloud River. PG&E documented two dispersed recreation sites at the project near

Ash Camp, a dispersed campsite on Hawkins Creek at Hawkins Creek tunnel that is

accessible via the PG&E project road, and a dispersed campsite on the PG&E spoil pile

area on Hawkins Creek that is just north of the Hawkins Creek tunnel (PG&E, 2008b).

The Lower McCloud River extends 24 river miles from McCloud dam to Shasta

Lake. While the Lower McCloud River is accessible at the base of McCloud dam, most

of the Lower McCloud River below McCloud dam is located outside the project

boundary.
208

Figure 3-3. Existing and proposed recreation facilities at Iron Canyon reservoir.

(Source: PG&E, 2009a)
209

Pit River (James B. Black Powerhouse, Pit 6 and Pit7 Reservoirs, and Pit 7

Afterbay)

There are no developed recreation sites in the Lower Pit River; however, dispersed

recreation is evident in a few locations.

User-created trails and dispersed camping can be found along the Lower Pit River

across from the James B. Black powerhouse.10 The powerhouse is easily accessible via

Big Bend Road to the Pit 5 Road from Big Bend, California (PG&E, 2008b).

Vehicular access does not exist to the Pit 6 reservoir. PG&E documented a

dispersed recreation site at the base of Pit 6 dam. The Pit 6 dam is easily accessible from

Big Bend, California, via Big Bend Road to Cove Road to the Pit 6 Powerhouse Road.

There is an angler trail to the Pit 7 reservoir (Pit 6 tailwater) that originates from the Pit 6

Powerhouse Road within sight of Pit 6 dam (PG&E, 2008b).

PG&E documented a dispersed recreation site at the base of Pit 7 dam. Public

access to the Pit 7 dam is limited to foot traffic through a PG&E-maintained gate across

the access road about 1.5 miles from the dam.

User-created trails and dispersed camping can be found at Fenders Flat in the area

of the Pit 7 afterbay (figure 3-4). Fenders Flat is a 5- to 10-acre informal dispersed

recreation area located between steep topography to the south and the Pit 7 afterbay to the

north. The access road to this area is deeply rutted and only suitable for high clearance

vehicles.

Shore lands within the project at the Pit 7 afterbay are administered by the Forest

Service (PG&E, 2008a). Because the water level rapidly fluctuates in response to the

Pit 7 powerhouse operation, public access to the Pit 7 afterbay is not allowed. A Shasta

County boating ordinance prohibits swimming and boating in the afterbay due to public

safety concerns (PG&E, 2006 as cited in PG&E, 2008a). For safety reasons, the afterbay

is fenced and posted with warning signs to prohibit shoreline access and boating on the

afterbay. There is a Forest Service unimproved car-top boat launch directly below the

Pit 7 afterbay dam that provides boater access to the pit arm of Shasta Lake during late

winter and early spring when high reservoir levels allow boat launching (PG&E, 2008a).

10 According to PG&E, a developed recreation site is planned for this location as

part of PG&E's Pit 3, 4, and 5 Project license implementation.
210

Figure 3-4. Existing and proposed recreation facilities at Pit 7 reservoir and Pit 7

afterbay dam. (Source: PG&E, 2009a)
211

Recreational Use

PG&E collected recreational use data using direct visual observations during the

2007 and early 2008 recreation season to develop visitation estimates. Recreation use

within the project boundary occurs at the three developed recreation areas, and dispersed

recreation use occurs in a number of areas throughout the project boundary. For purposes

of the relicensing studies, the recreation season for the project was defined to be between

April 26 (or first open access after snow melt) to November 15, with the primary

recreation season from May 15 to October 15.

Recreation uses at the project include camping, fishing, boating, swimming, water

skiing, hiking, picnicking, sightseeing, wildlife viewing, off-road driving, and hunting.

McCloud reservoir supports various recreation activities. Based on PG&E’s visitor use

surveys conducted during the relicensing studies, the primary activities at McCloud

reservoir include angling (69 percent); water-based recreation activities (swimming, jet

skiing, water skiing, wakeboarding) (18 percent ); viewing scenery, wildlife, and nature

(16 percent); camping (12 percent); and motorized and non-motorized boating

(11 percent) (PG&E, 2008d). The primary activities at Iron Canyon reservoir include

angling (80 percent); viewing scenery, wildlife, and nature (13 percent); and camping

(13 percent). Visitors to the Lower McCloud River participated in fewer recreation

activities, with fly fishing being the most common. The primary activities in the area

near the Pit 7 afterbay include angling (55 percent), camping (18 percent), and biking

(18 percent). Table 3-28 reports the primary recreation activities of visitors to the project

based on PG&E’s visitor use survey. Generally, visitors spend most of their time

participating in these recreation activities while at the project.
212

Table 3-28. Primary activity by general area within the project. (Source: PG&E, 2008d,

as modified by staff)

Percentage of Respondents

Activities McCloud

Reservoir

Iron Canyon

Reservoir

Lower

McCloud River

Pit 7

Afterbay

Angling 69 80 84 55

Camping 12 13 17 18

Picnicking 3 2 1

Wet recreation (swim,

personal watercraft, water

skiing, wakeboarding)

18 2 2

Boat (any) 11 2 0

Viewing scenery, wildlife,

nature/photography

16 13 8 9

Hiking (day and

backpacking)

3 1 3

Hunting 2 4

Scenic driving

Biking 3 1 1 18

Note: Totals more than 100 percent due to some respondents choosing more than one

primary activity.

Annual recreational use for the project was estimated at close to 33,400 visitors.11

Visitors to the project predominantly live in neighboring counties or the San Francisco

Bay area. Traffic counters recorded traffic volumes during the study period; however,

because of the configuration of the road network and the roaming nature of visitors to

areas around the project, traffic volume estimates were not the same as numbers of

individual users. As such, visitor estimates based on traffic volumes resulted in visitor

use estimates that were inconsistent with the number of vehicles-at-one-time (VAOT) or

people-at-one-time (PAOT) reported from direct visual observations. Table 3-29

presents PG&E’s estimates of existing visitor use using the observation method.

11 Visitor estimates based on direct visual observation do not include non-project

visitors or field study staff and is based on evidence of actual visits to project recreation

areas.
213

Table 3-29. Project study area current use estimates by month using observation

method. (Source PG&E, 2008d, as modified by staff)

Month McCloud

Reservoir

Iron

Canyon

Reservoir

Lower

McCloud

Rivera

Pit 6

Reservoirb

Pit 7

Reservoirc

Pit 7

Afterbay

April 908 621 814 − 8 368

May 2,620 932 1,473 − 8 257

June 3,862 648 1,250 − 8 354

July 4,324 499 648 − 8 161

August 4,945 438 689 − 8 206

September 2,956 400 525 − 8 131

October 378 391 1,339 − 8 271

November 220 220 281 − 8 199

Total 20,212 4,148 7,019 0 64 1,947

a

PG&E’s relicensing study included areas outside the project boundary in this

study area, including the Ah-Di-Na Campground and Ash Camp Campground.

b Nobody was observed recreating within the Pit 6 reservoir during the relicensing

study.

c

Estimate based on assumption from observations of people at the sites and

conversations with PG&E operators and staff familiar with the Pit 6 dam area (within

Pit 7 reservoir) that indicated visitors rarely fish the Pit 6 dam tailwater.

McCloud Reservoir

Visitor survey results indicate that the majority of visitors to McCloud reservoir

come from Siskiyou and Shasta Counties (counties adjacent to or surrounding the

project); however, other visitors from northern Central Valley counties were also

represented in the survey results. PG&E's study results estimate that McCloud reservoir

supported about 20,133 recreation days in 2008 (PG&E, 2008d).12 Tarantula Gulch boat

ramp accounted for 92 percent of the visitation to McCloud reservoir, with overall

visitation of 55 percent occurring on weekdays and 44 percent occurring on weekends.

Tarantula Gulch boat ramp typically is the first opportunity visitors traveling from the

12 A recreation day is defined as any visit by an individual for any length of time

during a 24-hour period.
214

town of McCloud have to stop and view the reservoir. Vehicle count data was recorded

at times when project roads were covered in snow, indicating that the road to Tarantula

Gulch may have been accessible at times or there was possible snowmobile use.

In addition to launching boats, the site is popular with bank anglers and day-users.

Use levels are highest during the summer months. PG&E’s collaborative analysis of

study results with relicensing participants indicate the site is at or over capacity from

April to August.13 The study results show that the picnic area at the boat ramp is rarely

used, indicating that recreation use at the site is primarily for reservoir access and

shoreline uses. The picnic area’s location away from the water, the abundance of starthistle, and the lack of shade contribute to its undesirability for day-use. Results from

user surveys conducted at the boat ramp indicate there is growing conflict between nonboating visitors using the ramp as a swimming dock and fishing platform and visitors

launching and retrieving boats at the ramp.

Steep topography surrounding the reservoir limits the number and size of potential

recreation sites and results in concentrated uses at a few dispersed recreation sites. For

some users, these dispersed use sites provide the informal setting desired on trips to the

reservoir. Direct observation counts during the peak recreation months (May through

September) indicate that 12 vehicles are typically parked around the reservoir at

dispersed sites at any given time during daylight hours, resulting in multiple vehicles at a

number of locations. Star City Creek dispersed recreation area is the only site on

McCloud reservoir that can accommodate more than three user groups comfortably, and

the site consistently receives multiple user-groups throughout the recreation season. The

area is typically used for camping, although the site is not formally designated for such

use, and there is currently a disagreement between the Forest Service and the Hearst

Corporation over use of this site for overnight camping. Similar to Tarantula Gulch boat

ramp, Star City is considered to be over capacity from May to August and it is

approaching capacity in April, September, and October. Other popular dispersed areas

include the parking area at the intersection of Tarantula Gulch Road and FR 11, “Red

Banks area,” and “Battle Creek.” The base of McCloud dam receives modest amounts of

recreation use from anglers and boaters putting into the Lower McCloud River.

The recreational setting associated with boating on McCloud reservoir was

inventoried using the Water Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (WROS) through a

collaborative process that included interested relicensing participants. The WROS is a

tool to understand the type and location of six types of water-related recreation

opportunities, otherwise known as WROS classes. The six WROS classes range across a

spectrum of urban, suburban, rural developed, rural natural, semi-primitive, and primitive

classes. Each WROS class is defined by a particular “package” of activities, setting

attributes, experiences, and benefits. WROS classes of McCloud reservoir range from

13 Sites were determined to be over the physical capacity of the site when 35 to

40 percent of the vehicle spaces were filled on non-holiday weekends.
215

semi-primitive (head of reservoir, Lick Creek arm, and middle of reservoir/island) to

rural natural (main channel north of boat ramp, at Lick Creek, and at the bridge) to rural

developed (the boat launch arm, the area above the dam, and the main channel including

Battle Creek arm) (PG&E, 2009a and 2008c).

Iron Canyon Reservoir

Similar to McCloud reservoir, the greatest numbers of survey respondents at Iron

Canyon reservoir live in Siskiyou and Shasta Counties. PG&E estimates that the Iron

Canyon reservoir area supported about 4,163 recreation days in 2008 (PG&E, 2008d).

Developed recreation facilities (Hawkins Landing Campground and boat ramp and

Deadlun Campground) received 84 percent of the recreation use at Iron Canyon reservoir.

Traffic count data recorded at the developed recreation facilities indicate that visitors use

the campgrounds as their base while they explore and use dispersed areas throughout the

general area. Use levels of Hawkins Landing are highest in July and August when the

study results show the campground to be over capacity with slightly less use in the April

to June and September to November months. PG&E’s relicensing study results show

Deadlun Campground is below capacity during all months except for April and May

when use was approaching capacity.

The most popular water-based activities at Iron Canyon reservoir are motorized

and non-motorized boating and angling. At the dispersed recreation sites around Iron

Canyon reservoir, visitors typically participate in camping, driving OHVs, angling, or

general shoreline-based activities.

WROS classes of Iron Canyon reservoir range from semi-primitive (Gap Creek

arm, Little Gap Creek arm, Cedar Salt Log Creek arm, main body/island, Deadlun

Campground arm) to rural natural (the area above the dam and the area around Hawkins

boat ramp) (PG&E, 2009a and 2008c). These classifications capture the physical

disturbances visible from the water as well as the social setting and potential for

interaction between water and shoreline users.

Lower McCloud River

Visitor survey results indicate that visitors to the Lower McCloud River originate

from throughout California, with a lower percentage of respondents living in adjacent

counties than those visiting McCloud or Iron Canyon reservoirs, suggesting that the

Lower McCloud River has greater overall appeal. In addition, survey results indicate that

visitors to the Lower McCloud River are primarily anglers and do not visit the project

reservoirs, but rather focus activities and destinations along the Lower McCloud River

(below McCloud dam). According to survey results, these users also frequent other

regional rivers for angling (e.g., Upper Sacramento, Pit, and Trinity Rivers). Visitor

survey results indicate that although boating on the river does occur, the estimated

number of boating trips (both whitewater and access based) account for about five to ten

trips in most years depending on the water year type.
216

PG&E estimates that the Lower McCloud River supported about 7,050 recreation

days in 2008 (PG&E, 2008d). PG&E’s relicensing study area included Hawkins Creek

Crossing (inside the project) and areas outside the project boundary, including the Ah-DiNa Campground and Ash Camp Campground. Very few users were observed at the

Hawkins Creek crossing, but it is occasionally used by anglers fishing Hawkins Creek.

Pit River (James B. Black Powerhouse, Pit 6 and Pit 7 Reservoirs, and Pit 7

Afterbay)

Anglers seeking access to the Pit River comprise the majority of people using the

dispersed recreation sites near the James B. Black powerhouse, the base of Pit 6 and Pit 7

dams, and the Fenders Flat area. Recreational use of the dispersed recreation sites in

proximity to James B. Black powerhouse and Pit 6 dam is very low. During the study

period, there were no direct observations of recreational use occurring at the base of Pit 6

dam along Pit 6 Road. PG&E reports that the estimated 70 recreation days of use at this

area in 2002 is likely an accurate estimate of current use considering the lack of direct

observations during the 2007 and early 2008 study seasons. The use of the dispersed

access area across from the James B. Black powerhouse was included in the study area

for PG&E’s Pit 3, 4, and 5 Project license application, whereby PG&E concluded the

area received modest use. PG&E estimates that the Pit 7 afterbay supported about

1,947 recreation days in 2008 (PG&E, 2008d).

The flat water boating WROS inventory for the Lower Pit River ranged from a

class of rural developed on Pit 6 reservoir to rural developed (put-in below Pit 6 dam,

Montgomery Creek node, and Pit 7 dam node), rural natural (private camp node and

lower Pit 7 reservoir node), and semi-primitive (Pit 7 reservoir segment, Roaring Creek

Cove node) on Pit 7 reservoir. The recreation setting within both reservoirs is

comparable and influenced by reservoir elevations (e.g., physical setting scores were

lower when shoreline was exposed within the narrow canyon). The absence of other

users resulted in primitive social setting; however, the management and physical setting

characteristics are more consistent with the rural developed setting. Pit 7 reservoir

WROS classifications tended more toward primitive due to its length and the natural slot

canyon rock formation at the confluence of Roaring Creek.

Angling

The project waters provide ample angling opportunities. Survey data collected by

PG&E indicate a high level of participation of project users in angling. The percentage

of visitors whose primary activity included angling was highest in the Lower McCloud

River (84 percent) followed by Iron Canyon reservoir (80 percent) and McCloud

reservoir (69 percent). California Fish and Game classifies the 7.3-mile-long river reach

of the Lower McCloud River immediately downstream of McCloud dam as a wild trout

area (California Fish and Game, 2004 as cited in PG&E, 2009a).

The quality of angling along the Lower McCloud River (below McCloud dam)

depends on the quantity of flow within the river. PG&E investigated flow relationships
217

for both angling and boating opportunities (boating opportunities are discussed below

under the section titled Whitewater Boating). Diversions from the project result in a

consistent base flow, and decrease the number of high-flow spill events and the number

of days of spill during various types of water years. PG&E’s study results indicate that

210 to 375 cfs as measured at the Ah-Di-Na gage (gage MC-1) is optimal for angling,

with the acceptable range from 200 to 475 cfs. Anglers who were not calibrated to the

gage indicated that the existing summer base flows at Ah-Di-Na of about 160 to 200 cfs

provided the best conditions for fishing. The upper segment of the river from the base of

McCloud dam to Ah-Di-Na Campground is steeper and more constricted, requiring a

different set of flow conditions for a given experience than the lower segment from AhDi-Na to Shasta Lake. Study results indicate that typical base flows of 200 cfs at Ah-DiNa (about 330 cfs or more at Shasta Lake) appear to provide improved boat-based access

over the 160 cfs experienced during the summer of 2007 (minimum flow required during

a dry year) while providing high quality angling conditions.

Whitewater Boating

As discussed previously under the section titled Angling, PG&E investigated flow

relationships for both angling and boating opportunities on the Lower McCloud River.

Additionally, PG&E and American Whitewater assessed potential boating opportunities

on Iron Canyon Creek below the Iron Canyon dam and determined that much of this

4.3-mile reach does not appear to be boatable because it is too steep (PG&E, 2009c).

Although boats can access the downstream end of the river from Pit 6 reservoir, this

flatwater segment would be of little interest to whitewater boaters, and American

Whitewater did not recommend further investigation of the reach.

The quality of boating along the Lower McCloud River depends on the quantity of

flow within the river. Project operations affect the number of days when boatable flows

exist in the Lower McCloud River. Overall, review of hydrological data under past

project operations indicate that between 1974 and 2006, flows suitable for boating

opportunities (180 to 3,000 cfs as measured at Ah-Di-Na gage [MC-1]) were available in

about 40 percent of the years (13 of 33) with an average of 32 days with flows in the

whitewater range (500 to 3,000 cfs as measured at Ah-Di-Na gage)(16 of those days in

the standard whitewater range [700 to 1,500 cfs as measured at Ah-Di-Na gage]).

Optimal boating flows can be characterized by the type of boating experience

(e.g., access-based or whitewater), by the type of boat (e.g., kayak or raft) and the type of

experience (e.g., access-based, technical, standard, or big water). The upper segment of

the river from the base of McCloud dam to Ah-Di-Na Campground is steeper and more

constricted, requiring a different set of flow conditions for a given experience than the

lower segment from Ah-Di-Na to Shasta Lake.

Acceptable flow ranges for various whitewater experiences were developed from

responses to a flow-acceptability survey conducted by PG&E that was administered to

a study boater panel. The standard flow range for whitewater boating for both kayaks

and rafts on the upper segment of the McCloud River from the base of McCloud dam to
218

Ah-Di-Na Campground is between 700 and about 1,000 cfs depending on the boat type

(optimal 800 cfs for both boat types) and between about 600 and 1,500 cfs depending on

the boat type on the lower segment of the McCloud River from Ah-Di-Na to Shasta Lake

(optimal between 800 and 900 cfs depending on the boat type).

Compared to other rivers, study survey respondents rated the Lower McCloud

River between “excellent” and “among the very best” (the two highest ratings on the fivepoint scale used) with its length of run, up to 24 river miles, fine scenery, solitude,

excellent water clarity, remote and undeveloped character, and high quality Class III and

IV whitewater as outstanding features. On the negative side, the trip is logistically

challenging and the lack of public land for stopping to rest or camp adds additional

challenges.

There are no formal put-in sites for whitewater boating access at the project or on

the Lower McCloud River. Current whitewater boat trips on the McCloud River

generally originate at the base of McCloud dam, Ash Camp, or Ah-Di-Na Campground

and end at the McCloud Arm Bridge on Shasta Lake. The Forest Service McCloud

bridge developed campground at Shasta Lake is where boaters end their trips.

3.3.5.2 Environmental Effects

Fish Stocking

One of the primary recreational activities associated with the project includes

angling. California Fish and Game currently stocks the Pit and McCloud Rivers to

improve the recreational fishery. PG&E proposes to continue funding California Fish

and Game for the stocking of up to 38,800 pounds of trout and 500,000 kokanee per

fiscal year (July 1 through June 30) in the drainages of the Pit and McCloud Rivers below

the uppermost project development and in Shasta Lake. PG&E proposes that its cost

would not exceed the then-prevailing statewide average cost to California Fish and Game

for the production and distribution of catchable trout and fingerling kokanee. Following

consultation with California Fish and Game and FWS, PG&E proposes to share the

stocking costs equally with California Fish and Game, provided that its share of costs

does not exceed $5,000 during any period of three consecutive years, and provide the

Commission with an annual report containing an evaluation of study findings on the

stocking program.

California Fish and Game recommend in its 10(j) recommendation 14 that

beginning in the first calendar year after license issuance PG&E reimburse California

Fish and Game for stocking of up to 60,000 pounds of trout annually within the

McCloud-Pit Project boundary and that costs would be assessed at the standard rate for

catchable-sized hatchery grown trout in the year of stocking. California Fish and Game

recommends that PG&E, if requested by California Fish and Game, pay $5,000 annually

for monitoring and evaluation of the fish stocking program or for mitigation of sturgeon

reintroduction into Shasta Lake. California Fish and Game states that the demand for

angling is estimated to increase from 10,010 recreation days in 2008 to 24,403 recreation
219

days by 2050 on McCloud reservoir and from 2,515 recreation days in 2008 to 6,130

recreation days by 2050 on Iron Canyon reservoir.14 California Fish and Game further

states that the current fish stocking agreement would not be adequate to meet the current

and future demands. Additionally, California Fish and Game states that the numerous

proposed recreation facility upgrades and construction of new recreation facilities would

result in increased angling pressure at the project and a portion of the stocked fish could

be allocated to Pit 7 reservoir, which is not currently stocked by California Fish and

Game. California Fish and Game also comments that it does not intend to stock kokanee

since it has not stocked kokanee into Shasta Lake since 1970.

In its response to 10(j) recommendations filed by California Fish and Game,

PG&E stated that it agrees with California Fish and Game’s fish stocking

10(j) recommendation, as written.

Our Analysis

Angling is one of the most popular activities associated with the project, and

stocking catchable trout would help ensure that the recreational fishery is maintained for

the term of the new license. Based on recreation studies completed during the relicensing

process, the demand for angling at the project is projected to increase over the term of a

new license and the numerous proposed recreation facility upgrades and construction of

new recreation facilities has the potential to result in increased angling pressure at the

project. Existing stocking levels may not be sufficient to meet estimated future demand

for angling for the term of a new license. The proposed kokanee stocking would not be

beneficial since California Fish and Game does not intend to stock kokanee.

In 1942, the construction of Shasta dam isolated a population of white sturgeon;

however, the population was self-sustaining in the Pit River arm of Shasta Lake, until

experiencing a decline in the 1970s and 80s. California Fish and Game began an

experimental sturgeon planting program early in 1988 to evaluate stocking as a means of

restoring the sturgeon fishery; however, the program was discontinued later that year due

to disease problems in the rearing facilities.15 California Fish and Game states that

1.8 percent of the planted sturgeon were caught or observed from 13 months to 13 years

after stocking, indicating that low natural recruitment may be the cause of the sturgeon

population decline.16 California Fish and Game further suggests that the construction of

Pit 6 and 7 dams in the early 1960’s, which eliminated access to 16 miles of stream likely

utilized by white sturgeon during spawning, likely caused the decline. There is no

14 Technical Memorandum 30: Regional Recreation Demand Assessment

(RL-S1).

15 Licensee’s Pre-Application Document.

16 California Department of Fish and Game. 10(j) Recommendations for the

McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project. January 28, 2010.
220

conclusive evidence, however, that the loss of riverine habitat, or any project-related

effects are directly correlated to the low recruitment of white sturgeon.

Increasing the number of fish stocked at the project would help meet the estimated

future demand for angling at the project. Furthermore, annual monitoring and evaluation

of the fish stocking program would provide the means for coordinated development to

allow for the flexibility to increase or decrease stocking numbers over the term of a new

license in order to meet future demand for angling.

Recreation Flows

To enhance whitewater boating opportunities downstream of the project, PG&E

proposes to provide, beginning no later than the first full calendar year after license

issuance, a recreation flow event from McCloud dam (gage MC-7) if a spill flow of at

least 300 cfs has not occurred for seven consecutive days during the period of April 1

through October 31 at any time in the previous three calendar years. PG&E defined a

recreation flow event as a minimum flow release of 300 cfs from McCloud dam as

measured at MC-7 (McCloud dam), for 11 consecutive days during the period between

May 15 and June 15. The proposed flows would be equal to or greater than the flows that

are required in the current project license (section 3.3.2, Aquatic Resources).

As discussed in detail in section 3.3.2, Aquatic Resources, the Forest Service

specifies PG&E release mean daily flows of at least 175 cfs year-round from the

McCloud dam such that the mean daily flow at USGS gage MC-1 at Ah-Di-Na is at least

200 cfs. These flows would be augmented during the period February 15 through June

30 according to the flow rule. The Forest Service states that in terms of boating access,

the current flow regime allows flows to drop below 200 cfs in some months. Forest

Service further states that its proposed flow regime would provide more days of boating

access than what currently exist, especially in drier years. Although Forest Service’s

proposed flow regime is not significantly different than the current flow regime, it would

provide a few more whitewater boating days in wetter years.

PG&E alternative condition 19 is consistent with Forest Service condition 19, part

1, subpart b and proposes to remove the recreation flow event from its original proposal

due to lack of support from stakeholders as expressed in the August 27, 2009 Project

meeting with relicensing participants.17

American Whitewater recommends the release of elevated flows in April and May

to provide whitewater boating opportunities in addition to ecological benefits. At

McCloud dam, American Whitewater recommends peak flows of 600 cfs during April

and ramping down through May in wet and above normal years, at least 400 cfs during

the month of April in below normal water years, and flows of 300 cfs ramping down to

200 cfs base flows by the opening day of trout season in dry and critically dry years.

17 PG&E’s submittal of alternative conditions filed on March 3, 2010.
221

Trout Unlimited, California Trout, and the McCloud River Club support the Forest

Service’s proposed minimum baseflow of 200 cfs at Ah-Di-Na (MC-1) but recommend

that summer base flows at Ah-Di-Na be the higher of (1) 200 cfs, or (2) the historic

average summer (i.e., July and August) base flows during normal years under the existing

license (about 210 to 220 cfs). They also recommend the number of available angling

days be increased in late April and May.

The Anglers Committee, California Salmon and Steelhead Association, California

Fisheries, and Water Unlimited support the existing daily flow requirements for the

Lower McCloud River below McCloud dam and recommend that the Commission

prohibit recreational boating in the Lower McCloud River below McCloud dam. They

state that the Lower McCloud River below McCloud dam was set aside by the State of

California as Wild Trout Waters to provide high quality trout fishing for California

licensed anglers and that recreational boating adversely affects anglers and trout fishing

on the Lower McCloud River. They recommend that whitewater boating only occur

during spilling flows in the Lower McCloud River.

The McCloud River Club states that any significant increase in flows on the lower

McCloud River during the early fishing season could harm trout populations and the

ability of anglers to safely fish during the spring. Furthermore, California Salmon and

Steelhead Association and Anglers Committee comment that the proposed increased

flows below PG&E’s McCloud dam in the Lower McCloud River could have negative

effects to disabled California licensed anglers that fish the river with respect to increased

flows and higher velocity (effects of flows to wading anglers).

California Trout, Trout Unlimited, Northern California Council Federation of Fly

Fishers, and McCloud RiverKeepers comment that minimum and maximum flows from

McCloud dam should be established for the protection of the habitat and fishery first and

foremost with protection of the rights of the fishing community as the second priority.

The Fly Shop also supports the protection and enhancement of rainbow and brown trout,

and the overall river system health in the Lower McCloud River and recommends flow

management that enhances and protects the extraordinary recreational fishing experience,

including the ability to wade.

California Sportfishing Protection Alliance supports putting the aquatic needs of

the McCloud River first but also seeks a balancing of measures to reasonably

accommodate recreational interests, particularly angling. California Sportfishing

Protection Alliance comments that reasonable accommodation consistent with aquatic

values also must be made for whitewater boating interests and that it does not oppose all

whitewater boating in the Lower McCloud River downstream of the project. Both

Friends of the River and American Whitewater comment that they will advocate positions

consistent with the protection, enhancement, and restoration of aquatic species and their

habitat, and also positions consistent with protection and enhancement of recreational

opportunities in the McCloud River and its tributaries.
222

Our Analysis

As discussed in section 3.3.5.1, Affected Environment, the quality of angling

and boating along the Lower McCloud River depends on the quantity of flow within the

river. PG&E’s relicensing studies investigated flow relationships for both angling and

boating opportunities. PG&E’s study results indicated that 200 to 300 cfs, as measured at

the Ah-Di-Na gage (gage MC-1), is optimal for angling with the acceptable range from

150 to 450 cfs. The study also indicated that small increases in flow substantially

decrease the quality of angling and above 500 cfs, flows are unacceptable for most

anglers. According to the focus group participants, generally flows over 300 cfs are too

stressful for all but the youngest and most aggressive waders.18

Acceptable flow ranges for various whitewater experiences developed from a

flow-acceptability survey conducted by PG&E found that the standard flow range for

whitewater boating for both kayaks and rafts from the base of McCloud dam to Ah-Di-Na

Campground was between 700 and about 1,000 cfs depending on the boat type (optimal

800 cfs for both boat types) and between 600 and 1,500 cfs depending on the boat type

from Ah-Di-Na to Shasta Lake (optimal between 800 and 900 cfs depending on the boat

type).

As discussed in detail in section 3.3.2, Aquatic Resources, table 3-21 shows that

minimum flows based on the flow regime specified by Forest Service condition 19 and

proposed by PG&E alternative condition 19 flow regime for various runoff years would

result in flows below McCloud dam that are acceptable for angling from mid-May

through June and suitable for boating mid-February through June in normal, wet, and

very wet years. In these very wet years, some boating flows greater than 600 cfs, as

American Whitewater recommends, would likely occur from March through early May.

In comparison to existing flows at the project, the flows proposed by Trout

Unlimited, California Trout, and The McCloud River Club would likely provide for

fewer days with flows greater than 300 cfs in wet and very wet years and fewer days with

flows greater than 600 cfs in very wet years, which would enhance angling and provide

increased angling opportunities earlier in the recreation season. Forest Service condition

19 and PG&E alternative condition 19 would likely generate slightly higher flows in late

March through mid-May in wet years and slightly higher flows in mid-April through

early June in very wet years, hence, providing more opportunities for whitewater boating

and fewer opportunities for angling.

Recreation Management Plan

Development of Recreation Management Plan

In order to ensure a quality experience for recreation users over the term of the

license, PG&E proposes develop a recreation development and management plan

18 Technical Memo 58: Report on Recreation Flow Assessment (RL-S3).
223

(recreation plan) in consultation with the Forest Service, California Fish and Game,

California Water Board, and other interested parties within two years of license issuance.

The recreation plan would include the following: upgrading existing recreation facilities

and constructing new recreation facilities in accordance with Forest Service Outdoor

Recreation Accessibility Guidelines (FSORAG) and with the ADA; public use of one,

year-round campground; stream flow dissemination for the Lower McCloud River; a

project sign plan; an interpretive and education plan; periodic recreation monitoring and

reporting; operation and maintenance of project recreation facilities; project-wide patrol

of areas including but not limited to Hawkins Creek crossing, Iron Canyon reservoir

shoreline dispersed use sites, and McCloud reservoir shoreline access points; and annual

coordination with the Forest Service.

Forest Service condition 30 specifies that PG&E develop and implement a

recreation plan, to be approved by the Forest Service within two years of license

issuance, to address recreation resource needs associated with the project in consultation

with the Forest Service, California Fish and Game, California Water Board, and other

interested parties. The plan would include annual maintenance, operation, reconstruction,

survey and monitoring, water surface management, and project patrol of existing

recreation facilities and use at the project. PG&E alternative condition 30 is consistent

with Forest Service condition 30; however, it does not include final approval of the

recreation plan by the Forest Service.

Recreation Facility Design Standards

PG&E proposes to completely reconstruct all project recreation facilities within

25 years of license issuance so that all project recreational facilities would be

reconstructed once during the term of the license. PG&E proposes to use Forest Service

design standards and to obtain Forest Service approval on final designs and prior to

construction for any facilities located on NFS lands before submitting for Commission

approval. As part of this approval, the Forest Service may require adjustments to facility

locations and final plans to preclude or mitigate impacts and ensure that the project is

compatible with on-the-ground conditions.

Forest Service condition 30 part 2 specifies that all new and reconstructed project

recreation facilities located on PG&E’s lands would be designed to meet applicable

ADA, FSORAG, Forest Service Trail Accessibility Guidelines (FSTAG), and

Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) standards as currently written at the time of project

design. Further, the Forest Service specifies that all project facilities would be designed

to be consistent with the recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) class and visual quality

objective (VQO) where they are located. Forest Service specifies that all project and

project-related recreation facilities and infrastructure will be replaced in-kind or with an

appropriate upgraded facility within 25 years of license issuance or at the mid-point of

the license term, whichever is greater.

PG&E alternative condition 30 is consistent with Forest Service condition 30 and

further states that all new and reconstructed project recreation facilities located on
224

PG&E’s lands will also be designed to meet applicable ADA and ABA standards in

addition to those on NFS lands. California Fisheries and Water Unlimited also

recommend that the Commission enforce ADA standards and provide accommodations

for disabled persons at all associated project campgrounds and recreational public

facilities, especially at McCloud reservoir.

Our Analysis

PG&E’s proposed recreation plan would provide the means to develop and

implement the proposed recreation measures in a consistent and coordinated manner. By

upgrading or replacing recreation facilities within 25 years of license issuance, recreation

facilities and infrastructure would continue to provide safe, reliable public access to

recreational opportunities and the project and address growing recreational demand over

the term of the new license. Consultation with the Forest Service would help to ensure

that the measures being developed and implemented would be consistent with the

management goals and objectives of the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Further,

improving access for the disabled at the project would be consistent with the

Commission’s policy on recreation facilities at licensed projects under which licensees

are expected to consider the needs of the disabled in the design and construction of such

facilities.19

The following sections describe the proposed components of each recreation plan

proposed by PG&E and the Forest Service and our assessment of the potential effects of

each plan on recreational resources at McCloud Pit Hydroelectric Project.

McCloud Reservoir Recreation Facilities

 Tarantula Gulch Boat Ramp and Day-Use Area: reconstruct the Tarantula

Gulch boat ramp to California Boating standards: provide a boarding dock, and

extend the launch ramp to 3 ft (vertical) below the minimum operating pool

elevation: provide day-use facilities (restroom, paved parking, trash

receptacles/removal, tables, and pedestrian trail access) with potable water at

Tarantula Gulch boat ramp (between the ramp and the intersection with

FR 11).

 Red Banks: provide day-use facility that includes restroom, paved parking,

trash receptacles/removal, tables, and pedestrian trail access.

 McCloud Shoreline Access Points: provide access points (paved parking and

shoreline access trail) at Battle Creek, West dam, and East dam.

 Star City Campground and Day-Use Area: develop a campground with walkin sites (estimate six sites), paved parking, vault restroom, potable water,

tables, fire rings/grills, trash receptacles/removal, and host site; provide day19 See 18 CFR section 2.7.
225

use facilities (restroom, paved parking, trash receptacles/removal, tables, and

pedestrian trail access) including shoreline access for hand launching boats and

potable water.

 Floating Dock or Pier and Trail: conduct a feasibility study to find a suitable

location for a floating dock or pier and trail (away from Tarantula Gulch boat

launch) for day-use activities, such as fishing and swimming; design and

construct this facility if a suitable location is identified.

Forest Service condition 30 also specifies that PG&E rehabilitate existing facilities

at McCloud reservoir and improve access. We summarize the differences between the

rehabilitation measures specified in Forest Service condition 30 and those in proposed by

PG&E, below.

 Tarantula Gulch Boat Ramp and Day-Use Area: reconstruct existing boat

ramp to two-lane ramp with boarding dock, sidewalk, and a minimum of 4-ft

draft clearance below minimum pool to California Boating standards; redesign

existing parking lot and day-use area to include 30-40 additional parking

spaces, develop paved parking area and turnaround, and designate parking

spaces for vehicles; provide lighting in the parking area that is visible from the

courtesy dock; and provide snow removal on the access road (from junction

with 38N11) and parking area between April 1 and December 1, when access

to the junction is available.

 Tarantula Gulch Inlet: provide paved parking for a minimum of five vehicles,

up to three picnic tables with pedestal grills, vault toilet, animal-resistant trash

receptacles, and a pedestrian access trail to the high water line.

 Red Banks: provide paved parking for a minimum of five vehicles, up to three

picnic tables with pedestal grills, vault toilet, animal-resistant trash receptacles,

and a pedestrian access trail to the high water line. PG&E would ensure legal

access from roadway to reservoir day-use areas.

 McCloud shoreline access points: include paved parking for three vehicles

and an access trail to the shoreline; install picnic tables where space allows;

PG&E would ensure legal access from roadway to reservoir access areas.

 Star City Campground and Day-Use Area: develop a campground with twovault accessible restroom facility and potable water source; up to 10 campsites

(including a host site) with a site post, picnic table, animal-resistant food

locker, and campfire ring at each campsite; day-use area near the shoreline

with a designated swim/beach area, dock, car-top boat access, single-vault

toilet, and up to five sites each with a table, pedestal grill, and animal-resistant

trash containers.

 Floating Dock or Pier and Trail: develop a fishing/swimming platform to

accommodate a fluctuating water level at one of the four proposed day-use
226

areas or at another designated recreation day-use location around the McCloud

reservoir.

PG&E alternative condition 30 is generally consistent with Forest Service

condition 30; however, PG&E proposes to exclude language related to the acquisition of

rights at Red Banks day-use site and the McCloud shoreline access points. PG&E

proposes to cooperate with private landowners to acquire rights of public access by any

means necessary, but not including by condemnation pursuant to section 21 of the FPA or

any other law, for the purpose of public recreational day-use. Additionally, PG&E

comments that initial site investigations have identified site constraints that affect the

feasibility of constructing some recreation facilities. PG&E proposes to first conduct a

site evaluation within two years of license issuance to determine if constructing a

fishing/swimming platform at McCloud Reservoir is feasible and then constructing the

facility if a suitable location is found.

The Hearst Corporation expresses concerns over the proposed expansion of

overnight camping at McCloud reservoir and unknown details that would be included in

the recreation plan. Further, The Hearst Corporation strongly opposes the allowance for

open campfires (including those within a fire ring) at McCloud reservoir since it is in a

very high fire risk assessment area and public use is concentrated during the dry summer

months and would pose great risk to persons and property on Hearst lands. It continues

to support the original 1963 agreement which provided for public access to McCloud

reservoir and Lower McCloud River across its private property via a road connecting the

County road to the Tarantula Gulch boat ramp.

Our Analysis

PG&E’s proposed rehabilitation measures for the recreation facilities at McCloud

reservoir, as provided for in the recreation plan, would provide the means for future

rehabilitation and replacement (as needed) of existing recreational facilities within the

project. The facility rehabilitation measures would provide for enhanced access to

project facilities and amenities and help ensure that these access sites would continue to

provide adequate facilities to meet current and future recreational demand at the projects.

Constructing the proposed day-use area, including a floating fishing/swimming

platform, and reconstructing the boat ramp at Tarantula Gulch would help relieve

overcrowding and reduce user conflicts at McCloud reservoir. Forest Service specifies

that PG&E reconstruct the Tarantula Gulch boat ramp to provide two lanes and a

minimum of 4-ft draft clearance below minimal pool level to further reduce crowding at

the ramp. However, PG&E states that initial site investigations have identified site

constraints that may affect the feasibility of constructing some recreation facilities

specified by the Forest Service. Steep slopes constrain design options for providing an

additional lane at the boat ramp. Additionally, although PG&E agrees with increasing

parking capacity at the boat ramp to the extent possible within site constraints, PG&E

states that an initial site assessment determined that a few parking spaces could be added.

Currently the bottom of the boat ramp is 1 ft below the normal minimum operating
227

reservoir level (elevation 2,634 ft) and typically provides boater access during the entire

recreation season. PG&E states reconstructing the ramp with the toe of the ramp

extending to an elevation not less than three vertical feet below minimum pool would

extend the season for launching boats. Demand for boating access coupled with

crowding issues at McCloud reservoir demonstrates the need for improved recreational

boating access at the project. Moreover, constructing a floating fishing/swimming

platform would potentially alleviate overcrowding and user conflicts even further.

Forest Service specified that PG&E provide lighting and snow plowing during the

winter at the Tarantula Gulch boat ramp to provide safety for anglers fishing early or late

in the day and to improve access at the ramp. Forest Service pointed to the relicensing

recreation survey that indicated 10 percent of visitors use the reservoir in winter and

noted several comments requesting the need for a longer use season. PG&E states

California Boating standards do not require lighting. Lighting would improve safety at

the boat ramp and allow anglers to fish longer during the recreation season, however,

there is little evidence to support recreation use during the winter months to justify snow

plowing at the ramp.

Forest Service condition 30 specifies and PG&E alternative condition 30 proposes

to develop an overnight campground at Star City. However, the Hearst Corporation

continues to support the original 1963 agreement which specifies, according to The

Hearst Corporation, a day-use recreation site at Star City Creek. The 1963 agreement

between The Hearst Corporation and the Forest Service allows the Forest Service to use

and manage the Star City area located on Hearst Corporation lands for public recreation

use. There are no existing campgrounds at McCloud reservoir to meet existing or

projected demand for overnight use; however, regular dispersed camping is occurring at

Star City. PG&E’s suitability assessment shows the only potential site to accommodate

camping at the reservoir is at Star City. Providing a campground at this location would

help manage the already existing use and reduce negative impacts on natural resources by

eliminating erosion and soil compaction from user-created trails and vehicles and by

providing for proper sanitation disposal and trash removal. Fire rings would be included

at each developed campsite however, fire rings would reduce the threat of wildland fire at

Star City. Fire risk and management is further discussed in the fire and fuels plan in

section 3.3.7, Land Use and Aesthetics.

Lower McCloud River Recreation Facilities

 Base of McCloud Dam: provide a whitewater put-in base of McCloud,

parking, vault restroom, trash receptacle/removal, and shoreline pedestrian

access trail on river left to the pool below the spillway.

Forest Service condition 30 also specifies PG&E rehabilitate existing facilities at

the Lower McCloud river and improve access. We summarize the differences between

the Forest Service’s rehabilitation measures that differ from PG&E’s measures below.
228

 Base of McCloud Dam: maintain a day-use site that includes access road,

paved parking for a minimum of three vehicles, vault toilet, animal-resistant

trash receptacle, signing, and trail to accommodate both fishing and boating

access from the base of McCloud dam to a point past the instream flow valve

release to the splash pool below the spillway

 Lower McCloud River Trail/Ash Camp Campground Trail: upgrade, relocate

where needed, and improve tread and drainage of existing user-created

streamside river access trail along opposite side of river from Ash Camp

Campground that begins at Ash Camp bridge/PCT junction and travels

downstream to Ah-Di-Na.

 Ash Camp and Ah-Di-Na Campground: agreement outside with PG&E

outside the license to reconstruction, operation, and maintenance of Ash Camp

and Ah-Di-Na Campground.

PG&E alternative condition 30 is generally consistent with Forest Service

condition 30; however, PG&E alternative condition 30 does not propose the facility as a

whitewater put-in; rather it is proposed as a day-use recreation site. Additionally, PG&E

does not propose to upgrade and maintain the Lower McCloud river trail nor does PG&E

propose to reconstruct, operate and maintain the Ash Camp and Ah-Di-Na Campground.

Our Analysis

Constructing a day-use site and designing an access trail to accommodate both

fishing and boating access at the Lower McCloud river would facilitate the use of the

area by anglers and boaters. Although improving the trail along the Lower McCloud

River from Ash Camp Campground at the Ash Camp bridge/PCT junction to Ah-Di-Na

Campground would improve access, the trail is outside the existing project boundary.

PG&E states the trail is not an existing project recreation facility and that the Forest

Service has not demonstrated a project nexus with this trail. Moreover, both the Ash

Camp and Ah-Di-Na Campground are also non-project facilities outside the project

boundary that are not currently being used for project purposes. The Forest Service

specifies that should an agreement not be reached outside of the license, mitigation at

Ash Camp and Ah-Di-Na Campground will be included in the final 4(e) conditions.

Iron Canyon Reservoir Recreation Facilities

 Hawkins Landing Campground: reconstruct Hawkins Landing Campground

with the existing capacity (10 sites and a host site) and provide potable water;

reconstruct or resurface the access road to allow all-season use and provide a

host at the campground during the recreation season.

 Hawkins Landing Boat Ramp: retain concrete ramp surface and replace or

repair the surfacing that connects to the concrete ramp.
229

 Deadlun Campground: reconstruct Deadlun Campground and increase

capacity by about 10 sites to provide about 37 sites and a host site; provide

potable water and a shoreline access trail.

 Iron Canyon Dam Boat Ramp: construct a new boat launch at the east end of

Iron Canyon dam that meets California Boating standards and provide a vault

restroom, picnic tables, potable water, and trash receptacles/removal.

 Shoreline Access Areas: conduct a site evaluation to provide three paved

parking areas along FR 37N78 each with a capacity of up to three vehicle

parking spaces and a pedestrian shoreline access trail and to design and

construct these facilities.

Forest Service condition 30 also specifies that PG&E rehabilitate existing facilities

at Iron Canyon reservoir and improve access. We summarize the differences between

rehabilitation measures specified by Forest Service condition 30 and those proposed in

PG&E alternative condition 30, below.

 Hawkins Landing Campground: reconstruct Hawkins Landing Campground to

provide for a minimum of 10 single and double camp sites; include entrance

gate with signing, surfaced loop road, parking spurs, site posts, picnic tables,

animal-resistant food boxes and trash receptacles, fire rings, vault restrooms,

potable water, camp host and host site, and a developed trail from the

campground to the adjacent boat ramp and shoreline for pedestrian fishing

access.

 Hawkins Landing Boat Ramp: reconstruct the Hawkins Landing boat ramp

surface (length and width, but not grade) to meet California Boating standard

for single lane to be operable a minimum of 155 days during the recreation

season (April 27 – November 15); surfaced parking lot above high water level

for a minimum of 10 vehicles (minimum five with trailers) and the parking lot

would be surfaced, striped, include a single-vault toilet, animal-resistant trash

receptacle, and informational sign board.

 Deadlun Campground: re-locate the Deadlun campground to one or two Forest

Service approved location(s) along the Iron Canyon reservoir shoreline;

provide a mix of single and group campsites; provide a host, entrance gate,

surfaced loop road, parking spurs, site posts, picnic tables, animal-resistant

food lockers, fire rings, two two-vault restrooms, animal-resistant trash

receptacle, and potable water; develop a trail from the campground(s) to the

high water line of the reservoir shoreline for pedestrian-only access.

 Iron Canyon Dam Boat Ramp: construct a new single-lane boat ramp to

California Boating standards with boarding dock functional at 90 percent of

operational lake levels (ramp design and placement should include option for

two lanes if needed at mid-license facility review; provide parking for a

minimum of 15 vehicles (5 single vehicles and 10 vehicles with trailers); a
230

single-vault toilet at the parking area; potable water, picnic tables, and trash

receptacles; security lighting visible from the dock; and snow removal during

shoulder seasons (March/April and December) at parking area when Oak

Mountain access road and Iron Canyon boat ramp surface are passable.

 Shoreline Access Areas: provide a minimum of three day-use parking areas

around Iron Canyon reservoir with paved parking for up to three vehicles each,

and pedestrian-only access to shoreline.

PG&E alternative condition 30 for Hawkins Landing Campground is generally

consistent; however, it does propose that Hawkins Landing boat ramp be operable a

minimum number of 155 days, if possible, during the recreation season nor does it

include that the Iron Canyon dam boat ramp be operational at 90 percent of operational

lake levels. Additionally, PG&E proposes to, within two years of license issuance,

conduct a site assessment to determine if there is one or more suitable sites to relocate the

existing Deadlun Campground along the Iron Canyon reservoir shoreline and to

determine the locations for the shoreline access areas. If agreement can be reached on

alternate location(s) to relocate the campground and determine feasible access areas,

PG&E will construct a new campground and the access areas. If suitable location(s) do

not exist for the campground, PG&E maintains that it will reconstruct Deadlun

Campground as proposed. Finally, PG&E alternative condition 30 does not propose the

lighting specification at Iron Canyon dam boat ramp and PG&E proposes to revise the

snow removal specification to specify that when project operations require snow removal

from Oak Mountain Road, snow also would be removed from the access road to the boat

ramp, parking area, and boat ramp.

Our Analysis

Reconstructing Hawkins Landing boat ramp campground and providing additional

parking and restroom facilities would enhance recreational opportunities at Iron Canyon

reservoir and ensure that the project recreation facilities meet current and future demand

over the term of a new license. Forest Service condition 30 specifies that, if possible

under reservoir operations, the Hawkins Landing boat ramp should be operable a

minimum of 155 days during the recreation season. PG&E states the new proposed boat

ramp near Iron Canyon dam would be usable at minimum operating pool (2,593 ft) and it

is not cost effective to modify Hawkins Landing boat ramp to extend the recreation

season. PG&E further states that it has voluntarily operated Iron Canyon reservoir at or

above elevation 2,615 ft to ensure that visitors could use the only existing boat ramp,

Hawkins Landing, during the primary recreation season from May 15 to October 15.

Although providing as many usable recreation days as possible at Hawkins Landing boat

ramp would improve boating access at Iron Canyon reservoir, the specification for the

Hawkins Landing boat ramp to be usable for a certain number of days could be difficult

for PG&E to accomplish as a license condition. Furthermore, constructing a second boat

ramp to be usable at minimum operating pool (2,593 ft) at Iron Canyon reservoir would

help to alleviate overcrowding of Hawkins Landing boat ramp. Again, the specification
231

that Iron Canyon dam boat ramp be functional at 90 percent of operational lake levels

could be difficult for PG&E to accomplish as a license condition. Constructing Iron

Canyon dam boat ramp so that it is usable at the reservoir's minimum operating pool

would result in public boating access to Iron Canyon reservoir during the entire

recreation season.

Reconstructing or re-locating Deadlun Campground would also enhance

recreational opportunities at Iron Canyon reservoir by improving camping opportunities

at the reservoir. Because dispersed camping generally occurs along the main body of

Iron Canyon reservoir and the campground is currently located in a creek off the main

body of the reservoir, relocating Deadlun Campground to a more desirable location or

providing access to the reservoir from its current location would likely increase the use of

this facility.

Constructing the proposed shoreline access areas would provide developed access

areas along the shoreline to help alleviate some of the dispersed recreation use occurring

along the reservoir shoreline. The Forest Service has not provided suggested locations or

evidence that the sites are feasible, therefore conducting the site assessment within two

years of license issuance as proposed by PG&E would be appropriate to determine the

locations for the shoreline access areas.

Forest Service specified that PG&E provide lighting and snow removal during

March-April and December at Iron Canyon dam boat ramp to provide safety for anglers

fishing early or late in the day. PG&E comments that California Boating standards do

not require lighting. Lighting would allow anglers to fish longer during the recreation

season and increase safety at the boat ramp. Additionally, PG&E’s proposal to remove

snow from Oak Mountain Road, the access road to the boat ramp, parking area, and boat

ramp when project operations require it would also allow access to the boat ramp during

the winter season with minimal additional cost.

Pit 6 and 7 Reservoir Recreation Facilities

 Shoreline Access Trail: evaluate the feasibility (site suitability and public

safety) of providing a pedestrian shoreline access trail at the upper end of Pit 7

reservoir, downstream of Pit 6 powerhouse tailrace, to provide access for

angling and pedestrian shoreline access.

 Montgomery Creek Boat Put-in: conduct a feasibility assessment for providing

a hand-launch boat put-in where Montgomery Creek enters Pit 7 reservoir,

with paved parking, vault restroom, tables, trash receptacles/removal and

pedestrian shoreline access trail. Boating would be restricted near project

infrastructure for public safety reasons by installing buoy lines at the upper and

lower ends of the Pit 7 reservoir.

Forest Service condition 30 also specifies that PG&E rehabilitate existing facilities

at Pit 6 and 7 reservoirs and improve access. We summarize the differences between the

Forest Service’s rehabilitation measures that differ from PG&E’s measures below.
232

 Pit 6 Shoreline Trail: develop a shoreline trail if capacity or demand (based on

six-year recreation use monitoring) indicates increased use of the reservoir for

fishing or boating.

 Shoreline Access Trail: construct one trailhead with parking for a minimum of

three vehicles and develop a river access trail along one side of Pit 7 reservoir

for pedestrian fishing and hand-launch boating access. The Forest Service

specifies that the access point and trailheads would be located at the upper (Pit

6 dam access road) end of reservoir.

 Montgomery Creek Boat Put-in: conduct a feasibility assessment for providing

a hand-launch or boat put-in where Montgomery Creek enters Pit 7 reservoir

with paved parking, vault restroom, tables, animal-resistant trash receptacles

and pedestrian access trail on public lands. Boating would be restricted from

project infrastructure for public safety reasons by installing buoy lines or other

safety devices at the upper and lower ends of the reservoir. If Montgomery

Creek is not feasible, PG&E would construct a second trailhead with parking

for a minimum of three vehicles and develop a river access trail along one side

of the reservoir for pedestrian fishing, and hand-launch boat access from the

lower end of Pit 7 reservoir.

PG&E did not file an alternative condition to include the Pit 6 shoreline trail

specified by Forest Service condition 30. PG&E also does not include a provision for

constructing a second trailhead and a hand-carry boat launch at the lower end of Pit 7

reservoir if Montgomery Creek is not feasible. On the other hand, PG&E does propose to

conduct a site evaluation within two years of license issuance that considers the

suitability and public safety of a pedestrian shoreline access trail at the upper end of the

reservoir, downstream of Pit 6 powerhouse tailrace. PG&E’ proposes to consult with the

Forest Service and, if a suitable location is determined, construct the trail and parking

area.

Our Analysis

Providing access to the river near Pit 6 & 7 reservoirs based on the results of

future recreation use monitoring would improve recreational access at the project over the

term of the license. This measure could be considered in the future if the recreation use

data collected every six years shows it is warranted. Alternatively, constructing the

proposed river access trail at the upper end of Pit 7 reservoir and the proposed

Montgomery Creek boat put-in or a hand-carry launch near the lower end of Pit 7

reservoir would enhance access to Pit 7 reservoir for pedestrian fishing and hand-launch

boating while improving public safety. PG&E has expressed concern for public safety if

boating access is provided at the upper and lower portions of Pit 7 reservoir due to

riverine high flows from the Pit 6 powerhouse and riverine conditions at low reservoir

levels (fast flowing water) that could prevent boaters from returning upstream to exit the

reservoir. Forest Service's specification for a second trailhead and a hand-carry boat

launch at the lower end of Pit 7 reservoir if the Montgomery Creek boat put-in is not
233

feasible would still improve access to Pit 7 reservoir for pedestrian fishing and handcarry boating. However, due to public safety, launching boats at this location still

remains a concern.

Pit 7 Afterbay Recreation Facilities

 Fenders Flat Day-Use Area: provide a day-use site at Fenders Flat with a

capacity of about five; provide parking, vault restroom, tables, fire grills, and

trash receptacles/removal; and coordinate with the Forest Service to develop

and implement a plan to revegetate disturbed areas and prevent vehicle access

beyond the access road and parking area.

 Fenders Flat Boat Launch: grade and maintain FR 35N66 from its intersection

with FR 37N78 to the car-top boat launch and provide a vault restroom near

the car-top boat launch.

 Pit 7 Afterbay Public Access: continue to prohibit public access to Pit 7

afterbay water surface and shoreline by maintaining fencing, signage and

patrols.

 Pedestrian Access in Vicinity of Pit 7 Afterbay Powerhouse: if the Pit 7

afterbay powerhouse is constructed, provide a paved parking area for two to

three vehicles at the end of the powerhouse access road or along Fenders Ferry

Road and provide a vault restroom, trash receptacle/removal, and pedestrian

access to the shoreline between the powerhouse and Fenders Ferry Bridge.

Forest Service condition 30 also specifies that PG&E rehabilitate existing facilities

at Pit 7 afterbay and improve access. We summarize the differences between the

rehabilitation measures specified in Forest Service condition 30 and those in PG&E

alternative condition 30, below.

 Fenders Flat Day-Use Area: reconstruct day-use site below the Pit 7 afterbay

at Fenders Flat with single-vault toilet, animal-resistant trash receptacles,

picnic tables, pedestal grills (not campfire rings) and designated surfaced

parking area for a minimum of five vehicles without trailers.

 Fenders Flat Boat Launch: reconstruct the car-top boat launch with improved

grooved concrete surfacing and minimum one-lane width (will not meet all of

California Boating standards) and provide revegetation, in consultation with

the Forest Service, and prevent vehicle access beyond the access road and

parking area.

 Pedestrian Access in Vicinity of Pit 7 Afterbay Powerhouse: construct a

surfaced parking area and river access trail on the opposite river bank from

Fenders Flat day-use area with a vault toilet and trash receptacles if additional

generation is developed at the Pit 7 afterbay
234

PG&E alternative condition 30 for the Fenders Flat day-use area is consistent with

Forest Service condition 30, although PG&E proposes the boat launch reconstruction

near Fenders Flat be separate from the day-use area. PG&E's also notes that the at the Pit

7 afterbay powerhouse parking area would accommodate two to three vehicles and be

located at the end of the powerhouse access road or along Fenders Ferry Road and

subject to public safety and homeland security needs. PG&E states that it proposes to

allow public vehicular access on the proposed project access road to the powerhouse

however, if the location of access does not ensure public safety near project infrastructure

and address homeland security needs, PG&E would locate the parking area along Fenders

Ferry Road.

Our Analysis

Reconstructing Fenders Flat day-use area, providing access near the proposed Pit 7

afterbay powerhouse, and providing parking at the end of the powerhouse access road or

along Fenders Ferry Road, subject to public safety and homeland security needs, would

enhance recreational opportunities in the vicinity of the afterbay by formalizing this

existing dispersed recreation area. Coordinating with the Forest Service to develop and

implement a plan to revegetate disturbed areas and prevent vehicle access beyond the

access road and parking area would further help to reduce resource damage. Moreover,

reconstructing Fenders Flat car-top boat launch would improve access in the vicinity of

the afterbay and provide boater access to the Pit arm of Shasta Lake during late winter

and early spring when high lake levels allow boat launching.

PG&E originally proposed to grade and maintain FR 35N66 from its intersection

with FR 35N78 to the car-top boat launch, although this was not included in Forest

Service condition 30 or PG&E alternative condition 30. This measure would be

addressed, along with all project roads, in the Road and Transportation Facilities

Management Plan proposed by PG&E and is further discussed in section 3.3.7.2,

Environmental Effects.

Public access to the Pit 7 afterbay is currently restricted by PG&E because the

water level in the afterbay rapidly fluctuates in response to the Pit 7 powerhouse

operation which makes it unsafe for recreation use. Both fencing and warning signs have

been posted to prohibit shoreline access and boating access. Additionally, a Shasta

County boating ordinance prohibits swimming and boating in the afterbay due to public

safety concerns. PG&E’s proposal to continue to prohibit public access by maintaining

fencing, signage, and patrols to Pit 7 afterbay water surface would help ensure public

safety at the project.

Recreation Facility Operation and Maintenance

PG&E proposes to develop an operation and maintenance (O&M) component of

the recreation plan, including fee collection, for all existing and newly constructed project

recreation facilities and existing Forest Service recreation facilities within the project

area (Tarantula Gulch boat ramp and Deadlun Campground) after they are reconstructed.
235

Forest Service condition 30, part 1.a specifies that PG&E develop and implement

an O&M component as a part of the recreation plan for all project and project-associated

recreation facilities (i.e., all facilities identified in Forest Service condition 30). The

O&M component should include: annual schedule and standard protocols for opening

and closing recreation facilities; water testing protocols for potable water sources; routine

maintenance items; annual review and meeting; a percentage of fee retention by Forest

Service if used onsite; and maintenance of shaded fuel breaks around project recreation

facilities (addressed in the fire and fuels management plan discussed in section 3.3.7.2,

Environmental Effects). The O&M component would include all existing project

recreation facilities, existing Forest Service-owned project-affected recreation facilities

identified in Forest Service condition 30, and new project recreation facilities. Finally,

discussions of any needed actions would be conducted at the annual consultation

meeting.

PG&E alternative condition 30 is consistent with Forest Service condition 30;

however, PG&E proposes that existing Forest Service recreation facilities (Deadlun

Campground and Tarantula Gulch boat ramp) would become project facilities and

included in the project boundary after they have been reconstructed which, at that time,

PG&E would be responsible for O&M of these two recreation facilities.

Our Analysis

Operation and Maintenance associated with the project’s recreation facilities help

to ensure that these facilities and associated public recreational access are provided over

the term of the license. Development of an O&M component as a part of the recreation

plan in consultation with the Forest Service would help to address Licensee and Forest

Service responsibilities. Submittal of a final recreation plan to the Commission for

review and approval after consultation with the Forest Service and agencies would help

to ensure that the proposed operation and maintenance measures are consistent with the

terms and conditions of a new license.

PG&E is responsible for the management, operations, and routine maintenance of

all recreation facilities within the project boundary. We recognize that Deadlun

Campground and Tarantula Gulch boat ramp are existing Forest Service facilities in need

of reconstruction, but delaying the inclusion of these two facilities in the project

boundary until they are reconstructed is inappropriate. PG&E states that both the

Deadlun Campground and Tarantula Gulch boat ramp have documented health and safety

issues as a result of Forest Service construction, operation, and maintenance and that, if

brought into the project boundary upon license issuance, this would result in PG&E

immediately being held in non-compliance with the new license. If both Deadlun

Campground and Tarantula Gulch boat ramp are currently serving a project purpose, they

would be included in the boundary upon issuance of a new license.
236

Dispersed Use and OHV Use

PG&E proposes as a part of its recreation plan to assess and implement closures of

existing and future user-created roads leading to the shorelines of McCloud and Iron

Canyon reservoirs, in coordination with the Forest Service. The objective would be to

prohibit vehicle access at the McCloud reservoir between roads FR 38N11 and 38N04Y

and the shoreline, at Iron Canyon reservoir between FR 37N78 and the shoreline, and to

prohibit dispersed camping and OHV use between the roads and the shorelines. This

does not include closure to developed recreation facilities.

Forest Service condition 30, part 2 specifies that PG&E evaluate road closures,

trail closures, and dispersed use around Iron Canyon reservoir. The Forest Service

specifies that this evaluation be consistent with the Shasta-Trinity Travel Management

Plan and the Historic Properties Management Plan.

Our Analysis

Measures to block vehicle access and discourage dispersed use and OHV use at

the project would benefit environmental resources by closing degraded areas to intense

recreational use. Assessment and evaluation of road closures, trail closures, and

dispersed use closure, in coordination with the Forest Service, would provide information

to allow PG&E to determine if additional visitor management controls are needed.

PG&E identified several areas around the reservoirs and project facilities where visitors

leave trash and cause resource damage due to dispersed use. Although not included in

Forest Service condition 30 and PG&E alternative condition 30, McCloud reservoir was

identified as an area where resource damage from user-created roads and dispersed use

was occurring during the relicensing studies. Including McCloud reservoir in the

evaluation would address areas identified at both reservoirs where dispersed use causes

resource damage. Prohibiting dispersed camping and OHV use between the roads and

reservoir shorelines would help eliminate this resource damage and improve the aesthetic

quality of the area for visitors to the project.

Recreation Monitoring

PG&E proposes to conduct recreation monitoring, including visitor surveys and

use estimates, concurrent with preparing information for the recreation Form 80 reporting

(every six years). Additionally, PG&E proposes to include Hawkins Creek crossing in

the recreation monitoring program.

The Forest Service agrees with PG&E and specifies in Forest Service condition

30, part 1.b that PG&E also provide a copy of the report to the Forest Service for

approval before being submitted to the Commission. The recreation monitoring should

include: annual use data collection at facilities where fees or passes are issued or required

for inclusion in the six-year report; conduct a recreational resource survey, with prior

approval by the Forest Service, and evaluation of resource impacts from developed and

dispersed use; a summary of the most current regional and statewide recreation trends

based on available surveys and reports; and consultation with the Forest Service,
237

appropriate agencies, and interested parties to review and adjust project-wide recreation

management objectives, if needed.

PG&E proposes that filed recreation and survey monitoring components be

collected for project-related recreation facilities and project lands and waters in PG&E

alternative condition 30, which is generally consistent with Forest Service condition 30.

PG&E states that revisions are necessary to Forest Service condition 30 to appropriately

define the applicability to project-related recreation.

Our Analysis

Recreation use at the project is expected to double over the next 50 years. The

level and type of recreation use and recreation user preferences could change over the

term of a new license. Periodic monitoring of recreation use, surveying of user

preferences, assessment of facility capacity and recreation demand, and inventorying

areas used for dispersed recreation can help to determine if the project’s recreation

facilities meet demand and provide adequate public recreation access to the project over

the term of the license. The inclusion of visitor use fees and capacity information,

including both parking and campsite capacity at the project facilities, would help assess

changes in recreational use and capacity at these facilities. The proposed report would

provide the means to summarize and assess the survey information and monitor other

recreational management provisions, such as OHV and dispersed use and water surface

elevation management. Reporting the recreation monitoring results concurrent with the

Commission’s recreation Form 80 schedule would ensure that the Commission is updated

on recreation use at the project.

Project Patrol

PG&E proposes to provide project-wide patrol of areas including but not limited

to Hawkins Creek crossing, Iron Canyon reservoir shoreline dispersed use sites, and

McCloud reservoir shoreline access points. This would include trash removal twice a

year, reporting observed resource damage to Forest Service, and emergency response at

the project. PG&E proposes to prepare a project patrol plan in consultation with the

Forest Service to be filed with the Commission within one year after license issuance. At

a minimum, the plan would include routine and regular physical inspections of affected

lands, project facilities, and other structures, including NFS lands within the project area

or affected by project facilities, for purposes of resource protection. The plan also would

include a description of reporting responsibilities, including observed violations of law

and communications with law enforcement agencies, as well as required documentation

of inspections. Additionally, PG&E proposes to provide a campground host at several

project campgrounds to also serve as a point person for enforcing campground rules and

reporting vandalism.

Forest Service condition 30, part 1.c specifies PG&E develop and implement a

project patrol component as a part of the recreation plan for project and project-affected

NFS lands. The Forest Service specifies that PG&E coordinate annually with agencies
238

and other interested parties to review patrol information and plan adjustments, if needed,

for the next season. Specifically, PG&E would employ a seasonal part-time (AprilNovember) project patrol person or, alternatively, provide funding to an appropriate

federal, state, or local agency for the same, whose duties would include, but not be

limited to: monitoring and encouraging compliance with fire safety regulations, closures,

and rules associated with camping, parking, and trail use; installing signs; dispersing

project-related information to the public including appropriate OHV use, campfire safety,

leave no trace; patrolling dispersed use areas within one-quarter mile of all project and

project-affected waterways (e.g., Hawkins Creek crossing, Lower McCloud River);

watching for and reporting looting/vandalism of cultural sites or other resource damage

and illegal activities; cooperating with law enforcement agencies; performing minor

maintenance of project recreation facilities; other duties related to public safety and

protection of project-affected resources; and documenting activities, key resource issues,

and public concerns in an annual report provided at least 30 days prior to the annual

consultation meeting. Forest Service also specified a campground host be provided at

several project campgrounds to serve a similar patrol purposes. The Hearst Corporation

supports the concept of a host or patrol person enforcing the conditions of recreational

use and the issuance of a Forest Service “Forest Order” allowing for enforcement action.

PG&E alternative condition 30 is generally consistent with Forest Service

condition 30; however, PG&E does not propose the patrol of dispersed public use areas

within one-quarter of a mile of the Lower McCloud River nor the distribution of OHV

use information. PG&E comments that revisions are necessary to appropriately define

the applicability to project-related recreation and to eliminate ambiguous and open-ended

terminology that could inadvertently result in non-compliance.

Our Analysis

Project patrol measures would help encourage visitors, including anglers,

campground users, and boaters, to comply with regulations. A projected increase in the

number of visitors over the term of the new license would likely increase the need for

public services, including law enforcement and fire protection, which are provided by the

Shasta County Sheriff’s office. More visible law enforcement like a project patrol person

or a campground host would help reduce conflicts between recreation users and improve

visitor safety by providing an authoritative presence to encourage compliance with

navigational laws. Additional project patrol at the more remote areas of the project

would improve management of environmental resources by increasing visitor contact

with enforcement agencies and help to educate visitors about appropriate and restricted

uses.

However, within the project area, law enforcement duties are the responsibility of

the Shasta County Sheriff’s office, the California Highway Patrol, and federal agencies

on federal lands. PG&E pays property taxes to Shasta County, which are partially used

to fund law enforcement. Further, the Commission has no way of ensuring that the hiring

of a patrol person or campground host paid for by the licensee (in this case staffing or
239

funding a seasonal employee) would accomplish a project purpose or ameliorate a project

effect. However, the Commission can enforce specific measurable actions, such as O&M

measures, including maintenance of project lands and project recreation facilities to

address fire safety and vandalism, and other associated potential effects of dispersed

recreation use within the project boundary. Under the informational sign plan, PG&E

proposes to post signs about acceptable and prohibited recreation uses, and have

proposed new measures that would increase public education to help improve visitor

compliance with project rules and regulations. While improved implementation of Forest

Service and Shasta County standards and guidelines regarding recreational use would be

beneficial, enforcement of those regulations would be outside the jurisdiction and

responsibility of PG&E.

Reservoir Water Surface and Shoreline Management

PG&E proposes to clean debris from the McCloud reservoir boat ramp annually

by April 1, weather permitting, and as needed throughout the recreation season.

Additionally, PG&E proposes to develop a surface water and shoreline management plan

for McCloud reservoir that includes installing 5-mph signs on the bridge that spans the

northern end of the reservoir, LWD removal from the reservoir, points of public access to

the shoreline, and boating speeds. PG&E also proposes to remove lightweight debris

from the Iron Canyon reservoir surface annually or as needed.

Forest Service condition 30, part 1.d specifies that PG&E develop and implement

a reservoir water surface management component that addresses monitoring and

management of recreation user safety, trespass on private lands by project users, and

Shasta County code compliance by project users on each reservoir surface (i.e., McCloud,

Iron Canyon, Pit 6, and Pit 7 reservoirs). The reservoir water surface management

component would include the following: developing protocols for preventing/removing

unapproved buoy courses, approved use of docks, and measures to prevent trespass on

private lands; submitting requests to the Shasta County Boating Unit of the Sheriff’s

office for establishment of a 5-mph restriction on McCloud reservoir upstream from the

McCloud Bridge, in consultation with the Forest Service, and establishment of a buoy

line near Huckleberry Creek on McCloud reservoir to prevent fishing boats from

traveling upstream from November 15 to the last Saturday in April each year (submission

would be in cooperation with California Fish and Game and the private landowner);

annual surface sweeps prior to the start of the recreation season of McCloud and Iron

Canyon reservoirs and boat ramps to collect logs and debris from the lake surface with

smaller debris and trash removed from NFS lands; monitoring boat use during the

recreation season on McCloud and Iron Canyon reservoirs very six years (coinciding with

the Commission’s recreation Form 80); reassessing any needed water surface

management mitigations every six years; and evaluating the need for a speed restriction

on Iron Canyon, Pit 6, and Pit 7 reservoirs on a six-year interval.

PG&E alternative condition 30 proposes to develop measures prevent

unauthorized access to project lands and waters where necessary to protect public safety,
240

instead of on private lands. PG&E also proposes to conduct the surface sweeps of

McCloud and Iron Canyon reservoirs and boat ramps once every five years or as needed

instead of annual sweeps. Finally, PG&E proposes to include monitoring data on boat

use on McCloud and Iron Canyon reservoirs in a report filed with the Forest Service,

interested agencies, and the Commission concurrent to the Form 80 schedule.

Our Analysis

Developing protocols for preventing/removing unapproved buoy courses and

approved use of docks would help prevent boating hazards and improve public

recreational safety at the project reservoirs. Surface sweeps of McCloud and Iron

Canyon reservoirs and boat ramps would remove surface debris to reduce boating hazards

and ensure that the boat ramps are not blocked by debris. PG&E alternative condition 30

proposes surface sweeps of McCloud and Iron Canyon reservoirs and boat ramps once

every five years or as needed instead of annually. The Forest Service comments that

winter storm debris on the reservoir surfaces accumulates at access points and boat

ramps. The annual sweeps proposed in Forest Service condition 30 would ensure that

winter storm debris that could accumulate annually is removed prior to the recreation

season.

Forest Service condition 30 specifies and PG&E alternative condition 30 propose

that PG&E, in cooperation with the Forest Service, would submit a request to the Shasta

County Boating Unit of the Sheriff’s office for the establishment of a 5-mph restriction

on McCloud reservoir upstream from the McCloud bridge and a buoy line to be installed

near Huckleberry Creek. Although speeding on the reservoirs has been identified as an

issue by project users, enforcement of speed restrictions is not the responsibility of the

Commission. PG&E is subject to local laws and ordinances as they pertain to reservoir

speed limits.

The Forest Service specifies measures to prevent trespass on private lands to

protect public safety. Preventing trespass on private lands outside the project boundary is

outside the Commission’s authority; it is the responsibility of private landowners to

clearly mark their property if trespassing is problematic. However, measures to prevent

unauthorized access to project lands and waters where necessary to protect the public

would ensure public safety at the project and help address the issue of trespassing at the

project, especially at Pit 7 afterbay where public access is prohibited.

Recreation use at the project is expected to double over the next 50 years.

Monitoring boat use would help to identify excessive use and potential user conflicts on

project reservoirs and this information could be used to examine existing use and develop

mitigation measures if use is excessive or creating conflict among reservoir-based

recreation users. Including a boat monitoring and reporting protocol as a part of

monitoring efforts concurrent with the Commission’s recreation Form 80 schedule would

ensure project facilities, including reservoirs, are meeting recreation demand over the

term of the license.
241

Project Signage and Interpretative Information

PG&E proposes to develop and implement a project sign plan specific to

directional and facility signs for the project and project recreation facilities, but not to

include traffic and road signs. In addition, PG&E proposes to develop and implement an

interpretive and education plan that would be specific to interpretation and education

about the project.

Forest Service condition 31 specifies that PG&E develop and implement a sign

plan which includes directional, traffic, and road and safety signs, with the addition of an

interpretive and educational component. The plan would include the types of

informational signs to be developed, the design and content of each sign, and the

locations where the signs will be placed. The interpretive and educational component of

the project sign plan would include the design, delivery methods, land a schedule for

implementation as well as a website with public information to include information about

project recreation facilities such as directions, seasonal fees, stream flow information,

seasonal reservoir levels, fish stocking, and scheduled work that would change flows or

reservoir levels or affect access to recreational facilities. Informational kiosks containing

fee and regulation information, seasonal and safety information, and project maps would

also be placed as all developed recreation facilities.

PG&E alternative condition 31 is consistent with Forest Service condition 31;

however, PG&E proposes that the most efficient and effective means of providing project

recreation information to the public would be to post it on the Forest Service’s web site

instead of posting the information on a web site hosted by PG&E. Furthermore, PG&E

states it would not provide specific information, such as real-time reservoir levels that

could be used by competitors, to the public as part of the project recreation information.

PG&E views this confidential business information to be proprietary in nature.

Our Analysis

The project currently does not have a coordinated and systematic process for the

development of signage and interpretative information associated with the project.

Development and implementation of a project sign plan with associated interpretive and

educational measures for the McCloud-Pit Project would provide the means for

coordinated and systematic development of signage and interpretative information

associated with the project. The project sign plan would also provide the means to ensure

that signage within the project is maintained and conforms to the Forest Service standards

on lands that are visible from NFS lands. Furthermore, providing informational kiosks at

the project would also improve recreation access and safety by providing visitors with

maps of the area and safety information at each developed recreation site.

Developing a public website to host recreation information on the project would

provide a source for visitors to locate recreation information about the project. However,

we note that the Commission does not require that proprietary or confidential business

information be made available to the public. Although the Forest Service is the main
242

recreation provider in the area and the source that visitors commonly use to locate

recreation information, the Commission only has authority over its licensees and cannot

require the Forest Service to post project information on its website.

Provision of Stream Flow Information

PG&E proposes to provide the following information to the public via the internet

as a part of the recreation plan: real-time water flow data (hourly average) for the Lower

McCloud River using gage data from gage MC-1 (gage at Ah-Di-Na), forecasts of known

events that would affect water flow (e.g., powerhouse outage) on the Lower McCloud

River, information about typical drawdown patterns for McCloud and Iron Canyon

reservoirs, and information during the recreation season on current reservoir elevations in

relation to the use of project boat launches.

Forest Service condition 19, part 3 specifies that PG&E operate and maintain

existing gages for the purpose of determining the river stage and minimum stream flow

on the Lower McCloud River below McCloud dam, Pit River below the Pit 7 dam, and

Iron Canyon Creek below the Iron Canyon dam, consistent with all requirements of the

Commission and under the supervision of USGS. The Forest Service specifies that

PG&E measure and document all instream flow releases to be made available to the

public and post real-time flow data at MC-1 on the CDEC or its successor’s website.

Flow data collected by PG&E from the stream gages would be reviewed by PG&E’s

hydrographers as part of its QA/QC protocol and made available to USGS in annual

hydrology summary reports that USGS could post within its electronic database that can

be accessed via the Internet. Forest Service condition 31 also specifies that PG&E

develop and implement a public web site with information the above information as a

part of the project sign plan.

PG&E alternative condition 31 is consistent with Forest Service condition 31;

however, PG&E proposes to provide the information to the Forest Service for posting on

the Forest Service web site. PG&E comments that providing public information through

the Forest Service website would be more efficient and effective because the Forest

Service is the main recreation provider in the area.

Our Analysis

Accurate and timely stream flow information and information about the usability

of the project boat launches can assist recreationists in planning water-related visits to the

project. If this information is not easily accessible to the public, recreationists may not be

able to take full advantage of recreation opportunities and may not be appropriately

prepared for stream flow conditions which could lead to public safety issues.

PG&E’s proposal to provide accurate and timely stream flow information to the

public would provide the means for the public to gain information regarding stream flow

and reservoir levels for specified stream reaches and reservoirs at the project. This

information could then be used by the public to determine if recreation opportunities and

desired flow ranges for angling, boating, and other recreation activities would be
243

available. This would allow the public to take better advantage of opportunities for

recreation use at the project. Although visitors commonly use the CDEC or Forest

Service’s website to locate water-based recreation information, the Commission only has

authority over its licensees and cannot require the CDEC or the Forest Service to post

project information on its website.

3.3.6 Cultural Resources

3.3.6.1 Affected Environment

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Section 106 of the NHPA as amended requires the Commission to take into

account the effects of licensing a hydropower project on any historic properties and allow

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Advisory Council) a reasonable

opportunity to comment if any adverse effects to historic properties are identified within

the hydropower project’s area of potential effects (APE).

Historic properties are defined as any district, site, building, structure, or object

that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. In this document, we

also use the term “cultural resources” to include properties that have not been evaluated

for eligibility for listing in the National Register. In most cases, cultural resources less

than 50 years old are not considered eligible for the National Register. Cultural resources

need enough internal contextual integrity to be considered historic properties. For

example, dilapidated structures or heavily disturbed archaeological sites may not have

enough contextual integrity to be considered eligible. TCPs are a type of historic

property that are eligible for the National Register because of their association with

cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that: (1) are rooted in that

community’s history; or (2) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity

of the community (Parker and King, 1998).

Section 106 also requires that the Commission seek concurrence with California

SHPO on any finding involving effects or no effects on historic properties and allow the

Advisory Council an opportunity to comment. If Native American properties have been

identified, section 106 also requires that the Commission consult with interested Native

American tribes that might attach religious or cultural significance to such properties.

If existing or potential adverse effects have been identified on historic properties,

the applicant needs to develop a HPMP to seek to avoid, reduce, or mitigate the effects.

Potential effects that may be associated with a hydroelectric project include any projectrelated effects associated with the day-to-day O&M of the project after issuance of a new

license. During development of the HPMP, the applicant should consult with the

Commission, Advisory Council, California SHPO, Indian tribes, and Forest Service. In

most cases, the HPMP would be implemented by execution of a Programmatic

Agreement that would be signed by the Commission, Advisory Council (if it chooses to

participate), California SHPO, and other consulting parties.
244

Area of Potential Effects

Pursuant to section 106, the Commission must take into account whether any

historic property could be affected by the issuance of a proposed new license within a

project’s APE. The APE is determined in consultation with the California SHPO and is

defined as the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or

indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such

properties exist. In this case, the APE for the McCloud-Pit Project includes lands within

the project boundary, as delineated in the current Commission license, plus lands outside

the project boundary where project operations may affect the character or use of historic

properties or TCPs.

The APE for the proposed project has been defined by the Commission as the land

within the proposed project boundary (project area), and encompasses the following

(PG&E, 2009d):

 100 ft from either side of the banks of the McCloud River, downstream from

McCloud dam to the confluence of Squaw Valley Creek (McCloud River

Expanded APE);20

 Public land between the perimeter road around McCloud reservoir and the

water surface from Tarantula Gulch, crossing McCloud dam, to Star City

Creek;

 The area between the perimeter road around Iron Canyon reservoir and the

water surface; and

 And the area contiguous with tunnel spoil areas having a reasonable potential

to contain archaeological materials based on topography and site conditions.

The proposed project area above project tunnels is excluded from the APE as there

are no surface activities anticipated in this area. In addition, lands on the west side of the

McCloud River, upstream from the Tarantula Gulch boat launch, and lands associated

with Fenders Flat at the Pit 7 afterbay, are also included in the APE (PG&E, 2009d).

Also encompassed within the APE are all lands affected by the construction of the

proposed powerhouse at the Pit 7 afterbay and McCloud dams. These areas include

(PG&E, 2009d):

 A 200-ft buffer around the proposed powerhouse site at the base of McCloud

dam;

 A 200-ft corridor centered on the proposed McCloud and Pit 7 afterbay

transmission line routes;

20 Survey access to the APE on private lands along the McCloud River

downstream of The Nature Conservancy lands was not granted.
245

 A 200-ft buffer around the proposed Pit 7 afterbay powerhouse and substation

on the west side of the Pit 7 afterbay dam weir;

 A 200-ft corridor centered on the proposed location of the access road between

FR 34N17 and the proposed Pit 7 afterbay powerhouse site; and

 An area on the west side of the Pit River arm of Shasta Lake extending from

the high-water mark upslope to the proposed access road corridor between the

Pit 7 afterbay dam and FR 34N17.

Preliminary study results from RL-S6, Traffic Study and Road Condition

Inventory, indicated that uses related to the proposed project are “sufficient to establish a

clear nexus with the Project or other Project-related activities,” and have the potential to

create impacts to historic properties; thus, a portion of the road near Blue Jay Creek on

NFS lands is also included in the APE. Similarly, lands located outside of the

Commission-defined project boundary that was identified in TM-16, Data Summary for

Developed and Dispersed Recreation, are included in the APE as well (PG&E, 2009d).

Cultural History Overview

The study area is located in the southern-most extension of the larger Cascade

Range, within what is described as the Cascade Range Geomorphic Province (PG&E,

2009d; Harden, 1998 as cited by PG&E, 2009d; Schoenherr, 1992 as cited by PG&E,

2009d). The majority of the Cascade range is typified by rolling, forested terrain, with

the dominant ecology in lower elevations consisting of yellow pine forest, while higher

elevations are represented by Mount Lassen and Mount Shasta, two of the regions highest

volcanic peaks. Mount Lassen measures 10,457 ft in height and sits amid an active

volcanic region that includes hot springs, cinder cones, calderas, lava tubes, and

fumaroles. Mount Shasta is a large stratovolcano, 14,162 ft in height, and is located

about 80 miles north of Mount Lassen (PG&E, 2009d; Harden, 1998 as cited by PG&E,

2009d). Although the Cascade Range has been volcanically active for about 36 million

years, most volcanoes in the range are between two and five million years old (PG&E,

2009d; Harden, 1998 as cited by PG&E, 2009d; Schoenherr, 1992 as cited by PG&E,

2009d).

The Pit River and the McCloud River are the two main waterways that drain the

northern California Cascade Range, both of which feed into Shasta Lake. Several creeks,

including Hat Creek, Burney Creek, and Clark Creek run into the Pit River. Several

waterfalls line the Upper McCloud River, north of McCloud reservoir, while the Lower

McCloud River flows through a deep, narrow canyon after leaving the reservoir (PG&E,

2009d). Human occupation of the area began as small, scattered sites serving a huntergatherer culture, eventually evolving into a subsistence economy as technology

progressed (PG&E, 2009d).

The cultural chronology of Shasta County proposed by Clewett and Sundahl

identified a four-part chorological sequence of human occupation stretching back

8,000 years (PG&E, 2009d; Clewett and Sundahl, 1982, 1983 as cited by PG&E, 2009d).
246

Evidence of human occupation in Shasta County prior to 8,000 years ago is minimal,

consisting of a few isolated fluted projectile points and crude metavolcanic tools typically

dating from circa 12,000-10,000 BP. The argument has been made that these tools

represent a late Pleistocene/early Holocene occupation, as they were found on Pleistocene

terraces; however, no stratified, undisputed Paleoindian site has been identified within

Shasta County (PG&E, 2009d; Brott and Dotta, 1978 as cited by PG&E, 2009d; Dillon,

1994 as cited by PG&E, 2009d).

Clewett and Sundahl termed the earliest period of occupation the Early Archaic

(6000-3000 BC) period, which is characterized by wide-stemmed projectile points and

ground stone implements, leading some scholars to assert cultural affiliation with the

Borax Lake area in southeastern California (PG&E 2009a; Moratto, 1984 as cited by

PG&E, 2009d). Early Archaic settlements appear to have been small and scattered in

foothills and along waterways, with ground stone assemblages that suggest a heavy

reliance on seeds and nuts with supplemental additions of mammals and fish. Few faunal

assemblages from the period have been analyzed, however, and it has been suggested that

the “correspondence between wide-stem points and elk distributions in other parts of

California” indicate a reliance on elk as a food source during this period (PG&E, 2009d;

Kowta, 1984 as cited by PG&E, 2009d).

The Middle Archaic, spanning 3000-500 BC, is characterized by a more

diversified tool kit, encompassing medium to large corner and side-notched projectile

points. Though the use of ground stone tools continues during this period, their use does

decrease. Settlements are believed to have been similar in type and location to those of

the Early Archaic period, with the addition of a systematic use of upland zones. A largescale, mid-Holocene, warming trend, characteristic of the western United States at this

time, may have spurred this shift in subsistence and settlement patterns (PG&E, 2009d;

Kowta, 1984 as cited by PG&E, 2009d).

During the Transitional Period (500 BC-AD500), considerable changes occurred

in assemblage structure, subsistence, and settlement patterns. A multitude of corner

notched projectile points, as well as the appearance of mortars and pestles, typify

assemblages of the period. The addition of acorns as a dietary staple during this period is

assumed due to the appearance of the mortar and pestle, and may signal a shift from a

more mobile society to a diversified subsistence economy. The labor-intensive process

required for the consumption of acorns and the eventual development of an acorn-based

economy may have prompted the creation of a sociopolitical ranking system (PG&E,

2009d; Basgall, 1987 as cited by PG&E, 2009d).

The Shasta Complex (AD 500-AD 1850) represents the final phase of Clewett and

Sundahl’s chronology. The introduction of the bow and arrow along with various small,

Gunther Barbed, Desert Side-notched, and Cottonwood Triangular projectile point types

characterized the assemblage of this phase. Settlements remained near streams and rivers

and included semi-subterranean dwellings. Subsistence activities concentrated on acorn

gathering, hunting, and fishing.
247

Sundahl subdivided the Shasta Complex into three temporal phases using

variations in artifact attributes (PG&E, 2009d; Sundahl, 1982 as cited by PG&E, 2009d).

All three phases, 1250-750 BP, 750-350 BP, and 450-100 BP, are characterized by

Gunther Barbed projectile points, winged drills, bi-pointed fish gorges, bone gaming

pieces, incised bone pendants, and spire-looped Olivella and glycymeris beads. The

assemblage of the second phase, 750-350 BP, lacks winged drills, but includes a

contracting-stem variant of the Gunther Barbed projectile point, the Desert Side-notched

projectile point, large drills manufactured of basalt or chert, sandstone arrowshaft

polishers, and Haliotis pendants. The third phase, 450-100 BP, includes Desert Sidenotched points, hafted drills, incised pebbles, biconically-drilled pebble pendants, incised

charmstones, and clam shell disc beads (PG&E, 2009d; Clewet and Sundahl, 1982 as

cited by PG&E, 2009d; Moratto, 1984 as cited by PG&E, 2009d; Sundahl, 1982 as cited

by PG&E, 2009d). Some scholars have identified the appearance of Shasta Complex

artifacts and sites as representative of a new group of peoples into the region (PG&E,

2009d; Sundahl, 1982 as cited by PG&E, 2009d). Two of the most representative sites in

Shasta County from this period are located north of Redding along the Sacramento River

(PG&E, 2009d; Moratto, 1984 as cited by PG&E, 2009d; Treganza and Heicksen, 1960,

as cited by PG&E 2009a).

At the time of European-American contact in the region, the Pit River and the

Wintu Native American groups were living in the area that is now Shasta, Siskiyou, and

adjacent counties. Along with the Shasta and Yana groups, these were the descendants of

Native American peoples who had migrated from Asia and settled in the region several

thousand years earlier. The Pit River group inhabited an area south from Goose Lake

along the western side of the Warner Mountains, to just south of Eagle Lake; to the west,

the Pit River territory included land north of Mount Lassen, and north to the eastern side

of Mount Shasta. Many of the main Pit River villages were located along both the

northern and southern banks of the Pit River, as well as along Pit River tributaries. West

of the Pit River territory was Wintu territory, encompassing parts of what is now Trinity,

Shasta, Siskiyou, and Tehama Counties. Wintu territory was crossed by various

waterways, including the Sacramento, Trinity, and McCloud Rivers, as well as

Cottonwood, Hayfork, and Stillwater Creeks. Both the Pit River and the Wintu groups

were hunter-gathers, relying on acorn and pine nuts (buckeyes were also important to the

Wintu), deer, waterfowl, and numerous species of fish. Salmon were a particularly

important resource, for which the Wintu constructed salmon houses across the river from

which they could spear the fish (PG&E, 2009d).

The Pit River and Wintu were both comprised of several smaller groups. The Pit

River people were also called the Achumawi, spoke a Hoken-derived language, and

included the Hewisedawi, Kosalektwi, Astariwawi, Hammawi, Atwamsini, Aporige,

Atuge, Ajumawi, Ilmawi, Itsatawi, and Madesiwi. The Wintu spoke a Penutian language

related to the Nomlaki language, included the Nomtipom, Winnemem, Dawpom, ʔelpom,

λ'abalpom, Nomsuus, Dawnom, Norelmaq, and Waymaq. Family was the dominant

social unit in Shasta, Pit River, Wintu, and Yana societies. The family was largely self-
248

sufficient, fulfilling economic process through a gender-based division of labor, with

women gathering plant foods and men hunting, fishing, and making tools. Social

organization was based on tribelets, consisting of “one or more household groups that

included immediate family members... and any associated relatives... living together in a

village or community” (PG&E, 2009d; Krober, 1925 as cited by PG&E, 2009d).

The first recorded expeditions by Euro-Americans into the area are credited to

traders with the Hudson Bay Company between 1826 and 1833. At this time the Native

American population in the area was large and culturally varied. Diseases introduced by

these first explorers, however, decimated the Native populations. Nearly 40 percent of

the Pit River Tribe and almost 75 percent of the Wintu people had fallen to epidemic by

1833 (PG&E, 2009d; Loofbourow, 2009 as cited by PG&E, 2009d). The Native

American population suffered more losses during the 1840s and 1850s, with the massacre

of Wuntus and Yanas by American military under the leadership of John C. Fremont, and

the “friendship feast,” in which white settlers served Wintu guests poisoned food (PG&E,

2009d).

The discovery of gold at Sutter’s mill in 1848 brought a rush of miners and settlers

into California. Gradually, Native American lands were lost to white claims. Shasta

County, established in 1850, became the “Gateway to the Northern Gold Rush” (PG&E,

2009d; Smith, 1996 as cited by PG&E, 2009d). Star City Creek, located along the

northern banks of Grizzly Peak and flowing into McCloud reservoir, was especially

productive. As Shasta County drew more and more prospectors, streams and creeks

relied upon by Native American groups became increasingly polluted from mining

operations, causing numerous violent incidents between the miners and Native groups. In

response, the American military established Fort Cook near the Fall River in 1857

(PG&E, 2009d; Shasta Historical Society, 2003 as cited by PG&E, 2009d).

As gold mining diminished, many prospectors turned their hand to small-scale

ranching and timber operations. Nineteenth century land grants drew more settlers to the

area. Between 1899 and 1920, several families and individuals homesteaded the area that

later became the Iron Canyon reservoir. Fenders Ferry, another early American

settlement in the vicinity of the Pit 7 dam, is thought to have acquired its name from the

Fender brothers, who established a ferry near Potem Creek in 1860 (PG&E, 2009d;

Durham, 1998 as cited by PG&E, 2009d). Many settlers allowed their livestock to graze

on plants vital to the Native American diet, further fueling tension and violence between

the two groups. Despite resistance, most Native Americans in the area had been

relocated to various reservations by the late nineteenth century. Many of the Pit River

people were moved to the Round Valley Reservation east of Redding and the Nome

Lackee Reservation in Tehama County. The Wintu were taken to reservations on the

Mendocino coast. Eventually, Pit River and McCloud River Natives did return to their

traditional lands (PG&E, 2009d).

By the late 1870s, logging had become a major industry in the region. McCloud

Flats, east of the town of McCloud, was a particularly valuable timber area (PG&E,
249

2009d; Zanger, 1992 as cited by PG&E, 2009d). By the 1890s, copper mining had

replaced gold mining, especially along the copper-zinc belt in the west-central portion of

Shasta County. Smelting facilities were constructed in the area around Iron Mountain,

the first being at Keswick. Copper production in the area was effectively ended by a

court order in 1919 mandating the closure of smelting plants, which were producing toxic

fume detrimental to livestock and crops (PG&E, 2009d; Smith, 1996 as cited by PG&E,

2009d).

The McCloud River had developed a reputation for exceptional fishing as early as

the 1870s. The McCloud River Association was formed in 1900, organizing recreation

fishing on the river (PG&E, 2009d; Guilford-Kardell, 1994 as cited by PG&E, 2009d).

The association originally had 20 members, each of whom paid an annual fee of

$1,000.00 for fishing privileges. The association officially became the McCloud River

Club in 1902 or 1903 (PG&E, 2009d; Cranfield, 1984 as cited by PG&E, 2009d).

Phoebe Appleton Hearst, mother of William Randolph Hearst, began development at the

Wyntoon Castle estate in the first decade of the 1900s. The “wyntoon” name was a

derivation of the word “wintu” associated with the Winnemem Wintu. In 1929, the

Wynoon Castle was built (which later burned down). William Randolph Hearst used the

estate as a hideaway from his more well-known San Simeon estate on the coast. Today

the Hearst private estate consists of a 67,000 acres containing a number of built structures

(including a village) which surrounds the McCloud Reservoir and is adjacent and

includes some project lands. Presently, the Wyntoon Castle estate is managed by the

Hearst Corporation.

The topography of the area lent itself to the development of hydroelectric power

facilities beginning in the last decade of the nineteenth century. The first recorded use of

hydroelectric power in Shasta County occurred at Gladstone Mine in 1894. The Northern

California Power Company, which had originally been established as the Keswick

Electric Company to supply power to the Keswick Smelter, took over electrical

operations of the Gladstone Mine sometime around 1900 (PG&E, 2009d; Smith, 1996 as

cited by PG&E, 2009d). PG&E purchased the water rights of the Mount Shasta Power

Company in 1917, and in 1919 purchased the Northern California Power Company. The

construction of the Pit River facility spanned from 1921 to 1966, and was the single

largest construction project in PG&E’s history (PG&E, 2009d).

Previous Cultural Resource Investigations

In preparation for the pre-application document, PG&E conducted an archival

record search between June 23 and 27, 2005 at the California State University (CSU),

Chico, Northeast Information Center to identify previous investigations in the vicinity of

the project APE, as well as previously recorded cultural resources in the area. The

Northeast Information Center houses all cultural resources data for Shasta and Siskiyou

Counties. Data reviewed includes site records, base maps containing site and survey

locations, letter reports, survey reports, site testing and evaluation reports, National

Register listings, California Register listings, California Historical Landmark listings, and
250

California Points of Historic Interest. Additional sources of information consulted

include the Shasta-Trinity National Forest, the Shasta County Historical society in

Redding, the Shasta County Public Library in Redding, and the special collections of the

Meriam Library, CSU, Chico (PG&E, 2006).

In addition, PG&E consulted the California Native American Heritage

Commission concerning documented areas of tribal significance in the project APE.

Tribal groups with ties to or interest in the project area were also contacted concerning

sensitive cultural resources within the project APE. Subsequent meetings were held with

the Pit River Tribe, the Redding Rancheria, and the Winnemem Wintu and Toyon-Wintu

Tribes (PG&E, 2006).

There have been 49 previous investigations conducted in and around the project

APE, ranging in date from the early 1960s to 2004. These studies were conducted to

identify cultural resources prior to the sale or transfer of timber or land, timber harvests,

or project-specific ground-disturbing activities. About 40 percent of the total APE for the

project had been investigated previously; however, many of the existing site records and

survey efforts are more than 10 years in age and are not considered to be in adherence

with current professional standards (PG&E, 2006).

Albion Environmental, Inc, was contracted to conduct archaeological field work as

outlined in Study Description CR-S1. Archaeological surveys were conducted during

September, October, and November 2007, and during January, April, May, and July

2008. The surveys were designed to examine locations that had not been recently

examined, that had been surveyed but with an unknown survey strategy, or that had been

surveyed with a survey strategy that was not undertaken according to current professional

standards. In addition to the archaeological survey crew, representatives of the Pit River

Tribe and of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe were invited to participate in the field work as

official Native American monitors and observers. Only the Pit River Tribe provided

monitors (PG&E, 2009d).

In areas where it was safe to survey, crew members traversed parallel transects

spaced 15 to 20 meters apart. In areas where 75 percent or more of the ground cover was

obscured by vegetation, or the terrain exhibited a slope greater than 49 percent, transects

were expanded to 20 to 40 meters apart. Areas of the project APE that were inaccessible

because of steep terrain, extremely dense foliage, or unsafe conditions were bypassed

(PG&E, 2009d).

Surveys of both McCloud and Iron Canyon reservoirs were undertaken when the

reservoirs were at low levels so that potentially submerged resources could be identified;

however, neither reservoir was at the lowest historic levels during the 2007 field season.

Restricted access to privately owned land along the McCloud reservoir necessitated

initial survey of the reservoir by helicopter, during which potentially sensitive areas

within the project APE were identified on a topographic map. These areas were then

accessed by boat and surveyed using the methods described above. Pit 6 and Pit 7 were

also accessed by boat (PG&E, 2009d).
251

A preliminary inspection of the McCloud transmission line route was undertaken

on July 21, 2008. This inspection did not constitute a formal archaeological survey,

which will be undertaken after the final transmission line route and type have been

determined. An additional survey of NFS lands was undertaken on April 30, 2009. At

the request of the Pit River Tribe, a two-day field visit was hosted by PG&E to identify

areas of tribal concern located at the Pit 6 and Pit 7 reservoirs. Access to McCloud River

Club lands was denied, and consequently were not field surveyed (PG&E, 2009d).

Identified Resources

Archaeological and Historic Era Resources

A total of 87 archaeological and historic-era resources were identified within the

APE for the proposed project. Of these total 87 sites, 14 were identified on lands that

were inaccessible during field survey and 18 were not relocated during archaeological

field survey. The remaining 55 resources, which include 30 archaeological sites,

22 isolated finds (artifacts unassociated with an archaeological site), and three historic

structures, were physically located during archaeological field survey.

Comprising these 55 resources are 33 sites (nine newly identified, 24 previously

recorded) and 22 isolated finds. The nine newly identified sites consist of eight

prehistoric archaeological sites and one historic-era site. The 24 previously recorded

sites consist of 21 prehistoric archaeological sites and three sites containing both

prehistoric and historic components. Isolated finds include three historic structural

features and 19 prehistoric resources (PG&E, 2009d).

None of the 22 isolated finds (defined as less than five artifacts per square meter)

are considered eligible for listing on the National Register. Of the 33 archaeological and

historic-era resources, two are eligible for listing and six have been recommended

ineligible. The eligibility of the remaining 25 archaeological and historic-era resources is

unknown; therefore, these resources would be treated as eligible for listing on the

National Register until such time that any previous evaluation of these resources is

identified, or until these resources are formally evaluated eligible (PG&E, 2009d). The

33 archaeological and historic-era resources, along with National Register eligibility, are

identified in table 3-32.

A preliminary inspection of the proposed McCloud transmission line corridor, as

described in the supplement submitted by PG&E on October 17, 2007, was conducted as

part of archaeological field survey. The inspection consisted of viewing the proposed

route of the transmission line by vehicle from FR 11, and noting areas that may

potentially be archaeologically sensitive. Formal archaeological survey will be

conducted upon final determination of the final corridor route (PG&E, 2009d).
252

Table 3-30. Archaeological and historic-era resources located on McCloud River Club lands within the McCloud River

Expanded APE. (Source: PG&E, 2009d; Berryman, 1999)

Resource Number Description a National Register

Eligibility

National

Register

Integrity

P-45-003188 Lithic scatter, fire-cracked rock, house pits, projectile

points, and historic components

Unknown Unknown

P-45-003189 Footbridge Unknown Unknown

CA-SHA-3190 Lithic scatter, midden deposit, fire-cracked rock, house

pits, projectile points, manos

Unknown Unknown

P-45-003191 Lithic scatter, midden deposit, house pits Unknown Unknown

P-45-003192 Lithic scatter, house pits Unknown Unknown

P-45-003193 Lithic scatter, projectile points, and historic

components

Unknown Unknown

P-45-003194 bLithic scatter, midden deposit, fire-cracked rock, and

historic components (village: “Haupom”)

Unknown Unknown

P-45-003195 Lithic scatter, midden deposit, house pits Unknown Unknown

P-45-003196 Pasture, fence, and prehistoric components Unknown Unknown

P-45-003197 Footbridge Unknown Unknown

P-45-003198 Lithic scatter, midden deposit, and historic components Unknown Unknown

P-45-003199 McCloud River Club Resort Unknown Unknown

P-45-003202 Lithic scatter, midden deposit, fire-cracked rock, house

pits (village “Sulanharas”)

Unknown Unknown

P-45-003205 Lithic scatter, midden deposit, projectile point Unknown Unknown

a Resource descriptions are taken from Berryman, 1999.

b

Partially located on Shasta-Trinity National Forest lands; Shasta-Trinity National Forest portion identified as ALB12/FS 05-04-61-601.
253

Table 3-31. Previously recorded archaeological and historic-era resources that were not relocated during Archaeological

field survey. (Source: PG&E, 2009d)

Project Location Resource Number Description

National

Register

Status

National

Register

Integrity

Pit 7 Reservoir CA-SHA-143 e House pit, obsidian points Unknown Unknown

Pit 7 Reservoir CA-SHA-144 a House pits Unknown Unknown

Pit 7 Reservoir CA-SHA-145 dProjectile points, mano Unknown Unknown

Pit 7 Reservoir CA-SHA-147 a House pits, midden, shell Unknown Unknown

Pit 6 Reservoir CA-SHA-147/247 e Midden, shell Unknown Unknown

Fenders Flat CA-SHA-150 a Obsidian flakes, shell, small

stemmed point

Unknown Unknown

Fenders Flat CA-SHA-151 a Obsidian, shell Unknown Unknown

Pit 7 Reservoir CA-SHA-152 b House pits, midden, shell Unknown Unknown

Pit 7 Reservoir CA-SHA-153 b Obsidian flakes, shell Unknown Unknown

Pit 6 Reservoir CA-SHA-248 e Obsidian flakes, shell Unknown Unknown

McCloud River CA-SHA-969 f Depressions, obsidian flakes,

scrapers, cores, projectile points,

bowl mortar, midden

Unknown Unknown

McCloud Reservoir ICI320-1

c

Percussion flake, possible house

pit

Unknown Unknown

McCloud Reservoir ICI320-2

c

Percussion flakes, projectile

points, midden

Unknown Unknown
254

Project Location Resource Number Description

National

Register

Status

National

Register

Integrity

McCloud Reservoir ICI230-3

c

Percussion flakes, projectile

points

Unknown Unknown

McCloud Reservoir ICI230-4

c

Percussion flakes Unknown Unknown

McCloud Reservoir ICI230-5

c

Percussion flakes Unknown Unknown

McCloud Reservoir ICI230-6

c

Percussion flakes, superficial

midden

Unknown Unknown

McCloud Reservoir ICI230-7

c

Percussion flakes Unknown Unknown

a Recorded by Baumhoff et al. (1955)

b Recorded by Baumhoff and Bennyhoff (1955)

c Recorded by Clemmer (1963)

d Recorded by Flint et al. (1955)

e Recorded by Heicksen (1962)

f Recorded by Henn (1977)
255

Table 3-32. Documented archaeological and historic-era resources located within the APE. (Source: PG&E, 2009d)

Project Location Resource Number Type a Description

National

Register

Status

National Register

Integrity b

Iron Canyon

Reservoir c

ALB-3

(FS-05-14-58-424)

P Native American site; lithic

scatter

Unknown Low

Iron Canyon

Reservoir c

ALB-4

(FS 05-14-58-425)

P Native American site; lithic

scatter

Unknown Moderate

McCloud

Reservoir d

ALB-5 P Native American site; lithic

scatter

Unknown Low

Pit 6 Transmission

Line c

ALB-6H H Historic trash scatter with

associated pit and milled

board feature

Unknown Low

Pit 7 Transmission

Line c

ALB-7 P Native American site; lithic

scatter

Unknown Low

McCloud River d ALB-8

(FS 05-14-61-598

P Native American site; lithic

scatter

Unknown High

McCloud River d ALB-9

(FS 05-14-61-599)

P Native American site; lithic

scatter

Unknown High

McCloud River d ALB-10 P Native American site;

obsidian flakes and Gunther

projectile point

Unknown High

McCloud River d ALB-11

(FS 05-14-61-597)

P Native American site; lithic

scatter

Unknown Low
256

Project Location Resource Number Type a Description

National

Register

Status

National Register

Integrity b

McCloud River d ALB-12

(FS 05-14-61-601;

P-45-003194)

P/H Prehistoric site with historic

component; lithic scatter,

ground stone fragment,

midden

Unknown Moderate

McCloud River d ALB-13

(FS 05-14-61-600)

P Prehistoric site with historic

component; lithic scatter,

ground stone fragment,

midden

Unknown Moderate

Pit River c

(Pit 7 Reservoir)

CH-SHA-243 P Native American site; lithic

scatter

Unknown High

Pit River c

(Pit 7 Reservoir)

CH-SHA-244 P Native American site; lithic

scatter

Unknown High

Pit River c CA-SHA-246 P Native American site; lithic

scatter

Recommended Moderate

Pit River c

(Pit 6 Reservoir)

CA-SHA-249 P Native American site;

possible pit house features,

obsidian flakes, basalt

ground stone fragment

Recommended Moderate

Pit River c CA-SHA-252 P Native American site;

possible pit house features,

ground stone artifacts;

previously excavated by

M.H. Heicksen (1962)

Recommended High
257

Project Location Resource Number Type a Description

National

Register

Status

National Register

Integrity b

Iron Canyon

Reservoir c

CA-SHA-498

(FS 05-14-58-42)

P Native American site Unknown Low

McCloud River d CA-SHA-622

(FS 05-14-61-185)

P Native American site; lithic

scatter, midden

Unknown High

McCloud River d CH-SHA-623

(FS 05-14-61-168)

P Native American site; lithic

scatter, possible pit house

features

Recommended Low

McCloud River d CA-SHA-624

(FS 05-14-61-187)

P Native American site; lithic

scatter, possible pit house

features

Recommended High

Iron Canyon

Reservoir c

CA-SHA-664

(FS 05-14-58-53)

P Native American site; lithic

scatter, modern fire ring

Unknown Low

Iron Canyon

Reservoir c

CA-SHA-665

(FS 05-14-58-54)

P Native American site; lithic

scatter, possible modern

rock circle feature

Unknown Moderate

Iron Canyon

Reservoir c

CA-SHA-666

(FS 05-14-58-55)

P Native American site; lithic

scatter

Unknown Low
258

Project Location Resource Number Type a Description

National

Register

Status

National Register

Integrity b

Iron Canyon

Reservoir c

CA-SHA-667/H

(FS 05-14-58-56;

ALB-1)

P/H Native American site

(archaeological and

historic); obsidian scatter

mixed with historic

ceramic, bottle fragments,

and metal piping; apple tree

and walnut tree present on

site

Unknown Low

Iron Canyon

Reservoir c

CA-SHA-668

(FS 05-14-58-57;

ALB-2)

P Native American site; lithic

scatter

Unknown Low

McCloud River d CA-SHA-686/H

(FS 05-14-61-08)

P Large Native American

site; extensive lithic scatter,

midden

Eligible Low - Moderate

McCloud River d CA-SHA-687

(FS 05-14-61-32)

P Large Native American

site; lithic scatter, midden

Eligible Low

McCloud River d CA-SHA-688

(FS 05-14-61-33)

P Native American site; rock

shelter, obsidian lithic

debitage

Eligible High

Iron Canyon

Reservoir c

CA-SHA-1623

(FS 05-14-58-228)

P Native American site; lithic

scatter

Unknown High

McCloud River d CA-SHA-1657

(FS 05-14-61-301)

P Native American site; lithic

scatter, basalt chopper,

midden

Unknown Moderate
259

Project Location Resource Number Type a Description

National

Register

Status

National Register

Integrity b

McCloud River d CA-SHA-1658

(FS 05-14-61-302)

P Native American site;

possible house pit features,

obsidian lithic debitage

Recommended High

McCloud River d CA-SHA-1659

(FS 05-14-61-303)

P Native American site; lithic

scatter

Unknown Low

Iron Canyon

Reservoir c

CA-SHA-2109

(FS 05-14-58-365)

P Native American site; lithic

scatter, ground stone

fragment

Unknown Low

a

P = prehistoric, H = historic

b

Low = extensive impacts to resource, Moderate = limited impacts to resource, High = almost no impacts to resource

c Within FERC project boundary

d Outside of FERC project boundary, in McCloud River Expanded APE
260

Historic Buildings and Structures

Only three historic structures were identified within the APE, all three of which

are located in the McCloud River expanded APE on McCloud River Club lands. These

resources include two foot bridges (P-45-003189, P-45-003197) and the McCloud River

Club Resort (P-45-003199). Survey access to lands owned by the McCloud River Club

located within the APE was not granted, nor is National Register-eligibility for these

resources known; therefore, PG&E proposes to treat these resources as eligible until such

time that any previous evaluation of these resources is identified, or until these resources

are evaluated for listing on the National Register.

Traditional Cultural and Religious Sites Inventory and Impact Study

Two Native American communities, the Pit River Tribe and the Winnemem Wintu

Tribe, have formally requested to participate in the relicensing project. The Pit River

Tribe is a federally recognized tribe. The Winnemem Wintu Tribe has petitioned for

federal recognition. Other Native American communities in the vicinity either have not

requested to participate in the project, or have only asked to be kept apprised of project

progress. The Pit River Tribe expressed interest in the Iron Canyon and Pit River areas

of the APE. The Winnemem Wintu Tribe expressed interest in the McCloud reservoir

and McCloud River areas of the APE.

The Pit River and Winnemem Wintu tribes have requested separate TCP

investigations, as is outlined in Study Description CR-S2, Traditional Cultural

Properties, (PG&E, 2009e), from which two separate reports addressing the study results

for each tribe will be produced. In addition, both tribes requested formal agreements

outlining the conduct of the TCP studies. PG&E entered into an MOU with each tribe,

recognizing the sensitivity of the resources under study, and the historical and cultural

events that have affected the tribes. The MOUs also recognize the importance of

identifying TCPs within the APE and incorporating the management of these resources

into the overall management plan for the proposed project. Full details of Study

Description CR-S2 and the MOUs for each tribe are available in the Historic Properties

Management Plan (PG&E, 2009e). So far only the Pit River Tribe TCP study has been

completed (PG&E 2009f). At this time, there continues to be an impasse between PG&E

and the Winnemem Wintu on completion of the draft TCP report due to what particular

contractors have access to review and comment on the draft TCP report.21

The Pit River TCP study resulted in the identification of a total of 158 resources,

of which 22 were considered sacred sites, 16 resource procurement locations, 14

21 See letter from Mark Franco, Winnemem Wintu Tribe, dated July 5, 2009; letter

from Steve Nevares, PG&E, dated July 30, 2009; letter from Steve Nevares, PG&E,

dated April 23, 2010, and letter from Stephen Volker, Attorney for Winnemem Wintu

Tribe, dated May 25, 2010.
261

habitation sites, two battle sites, 11 multiple use locations, and 78 place names (PG&E

2009f). Of these 158 resource sites, 31 are located within the project’s APE, consisting

of 15 place names, 4 habitation sites, 7 resource procurement locations, 2 trails, and 3

sacred sites. Of these 31 resources, four are considered as eligible for listing in the

National Register as TCPs, while 9 are considered as potentially eligible TCPs (currently

undetermined), while the remaining 18 are considered ineligible for listing in the

National Register as TCPs.

3.3.6.2 Environmental Effects

Project-Related Effects on Cultural Resources

Project-related effects to cultural resources within the project’s APE are likely to

occur from project operations and maintenance, use and maintenance of project roads

(including associated drainage ditches), recreation, vandalism, and modifications or

repairs to project facilities. Project-related adverse effects to cultural resources

considered eligible for the National Register (i.e. historic properties) would require

PG&E to resolve such effects, in consultation with the California SHPO, and with other

parties depending on the nature and location of the affected historic property.

Project Operations

The project operates both as a peaking system and a load-following system, using

the available water supply after satisfying minimum instream flow requirements that

results in regular fluctuation in reservoir levels. Regular fluctuation in reservoir levels

created by project operations can result in the erosion of archaeological sites by either

deflating or washing away cultural deposits. Thus, project-related erosion along the

shorelines of the McCloud, Iron Canyon, Pit 6, and Pit 7 reservoirs may affect

archaeological sites situated on the shoreline or presently inundated by the reservoirs.

Archaeological sites situated along the shoreline in the reaches below the reservoirs can

also be affected by erosion in a similar manner.

Road Maintenance and Use

The maintenance of project roads may affect archaeological sites located adjacent

to them or buried beneath them. Ditches excavated for roadway drainage may also affect

archaeological sites. Depending on the condition of native soil roads, season, and vehicle

type, vehicular traffic may damage archaeological sites, as well. Increased public

accessibility to archaeological sites by roads may also increase the vulnerability of those

resources.

Recreation

The project vicinity is a popular area for recreational activities including hiking,

fishing, camping, picnicking, swimming, boating, hunting, and OHV use. There are four

developed recreational areas within the project APE, the use of which has the potential to

affect archaeological sites. These recreational areas include the following:
262

 McCloud reservoir boat ramp, also called the Tarantula Gulch boat launch, at

McCloud reservoir;

 Deadlun campground;

 Hawkins Landing campground and Boat ramp at Iron Canyon reservoir; and

 Fenders Flat unimproved boat ramp at Pit 7 afterbay dam.

The Ash Camp campground and the Ah-Di-Na campground are located outside of

the project boundary, but are partially located within the McCloud River expanded APE.

Both campgrounds are Forest Service recreation developments that predate the project,

and are connected by the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trial as it parallels the McCloud

River. Dispersed recreational use also occurs in this area. Other areas where dispersed

recreational use occurs are located within the project’s APE. User-created roads leading

from improved roads to the shoreline can be found in many areas.

Vandalism

Collection of artifacts or the intentional disturbance of cultural materials by

unauthorized persons (from people accessing roads and recreational sites within the

FERC project boundary) can adversely archaeological sites and associated TCPs.

Archaeological sites that contain human remains and burials are particularly susceptible

to vandalism and looting.

Vegetation Management

Project-related vegetation management around project-related hydroelectric

features may include spraying, burning, and mechanical removal. All of these activities

have the potential to adversely affect or destroy areas currently utilized by the Pit River

Tribe and Winnemem Wintu Tribe to gather culturally significant plant spices.

Proposed Project

PG&E proposes to construct a new powerhouse at the base of McCloud dam and a

powerhouse at Pit 7 afterbay dam, along with associated transmission facilities. In

addition, PG&E proposes the creation of new recreational facilities at McCloud dam,

Battle Creek, East and West McCloud dams, Red Banks, Star City, Tarantula Gulch, at

the intersection of Tarantula Gulch access road and Forest Road (FR) 11, a floating dock

on McCloud reservoir with an associated trail, Iron Canyon, Deadlun, Campground,

Hawkins Landing Campground, three areas along FR 37N38, Iron Canyon dam,

Montgomery Creek, the upper end of Pit & reservoir, Fenders Flat, and Pit 7 powerhouse.

Future project-related effects to cultural resources within the project’s APE that

are likely to occur under these proposed project facilities would be nearly identical to

those generated under the existing project in regard to project operation and maintenance,

use and maintenance of project roads (including associated drainage ditches), recreation,

vandalism, and repairs to project facilities. The addition of new recreational facilities

would increase and exacerbate potential effects related to inadvertent destruction of
263

archaeological sites, unauthorized collection of artifacts, and vandalism. Finally, grounddisturbing activities involving the construction phases associated with the new proposed

facilities would have the potential to directly or indirectly affect archaeological sites and

TCPs.

Archaeological Resources

PG&E identified project-related effects for 14 out of the 55 archaeological sites

located and evaluated during field survey. During archival research, 14 additional

resources were identified on McCloud River Club lands; however, these sites were not

relocated during field survey due to lack of access, and were consequently not evaluated

for project-related effects. Project effects for these 14 resources are unknown, and

therefore PG&E has not proposed management for these resources.

Site-specific project-related effects for the identified 14 archaeological sites are

listed in table 3-33. Eight of these sites are being affected by a combination of erosion,

dispersed recreational use, and vandalism; and a ninth site is being affected by these three

effects in addition to road maintenance use. Another site is being affected by erosion

alone. Another site is being affected by dispersed recreational use and vandalism. The

three remaining sites could potentially be affected by vegetation management or new

construction activities.

PG&E-proposed management for archaeological sites that may be affected by

erosion, road maintenance and use, dispersed recreational use, or vandalism includes

blocking vehicular access to these sites, posting restrictive signage, closing of usercreated roads, and conducting annual monitoring of erosion. In addition, PG&E proposes

notifying transmission managers and educating employees about sites that may be

affected by vegetation management or new transmission line construction. PG&E

currently implements an employee environmental and sensitivity training program and

proposes to continue this program. PG&E also proposes public education of the cultural

significance of the area, as well as use restriction for the protection of resources, through

interpretive signage, brochures, or other similarly appropriate media. Appropriate

representatives from the Pit River Tribe, the Winnemem Wintu Tribe, and the Forest

Service will be asked to participate in the creation of interpretive materials.

Historic Buildings and Structures

PG&E has identified only three historic structures within the APE, all of which are

located on McCloud River Club lands. As access to these lands was not available for

field survey, National Register-eligibility, as well as project-related effects on these

resources, is unknown; therefore, no management procedures for these resources are

proposed by PG&E. The existing project facilities were constructed in 1965, and PG&E

has proposed that when the project facilities reach 50 years of age (in 2015) they will be

evaluated for National Register eligibility.
264

Traditional Cultural Properties

Upon completion of the Winnemem Wintu TCP report, and in combination with

existing the Pit River TCP report (completed in September 2009), PG&E proposes that it

would add an amendment to their HPMP that would address what management measures

it would incorporate to protect identified TCPs.

Populations of culturally significant plants were also identified in Study

Description BR-S2, Special-Status and Special-Interest Plant, Lichen, and Fungi Species

(PG&E, 2009d). The Pit River TCP report also contains names and location information

of significant plant types important to the Pit River Tribe. PG&E proposes to add an

amendment to the HPMP to manage and protect these ethnobotanical resources.

Our Analysis

Archaeological Resources and National Register-eligibility

Archaeological sites along the shorelines of the project reservoirs (as well those

presently inundated) are subject to project-related effects due to erosion from fluctuation

in the water level, as well as accidental disturbance from recreational use and vandalism.

Project-related road maintenance and use, vegetation management, and recreation all

have the potential to affect these sites through direct or indirect effects. Of the

archaeological sites identified by PG&E as being subject to project-related effects, one is

pending consultation concerning National Register-eligibility, while the eligibility of the

remaining 13 is listed as undetermined. In additional information requests, dated

May 26, 2009, and August 14, 2009, the Commission expressed the need for National

Register determinations to be presented in the HPMP. These National Register-eligibility

determinations remain outstanding, but are necessary for compliance with section 106.

Requiring PG&E to make these determinations for the 14 archaeological sites that are

being affected by the project, in consultation with the California SHPO, would ensure

that these 14 archaeological sites are protected.

Historic Buildings and Structures

No project facilities are over 50 years of age; therefore, PG&E did not evaluate

them for National Register-eligibility. Instead, PG&E proposes to evaluate the existing

project facilities when they reach 50 years of age. Waiting until existing project facilities

reach 50 years of age would allow for appropriate evaluation of the structures under the

National Historic Preservation Act and any project effects could them be determined

based on the facilities eligibility for the National Register.

Project-related effects on the historic structures located on McCloud River Club

lands cannot be determined until access is granted by the landowner. Until such a time,

nothing can be done to evaluate or protect these sites.

Traditional Cultural Properties

At this time, only the TCP report for the Pit River Tribe has been completed.

Upon review of the TCP report, we conclude that there is enough information to
265

determine that four resources (three sacred areas and one resource procurement gathering

site) within the project’s APE can be considered as National Register-eligible TCPs, and

that nine other resources (namely resource procurement gathering fishing sites and

several other habitation areas and a trail) are potentially eligible TCPs. Other important

gathering areas involving culturally important plants to the Native Americans have also

been identified by the Pit River Tribe and they should be recognized as significant

locations and protected by PG&E.22 PG&E proposes to include measures for the

protection of culturally-sensitive plants in the Vegetation Management Plan, which is

discussed in greater detail in section 3.3.3 Terrestrial Resources.

Providing an amendment to the HPMP, as proposed by PG&E, on the types of

management measures to incorporate for the protection of TCPs, both those important to

the Pit River Tribe and Winnemem Wintu, would allow any TCP sites to be protected

once they have been identified.

22 Although many significant plant collecting areas may not qualify as National

Register-eligible TCPs, they still need to be protected by other statutes such as NEPA and

several executive orders protecting sacred Native American areas. Along with section

106, the Commission needs to insure that PG&E takes steps to protect such resources

under a new license.
266

Table 3-33 Site-specific potential effects for archaeological and historic-era resources. (Source: PG&E, 2009d)

Resource Number Location

Potential Effectsa

PG&E Proposed Management

1 2 3 4 5 6

ALB-5 McCloud Reservoir X X X

Block vehicular access; post

restrictive signage; monitor erosion

annually

ALB-3

(FS 05-14-58-424)

Iron Canyon

Reservoir X X X X

Block vehicular access (with ShastaTrinity National Forest approval);

post restrictive signage; monitor

erosion annually

ABL-4

(FS 05-14-58-425)

Iron Canyon

Reservoir X X X

Block vehicular access (with ShastaTrinity National Forest approval);

post restrictive signage; monitor

erosion annually

CA-SHA-498

(FS 05-14-58-42)

Iron Canyon

Reservoir X X X

Block vehicular access (with ShastaTrinity National Forest approval);

post restrictive signage; monitor

erosion annually

CA-SHA-664

(FS 05-14-58-53)

Iron Canyon

Reservoir X X X

Block vehicular access (with ShastaTrinity National Forest approval);

post restrictive signage; monitor

erosion annually

CA-SHA-665

(FS 05-14-58-54)

Iron Canyon

Reservoir X X

Block vehicular access (with ShastaTrinity National Forest approval);

post restrictive signage
267

Resource Number Location

Potential Effectsa

PG&E Proposed Management

1 2 3 4 5 6

CA-SHA-666

(FS 05-14-58-55)

Iron Canyon

Reservoir X X X

Block vehicular access (with ShastaTrinity National Forest approval);

post restrictive signage; monitor

erosion annually

CA-SHA-667/H

(ALB-1;

FS 05-14-58-56)

Iron Canyon

Reservoir X X X

Block vehicular access (with ShastaTrinity National Forest approval);

post restrictive signage; monitor

erosion annually

CA-SHA-668

(ALB-2;

FA 05-14-58-57)

Iron Canyon

Reservoir X X X

Block vehicular access (with ShastaTrinity National Forest approval);

post restrictive signage; monitor

erosion annually

CA-SHA-1623

(FS 05-14-58-228)

Iron Canyon

Reservoir X X

Post restrictive signage (with ShastaTrinity National Forest approval)

CA-SHA-2109

(FS 05-14-58-365)

Iron Canyon

Reservoir X X X

Block vehicular access (with ShastaTrinity National Forest approval);

post restrictive signage; monitor

erosion annually

CA-SHA-252 Pit River X Monitor erosion annually

ALB-6H Pit 6 Transmission

Line X X

Notify vegetation and transmission

managers; post signage on

transmission towers; employee

education
268

Resource Number Location

Potential Effectsa

PG&E Proposed Management

1 2 3 4 5 6

ALB-7

Pit 7 Transmission

Line X X

Notify vegetation and transmission

managers; post signage on

transmission towers; employee

education

a. 1. Project Operations (Erosion) 4. Vandalism

2. Road Maintenance and Use 5. Vegetation Management

3. Dispersed Recreational Use 6. New Construction
269

Cultural Resource Management

PG&E prepared and filed a draft HPMP (dated July 2009) with its license

application. Preparation of the HPMP was undertaken by PG&E in anticipation of a

Programmatic Agreement (PA) to be executed between the Commission and the

California SHPO, and with other concurring parties, for the management of historic

properties that may be affected by a new license for the project. The HPMP is designed

to avoid, reduce, or mitigate (i.e., resolve) existing or potential project-related adverse

effects to historic properties within the project’s APE for the term of a new license.

Although the HPMP does not include site-specific measures for TCPs, some or all

of the following procedures for archaeological and historic era sites may also be

applicable to the management of TCPs. Currently included in the HPMP are procedures

for:

 Continued adherence to federal and state laws and regulations, as well regular

communication with other agencies, the Pit River Tribe, and the Winnemem

Wintu Tribe regarding the management of historic properties associated with

project APEs;

 General treatment measures for O&M (including road maintenance), and the

management of ethnobotanical resources;

 Avoidance, monitoring, stabilization, data recovery, curation, and other

treatment measures pertaining to historic properties as well as accidental

discovery of archaeological sites or human remains;

 The use of qualified Tribal Cultural Monitors during archaeological surveys,

site testing, and data recovery, non-emergency construction and maintenance

activities requiring ground disturbance that would create a reasonable effect to

historic properties, and during long-term historic properties monitoring;

 Site-specific treatment of known archaeological and historic-era properties;

 Signage, including interpretive and display signs, as well as regulatory and

warning signs;

 Closure of user-created roads to minimize or prevent artifact collection;

 Public interpretation and education of cultural resource values;

 Continuation of the cultural resource employee education program; and

 Implementation of cost-effective protection measures for historic properties in

consideration of project needs, public interests, and other resource areas.

 Other protocols and procedures are also provided in the HPMP involving

educating the public and PG&E staff on protecting cultural resources,

inadvertent discoveries, emergency situations, curation of recovered cultural

materials, activities that do not require California SHPO involvement, future
270

project studies, and project patrolling, monitoring of cultural resources, and

general consultation.

Forest Service condition 34 specifies that within one year of license issuance,

PG&E file with the Commission an HPMP that is approved by the Forest Service.

According to Forest Service condition 34, the HPMP should include:

Complete integration of CR-S1 and CR-S2 study results (including the currently

incomplete CR-S2 TCP study for the Winnemem Wintu Tribe), detailed site

monitoring and schedule, National Register determinations of eligibility for sites

periodically inundated by reservoir fluctuations in Iron Canyon Reservoir,

expected and potential effects of current or proposed project operation effects on

historic properties including specific detailed mitigation for those effects, and a

study/evaluation of whether there is compelling evidence for a historic

archaeological and ethnographic district on the lower McCloud River within the

project’s expanded APE.

In response to Forest Service condition 34, PG&E alternative condition 34

proposes that PG&E would file a final HPMP within one year of license issuance and that

the HPMP would include (italics represent PG&E’s added modifications to the Forest

Service’s):

Complete integration of the CR-S1 and CR-S2 study results (if the CR-S2 TCP

study is not complete when the HPMP is finalized, the HPMP will be revised or

amended if necessary to reflect the results of the CR-S2 when it is completed) and

detailed site monitoring and schedule. The HPMP shall call for National Register

determinations of eligibility for sites periodically inundated by reservoir

fluctuations in Iron Canyon Reservoir where erosion and/or siltation have been

found to potentially affect sites, and where consultation with the Commission,

California SHPO, Forest Service, and tribes have determined that evaluation

(which may include test excavations) is appropriate. The HPMP shall also contain

a discussion of the expected and potential effects of current or proposed project

operations on historic properties, including specific detailed mitigation measures

for effects that have been determined by the California SHPO to be adverse. If

adverse effects to sites will not be known until after the HPMP has been approved

by the Commission, the HPMP shall instead contain a process for determining

appropriate mitigation in the future in consultation with the SHPO, Commission,

Forest Service, and Tribes. Additionally the final HPMP shall discuss whether

there is compelling evidence for a historic archaeological and ethnographic

district on the lower McCloud River within the project expanded APE.

Forest Service condition 34 and PG&E alternative condition 34 are very similar in

regards to actions to be taken to protect cultural resources in the event of ground

disturbing activities, or prior to such activities, or as a result of project operations:
271

Upon discovery of cultural resources on Forest Service lands that PG&E shall

immediately cease work in the affected area and shall then notify the Forest

Service and shall not resume work on ground disturbing activities unit it receives

written approval from the Forest Service. If deemed necessary the Forest Service

may require PG&E to perform recovery excavations and preservation of the

discovered cultural resource—if it is an archaeological site--and associated

artifacts at PG&E’s expense through provisions of an Archaeological Resources

Protection Act permit issued by the Forest Service. PG&E shall implement the

Plan upon approval by the Commission. The one distinction between the Forest

Service’s and PG&E’s discovery clause is that the Forest Service wants PG&E to

account for any paleontological resources that may be discovered on Forest

Service lands. PG&E alternative condition 34 disputes this by proposing that

paleontological resources are not cultural and are not subject to section 106

compliance and as a result, should not be addressed in the HPMP.

Our Analysis

The draft HPMP filed by PG&E, and specified by Forest Service condition 34,

contains a number of measures to manage and protect historic properties. The avoidance

strategies, public and employee training proposals, signage plans, transportation plans,

monitoring, and consultation proposals are all measures that would ensure cultural

resources and historic properties within the project’s APE are protected and maintained

throughout the term of any license issued for the project. Very little difference exists

between Forest Service condition 34 and PG&E alternative condition 34, other than

PG&E adding some additional language clarifying that: (1) if a TCP report from the

Winnemem Wintu is completed after a final HPMP is filed, then the final HPMP will

need to be amended; (2) National Register eligibilities will be applied to sites periodically

inundated that are being affected by project-related effects; (3) and that mitigation

measures will be applied to those affected sites after the California SHPO has determined

that those project-related affects are adverse, and that such measures may need to be

addresses after a final HPMP has been submitted to the Commission; and (4) determining

a historic district involving archaeological and ethnographic sites will be done if there is

compelling evidence to support such a historic district.

Forest Service condition 34 also specifies that the HPMP should include the

process detailing the measures to be taken in the event of discovery of cultural resources

on NFS lands. Setting forth this process within the HPMP would further complete the

cultural resource record and ensure newly discovered sites on NFS lands are properly

identified and any effects are mitigated.

PG&E’s draft HPMP does not include any details regarding the handling of

newly discovered paleontological resources. While section 106 includes no provisions

for protecting paleontological resources, due to the recent paleontological law enacted by
272

Congress in March 2009 that requires all federal land managers to manage and protect

paleontological resources discovered on their lands,23 the protection of such resources

should be considered and the HPMP would be an appropriate document in which to

reference the protection of such resources, as they are similar in nature to archaeological

resources.

Prior to license issuance, the Commission will issue a PA to be executed between

the Commission and the California SHPO. The PA will require PG&E to implement the

HPMP, along with any required modifications, and include a dispute resolution clause

and request for the Forest Service, Pit River Tribe, and Winnemem Wintu Tribe to be

concurring parties. The final PA will be incorporated into any new license by reference.

Execution of the PA and implementation of the HPMP, as proposed by PG&E and

specified by Forest Service condition 34, would ensure that adverse effects of the project

on cultural resources would be appropriately mitigated. We analyze the costs of

measures proposed or recommended for cultural resources in section 4.0, Developmental

Analysis, and make our final recommendations in section 5.0, Comprehensive

Development and Recommended Alternative.

3.3.7 Land Use and Aesthetic Resources

3.3.7.1 Affected Environment

Land Use Resources

The existing project features are entirely located in Shasta County near the

communities of McCloud, Hillcrest, Big Bend, and Montgomery Creek. The proposed

McCloud transmission line route is partially located within Siskiyou County. The

existing project boundary, which includes portions of the McCloud River and Pit River

watersheds, encompasses 3,707.6 acres of land. Of the lands within the project boundary,

1,239.4 acres are owned by PG&E, 1,621.9 acres are federally owned lands administered

by the Forest Service, 29.5 acres are federally owned lands administered by BLM, and

the remaining 816.8 acres are privately owned (PG&E, 2009a).

The project boundary around McCloud reservoir is described by a metes and

bounds survey that generally follows a contour line about 200 ft above the high water line

of the reservoir. The project boundary also encompasses: (1) McCloud dam, spillway

and outlet; (2) the project road to the base of the dam; (3) the project road between

23 See Omnibus Public Land Management Act (OPLMA) of 2009, Public

Law 111-011. P.L. 111-011, Title VI, Subtitle D on Paleontological Resources

Preservation (OPLMA-PRP) (123 Stat. 1172; 16 U.S.C. 470aaa). This statute requires

the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to manage and protect paleontological

resources on federal land using scientific principles and expertise. The OPLMA-PRP

includes specific provisions addressing management of these resources by the BLM, Park

Service, Bureau of Reclamation, FWS, and Forest Service.
273

McCloud dam and Star City Creek; (4) the existing Tarantula Gulch day-use area and

boat launch; and (5) all proposed recreation developments at McCloud reservoir. A

100-ft-wide corridor for McCloud tunnel extends southeast for about 7.2 miles between

McCloud and Iron Canyon reservoirs. Where the tunnel crosses Hawkins Creek, there is

also a 100-ft-wide corridor for the project access road that is about 0.25 mile long

(PG&E, 2009b).

The project boundary around Iron Canyon reservoir also is described by a metes

and bounds survey and generally follows a contour line about 100 to 200 ft above the

high water line of the reservoir, and in some places extends beyond this distance to

include the existing recreation facilities. The project boundary also encompasses:

(1) Iron Canyon dam, spillway, and outlet; (2) stream gage MC-10 (including the project

access road); (3) the existing Hawkins Landing day-use area and boat launch (including a

40-ft-wide corridor for the access road); (4) the existing Deadlun Campground; and

(5) areas where recreation developments at Iron Canyon reservoir are proposed. A

100-ft-wide corridor for Iron Canyon tunnel extends from near the dam to about 2.9 miles

south where the tunnel joins James B. Black penstock. There is a 300-ft-wide corridor

along the 1,194-ft-long James B. Black penstock that enters James B. Black powerhouse.

At James B. Black powerhouse, the project boundary encompasses the: (1) powerhouse;

(2) switchyard; (3) 0.5-mile-long Black Tap transmission line from James B. Black

powerhouse to Pit 5 switchyard; and (4) beginning of the 40-ft-wide corridor for the

12-kV distribution line that extends to Iron Canyon reservoir. Oak Mountain Road (FR

37N34), a project road between Pit 5 bridge and FR 38N11, has a 100-ft-wide corridor

with a few 66-ft-wide segments (PG&E, 2009b).

Downstream of James B. Black powerhouse, the project boundary encompasses

Pit 6 reservoir. The boundary is described by a metes and bounds survey that generally

follows a contour 100 to 200 ft above the high water line of the reservoir. At the

downstream end of the reservoir, the project boundary widens to include the Pit 6 dam,

powerhouse, and switchyard. The 100-ft-wide corridor for the Pit 6 transmission line

begins at Pit 6 switchyard and extends about 3.3 miles to the east where it terminates at a

non-project transmission line. Pit 6 Road, a project road, has a 100-ft-wide corridor and

extends from the powerhouse to Big Bend Road. Downstream of Pit 6 dam, the project

boundary encompasses Pit 7 reservoir, Pit 7 dam, Pit 7 powerhouse, Pit 7 afterbay dam,

and Pit 7 afterbay. The boundary is described by a metes and bound survey that

generally follows a contour 100 to 200 ft above the high water line of the impoundments.

At its most downstream point, the project boundary crosses the Pit River just upstream of

Fenders Ferry Bridge and widens to include the recreation area at Fenders Flat. The

100-ft-wide corridor for the Pit 7 transmission line begins at Pit 7 switchyard and extends

about 3.5 miles to the east where it terminates at a non-project transmission line. Pit 7

Road, a project road, has a 100-ft-wide corridor and extends from Pit 7 powerhouse to

Fenders Ferry Road (PG&E, 2009b).

The proposed McCloud powerhouse would be constructed within the existing

project boundary at McCloud dam. Beginning at the proposed powerhouse at the base of
274

the dam, PG&E proposes to construct the McCloud transmission line within a 25-ft-wide

corridor that follows the right-of-way of FR 38N11 north to State Highway 89 where it

travels east then north, ending at the Pacific Power and Light switchyard in the town of

McCloud. The transmission line corridor is about 14 miles long. The proposed Pit 7

afterbay powerhouse would be constructed within the existing project boundary at Pit 7

afterbay dam. A new project road would be constructed just west of Fenders Ferry

Bridge within a proposed 40-ft-wide corridor. Beginning at the dam, PG&E proposes to

construct Pit 7 afterbay transmission line within a 40-ft-wide corridor that crosses the Pit

River near Fenders Flat recreation site and then generally follows Pit 7 Road to Pit 7

switchyard. The proposed project boundary includes the area necessary for proposed

recreation development associated with the generation addition (PG&E, 2009b).

No large-scale industrial or commercial developments are located in the project

vicinity. PG&E’s land use in the project area primarily consists of structures and

activities associated with its hydroelectric facilities. The Commission’s standard land use

article (license article 56) regulates land use activities within the project boundary. Land

management planning documents that pertain to land use activities in the area

surrounding the project include the Shasta County general plan (County of Shasta, 2005

as cited in PG&E, 2009a); the Shasta-Trinity National Forest LRMP, as amended

(Shasta-Trinity National Forest, 1995 as cited in PG&E, 2009a); BLM’s resource

management plan (BLM, 1993 as cited in PG&E, 2009a); and the McCloud River CRMP

(Bollibokka Land Company et al., 2001 as cited in PG&E, 2009a). For the proposed

McCloud transmission line, land use activities would be reviewed for consistency with

the Siskiyou County general plan (County of Siskiyou, 1993, 1980 as cited in PG&E,

2009a). In addition, Shasta County boating ordinances prohibit: (1) boating within 500

ft of project dams, (2) operating a motorboat at a speed in excess of 5 miles per hour

upstream from the road bridge at the north end of the McCloud River arm of McCloud

reservoir, and (3) swimming within 200 ft of any boat launching ramp or dock open to

the public. Summaries of each of these plans are provided below.

Shasta County General Plan and Zoning Ordinance

Shasta County regulates private land uses in accordance with the Shasta County

general plan (adopted in 1984) and the Shasta County Zoning Ordinance (title 17 of the

Shasta County Code, as amended through July 2003). The Shasta County general plan is

a tool to guide long-term development planning decisions for public and privately owned

lands in Shasta County. The plan is delineated into three core subject areas: public

safety, resources, and community development. A majority of the privately owned lands

in the project vicinity are designated “Timberland.” A few small parcels designated as

“Natural Resource-Open Space” are scattered around the project area with private lands

adjacent to Iron Canyon reservoir being the most notable. Regarding the timberland

designation, the Shasta County general plan notes the following:

While the Shasta County general plan provides the overall development goals for

the County, title 17 of the Shasta County Code defines the various zoning districts
275

within the County, as well as identifying the primary and permitted uses within

each zoning district. The County has not yet adopted a zoning map for the areas in

the project vicinity. They are considered “Unclassified” and are part of the

Special Zone District.

Shasta Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

The project area lies within the Shasta-McCloud Management Unit of the ShastaTrinity National Forest. Land use policies and standards for this national forest are

guided by Shasta-Trinity National Forest’s LRMP (Shasta-Trinity National Forest, 1995

as cited in PG&E, 2009a). The LRMP contains details regarding Late Successional

Reserves (LSRs) that are based on the “Record of Decision on Management of Habitat

for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the

Northern Spotted Owl” (ROD). The LSRs are intended to provide old-growth forest

habitat for populations of species that depend on late successional forests and conserve

late-successional species diversity. NFS lands near Iron Canyon reservoir are designated

as LSR. NFS lands near the Pit River are designated as “Limited Roaded Motorized

Recreation.” A small area adjacent to the northwestern portion of the upper Pit 6

reservoir is designated as “Threatened Species – Eagles” (PG&E, 2009a).

BLM Resource Management Plan

The BLM administers three parcels of land near the Pit River between the James

B. Black powerhouse and Pit 7 dam. Two of these parcels are in the project area and the

third is nearby. About 29 acres of the project area occupy BLM land. BLM lands in the

project vicinity fall within BLM’s Redding Resource Area, which encompasses about

247,500 acres of public land within Butte, Shasta, Siskiyou, Tehama, and Trinity

Counties (BLM, 1993 as cited in PG&E, 2009a). The 1993 Redding resource

management plan (RRMP) divides the resource area into seven management units, and

the project is located in the Ishi Management Unit. BLM lands in the project vicinity are

located within the “Remainder of the Management Area sub-area,” and consist of

“scattered BLM lands.”

The RRMP indicates that BLM does not propose to retain these parcels over the

long-term and may exchange or sell them in accordance with federal laws. In the interim,

BLM manages the land on a custodial basis. Examples of custodial management include

protecting human health and safety (law enforcement, cleaning up illegally dumped

waste, vegetation management to abate wildfire danger). Additionally, rights-of-way,

permits, and other authorizations may be granted as appropriate (PG&E, 2009a).

The McCloud River Consolidated Resource Management Plan

The McCloud River consolidated resource management plan (Bollibokka Land

Company et al., 2001 as cited in PG&E, 2009a) was adopted on July 23, 1991, for the

purposes of assisting in the coordination of land and resource management activities

between private landowners and federal, state, and local agencies that have jurisdiction in

the area. The primary objective of the plan is to improve the management of the area’s
276

resources to allow for multiple uses while simultaneously protecting the natural

environment and private property rights. Signatories to the plan include the ShastaTrinity National Forest, Bollibokka Land Company, Crane Mills, McCloud Fly Fishing

Club, Sierra Pacific Industries, California Fish and Game, The Hearst Corporation, The

Nature Conservancy, California Trout, and PG&E. The plan outlines the ecological,

economic, social, and cultural considerations that must be factored into land use and

development decisions through coordinated planning efforts. With respect to project

operations, the plan states:

The operation of McCloud reservoir dam has direct influence on the McCloud

River Basin. Any changes in the operation of the dam will be a subject for study

by the CRMP coordinating group.

Current land use activities are consistent with the existing plans and ordinances for

the project area. Issues identified by neighboring landowners were related to recreation

use effects on private lands, including public trespassing, privacy, risks associated with

wildland fire, and natural resource protection (PG&E, 2009a).

Public Safety and Law Enforcement

The Shasta County Sheriff and the Forest Service are responsible for public safety

and law enforcement on lands in the project area. All existing project lands are within

the jurisdiction of the Shasta County Sheriff. The Forest Service law enforcement

officials from the McCloud Ranger District are responsible for McCloud reservoir, and

officials at the Forest Service Shasta Lake Ranger District are responsible for Iron

Canyon reservoir and the Pit River side of the project.

Project Roads

Within the project vicinity, 21 road segments, about 54 miles, are used by PG&E

or recreationists to access project facilities or project recreation opportunities. Based on

the results of traffic count records, 14 of the 21 road segments are either project roads

(defined by the Commission as roads used primarily for project purposes) or roads used

to access project recreation areas (table 3-34). The majority of these segments are gravelor dirt-surfaced roads. The other six roads are paved with asphalt, concrete, or

bituminous surfaces, or they contain portions of both paved and unpaved segments. A

road condition inventory performed on these sections indicates that most of the roads are

maintained to the maintenance level definition for vehicular travel (PG&E, 2009a)24.

In general, PG&E maintains project-related roads in accordance with easements

and use agreements between PG&E, Forest Service, or the private land owner. Road

24 In a study plan determination letter dated October 3, 2008, the Commission

determined, based on information contained in technical memo 22, submitted as part of

the license application, that FR 38N11 (segments 1 and 2) and FR 38N53 do not meet the

Commission’s criteria for project roads used primarily for project purposes.
277

surfaces were qualitatively characterized using good, fair, and poor ratings to describe the

overall condition for vehicular travel. These condition assessments also considered the

Forest Service management objective for the particular segment. Of the 14 segments in

table 3-34, eight were in fair condition, three were in poor condition, one was in fair/poor

condition, and two were characterized as having multiple conditions depending on the

segment. None of the roads were impassable for normal passenger vehicles; however,

fewer of these types of vehicles were observed except on the paved roads surrounding

McCloud reservoir and Iron Canyon reservoir. Road segments designated as being in

poor condition exhibited generally passable conditions; however, localized damage to the

road, such as a series of potholes or washboard conditions, warranted the poor rating.

Vehicles can access project reservoirs or features for most of the year, but road closures

due to snow periodically preclude access during the winter months. However, PG&E

maintains Oak Mountain Road so that it is free of snow to access project facilities at Iron

Canyon dam (PG&E, 2009a).
278

Table 3-34. Project roads.

Road

Number Name Start End Length(mi)

Maintenance

Responsibility

Surface

Type Comments

38N81 Brown Trout 38N11 Boat Ramp 0.3 Shared Asphalt

Concrete

Tarantula Gulch-road

access to boat ramp

recreation site

38N04Y Star City 38N11 Bridge 5 Shared Native Access to intake; access

for recreation on

shoreline

U38N11X Dam Road 38N11 Base of

McCloud

Dam

0.26 Licensee Native Road to base of

McCloud dam

37N78 Iron Canyon

Loop

38N11 Iron Canyon

Dam

0.7

(estimated)

Forest Service Bituminous

Aggregate

Native

Road around Iron

Canyon reservoir-access

to Iron Canyon dam and

structures, recreational

access to shoreline areas

37N27Y Deadlun

Creek

Campground

37N78 Campground 0.34 Forest Service Native Access to campground −

project recreation feature

37N66Y Hawkins

Landing

38N11 Ramp 0.56 Licensee Native Access to campground

and boat ramp − project

recreation feature

37N78A MC-10

Gage Road

37N78 NEW Sec.

28

0.28 Licensee Native Road to MC-10 stream

gage
279

Road

Number Name Start End Length(mi)

Maintenance

Responsibility

Surface

Type Comments

37N34 Oak

Mountain

12-kV line

38N11 Pit 5 Bridge 7.71 Licensee Native Access to pipeline,

12-kV powerline

37N93 Ridge Iron

Canyon

Junction

with

37N93A

& C

Oak

Mountain

Road

0.3 Licensee Native To pipeline off Oak

Mountain Road

37N93A Ridge 37N93 SESE

Section 28

0.6 Licensee Native Off Oak Mountain Road

37N33C Willow 37N93 SESE

Section 28

0.5 Licensee Native Off Oak Mountain Road

Pit 6

Powerhouse

Road

Cove

Road

Pit 6

Powerhouse

6.0 Licensee Asphalt

Concrete

Road to Pit 6

Powerhouse

35N23 Pit 7 34N17 Pit 7 Dam

and

Powerhouse

1.79 Licensee Asphalt

Concrete

Road to Pit 7 Dam and

Powerhouse

35N66 Fenders Flat 35N23 Afterbay

Dam

0.57 Licensee Native Road to Pit 7 Afterbay
280

Recreational OHV use is an activity that occurs within the project area, and

although it is not concentrated on project roads, the activity results in road and resource

damage not typically identified as part of traditional road inventories. OHV use is

concentrated at Iron Canyon reservoir resulting in dispersed shoreline access, as well as

concentrated uses within and adjacent to the Hawkins Landing and Deadlun

campgrounds. OHV use is also popular with visitors to Fenders Flat near the Pit 7

afterbay. Multiple user-created OHV roads exist in these areas, including roads from

campsites to the Iron Canyon reservoir shoreline, roads along the shoreline, and roads

from FR 35N66 to project lands near the Pit 7 afterbay, which are not open to public use

(PG&E, 2009a).

Fire Events and Existing Wildland Fire Prevention Measures

The project is situated in a fairly remote and sparsely populated area of the state,

which has vast natural forest resources prone to dramatic fire events with the potential

(under certain conditions) for tremendous amounts of destruction. Fire suppression is a

shared responsibility between the Forest Service, state of California, and the county. Fire

stations and fire suppression equipment is generally housed near populated areas with

concentrations of fire-fighting equipment in Redding, McCloud, Burney, and Big Bend,

all located at a considerable distance from the project area with notably long travel times.

Between 1960 and 2007, four wildland fires either occurred or spread to within 1 mile of

the project area, but no fires were reported within the project boundary and these fires did

not threaten any project structures (PG&E, 2009a).

The measures taken by PG&E to reduce fire risk at project features under the

existing license include actively maintaining vegetation in proximity to project features

(e.g., transmission lines) and keeping hand tools (e.g., shovels, mattocks, McLeods)

available to suppress fires. Certain laws and regulations25 also prescribe how PG&E

must manage vegetation associated with the project transmission lines.

In addition to existing license requirements, the Forest Service-issued special use

permits for the construction of the road and campground at Hawkins Landing and

Deadlun areas require PG&E to keep tools for fire suppression onsite or readily available,

including shovels, picks, pulaskis, McLeods, and mattocks. In addition to the tools,

equipment and vehicles will have spark arrestors to prevent the unintended ignition of

fires due to sparks from work requirements (PG&E, 2009a).

Aesthetic Resources

Area around McCloud Reservoir

McCloud reservoir is located in Northern California situated within the forested

mountain terrain of the western slope of the Cascade Range just south of Mount Shasta.

25 These laws and regulations include Public Resource Code sections 4292 and

4293, General Order 95 Rule 35, and NERC standard FAC-003-1.
281

The landscape character consists of evergreen forested mountain slopes in a remote,

scenic setting. The visual character of the area around McCloud reservoir consists of a

narrow, winding reservoir surrounded by steep forested hillsides. FR 11, a paved road,

traverses the shoreline of the southern half of the reservoir, providing the public with

views dominated by the blue water of the reservoir and surrounding evergreen forest.

The northern end of the reservoir is private land with no public road access. FR 11 sits

on a bank cut out of the steep hill slopes and follows the contours around the shoreline.

Vegetation and topography often obstruct views of the reservoir. Conversely, the public

can view the project area from the reservoir surface. The natural landscape dominates the

views throughout the area, with human-made facilities limited to the earth-filled

McCloud dam, the Tarantula Gulch boat ramp recreation area, the McCloud tunnel

intake, and public and private roads. Minimum flow releases to the Lower McCloud

River are made at the base of McCloud dam from a Howell-Bunger valve that sprays

water about 100 ft away from the outlet into a pool at the base of McCloud dam, where it

enters the river. The visual resources associated with the area around McCloud reservoir

are captured in photographs from key observation points (KOPs) and presented in volume

III, TM-57, Aesthetic Resources Assessment (PG&E, 2009a).

Area around Iron Canyon Reservoir

Iron Canyon reservoir is situated at the confluence of five small creek tributaries,

creating a relatively shallow, five-fingered-shaped reservoir with waters extending into

the narrow coves created by the stream channels. Dense evergreen forests, which cover

the surrounding hill slopes, obscure most views of the reservoir from nearby roads;

however, some open views of the water occur. Below the high-water mark, slopes are

moderate and characterized by exposed (unvegetated or sparsely vegetated) soils, as

expected with a storage reservoir. Open landscape-scale views are provided at both

developed and dispersed recreation areas located around the perimeter of the reservoir,

from the dam, and from the water surface. The visual resources of the area around Iron

Canyon reservoir are captured in photographs of KOPs and presented in volume III,

TM-57, Aesthetic Resources Assessment (PG&E, 2009a).

Pit River (James B. Black Powerhouse, Pit 6 and Pit 7 Reservoirs, and Pit 7

Afterbay)

James B. Black powerhouse is located on the north bank of the Pit River less than

3 miles downstream from the town of Big Bend, California. Views of the powerhouse

are possible from points along the Pit River in proximity to the powerhouse, as well as

from a small portion of Oak Mountain Road, a Forest Service road that provides access

between Iron Canyon reservoir, the Pit River and James B. Black powerhouse.

Vegetation and topography screen views of the powerhouse from any considerable

distance. Transmission lines leaving the powerhouse and the penstock that supplies

water to the powerhouse are visible from nearby locations.

Pit 6 reservoir is long, narrow, and confined within the walls of the Pit River

Canyon, which is at most 500 ft wide. Views of the reservoir are limited to locations
282

along the top of Pit 6 dam. The reservoir can only be accessed by foot from the dam, or

potentially by boat from the Pit River, but to protect the public, PG&E discourages such

boat access. Dense tree cover and steep topography preclude views of the reservoir from

other locations, and the lack of public access limits viewing opportunities. The Pit 6 dam

and powerhouse are visible from points along the last mile or so of Pit 6 Road as it

descends into the Pit River Canyon.

Pit 7 reservoir is similar to Pit 6 reservoir in that it is long, narrow, and confined

within the walls of the Pit River Canyon with dense vegetation and steep topography

obscuring the reservoir from view. Views of Pit 7 reservoir from publicly accessible land

are very limited and only available from the Pit 6 Road and the area around Pit 6 dam or

along the section of Pit 7 Road that is open to foot travel beyond a locked gate. The Pit 7

afterbay, the most visible water feature within the Pit River portion of the project, is

visible from Fenders Ferry Road (FR 34N17) where it crosses the Pit River arm of Shasta

Lake and from the car-top boat launch area at Fenders Ferry. Uplands surrounding the

river are heavily forested with evergreen oak woodland and pine vegetation. From the

bridge, the rock-filled afterbay dam is visible in the mid-ground of the landscape. Flows

from Pit 7 reservoir are regulated with the V-notch weir in Pit 7 afterbay dam. Water

flowing out of the afterbay appears riverine as water flows through the weir when Shasta

Lake levels are low. When Shasta Lake is at full pool, the reservoir overtops the dam,

changing the character of the area to one of flat water as opposed to a flowing river.

Security fencing, signs, and safety chains that warn visitors about the danger associated

with the Pit 7 afterbay dam are visible.

Photos of visual resources associated with components of the project infrastructure

located in the Pit River drainage, including James B. Black powerhouse, Pit 6 reservoir,

Pit 7 reservoir, and Pit 7 afterbay, are captured in photographs of KOPs and presented in

volume III, TM-57 (PG&E, 2009a).

Forest Service Visual Quality Objectives

The Shasta-Trinity National Forest LRMP (Shasta-Trinity National Forest, 1995

as cited in PG&E, 2009a) provides preferred VQOs for lands within the Shasta-Trinity

National Forest boundary. VQOs for project lands within the Shasta-Trinity National

Forest are classified as either Retention or Partial Retention. Retention VQOs promote

landscapes that, when viewed by the public, have an intact natural or natural-looking

character. Human-made alterations to these landscapes should not create changes in

form, color, or texture from those naturally occurring in the viewshed. Partial Retention

VQOs allow for more alteration of the landscape, but new forms, colors, or textures

added to the landscape should be dominated and subdued by the natural character of the

area (PG&E, 2009a). Table 3-35 summarizes the VQO designations by general project

area.
283

Table 3-35. Summary of Shasta-Trinity National Forest VQO classifications and

guidelines for National Forest System lands within the project area or

influenced by project operations. (Source: PG&E, 2009a)

National Forest System Lands

Surrounding

VQO Designation

McCloud reservoir Retention

Spoil piles and tunnel crossing Partial Retention

Iron Canyon reservoir Retention

James B. Black penstock Retention and Partial Retention for the

Willow Creek siphon and surge chamber

Pit 6 and Pit 7 reservoirs Retention

Pit 7 afterbay Retention

3.3.7.2 Environmental Effects

Land Use Resources

Road and Transportation Facilities Management Plan

Some of the roads used by PG&E to access project facilities are Forest Service

roads or roads owned by The Hearst Corporation. While some of these roads are used

primarily for project purposes, others are not. Roads in the project vicinity may be used

by the Forest Service for land management or by the public for recreation unrelated to the

project.

PG&E proposes to prepare a road and transportation facilities management plan

for the 14 road segments listed in table 3-34 within one year of license issuance. The

plan would include, among other things, a road inventory and condition assessment,

maps, a discussion of soil protection and erosion control measures, and a traffic safety

plan. The plan would incorporate Forest Service standards for design, construction,

operation, and maintenance and would be approved by the Forest Service. Upon

Commission approval, PG&E would implement the plan and actions specified therein.

Forest Service condition 29 specifies that PG&E file with the Commission, within

one year of license issuance, a road and transportation facility management plan,

approved by the Forest Service, for protection and maintenance of project and projectaffected roads that are on or affect NFS lands. The Forest Service proposes to include

three additional road segments in the plan, not covered by PG&E’s proposed measure:

FR 38N11 (Hawkins Creek segments 1 and 2) and FR 38N53 (Ah-Di-Na). The Forest

Service specifies that the plan should address: planning and inventory; operation,

maintenance, and road-associated debris; construction and reconstruction; monitoring;

general road use; and road use by government. PG&E should take appropriate measures

to meet Forest Service maintenance level, traffic service level, and road management
284

objectives (RMOs). PG&E should consult with the Forest Service and other affected

parties in the development of this plan. Upon Commission approval, PG&E should

implement the plan and actions specified therein.

Forest Service condition 29 also specifies that PG&E develop a memorandum of

understanding (MOU) with the Forest Service and other affected parties to address shared

road management responsibilities (e.g., costs, public safety needs, resource protection,

and erosion control mitigations). Upon Commission approval, PG&E should implement

the MOU.

PG&E alternative condition 29 proposes revisions to subheadings to remove

ambiguous wording that could lead to differences of opinion as to which roads are

covered by Forest Service condition 29. PG&E alternative condition 29 proposes

clarifications to which road segments would be covered by the plan and which road

segments would be included in a separate MOU with the Forest Service.26 PG&E

disagrees with the Forest Service’s designation of FR 38N11 (segment 1) and FR 37N78

(Iron Canyon Loop Road) as project roads for which PG&E would be responsible under

the license. PG&E’s alternative revises the extent of FR 38N11 based on an

understanding that its responsibility for shared maintenance of FR 38N11 terminates on

the west side of Kosk Creek Bridge. Further, PG&E does not agree that FR 35N93 and

FR 35N46 should be included in the MOU.

PG&E alternative condition 29 revises the text to add language to clarify the road

reconstruction implementation schedule. PG&E alternative condition 29 also revises

Forest Service condition 29 condition by proposal to remove references to bridges and

road spoil piles because none of these features associated with the project are located on

NFS lands or could directly affect NFS lands.

The Hearst Corporation owns certain roads within the project area and has existing

construction and easement agreements with PG&E and the Forest Service for

maintenance and use of these roads. While The Hearst Corporation supports the idea of

an MOU, it does not support the Forest Service’s proposed expansion of the project

boundary.

Our Analysis

PG&E is responsible for the maintenance of all project roads within the project

boundary (table 3-34). Consistent with the Commission’s October 3, 2008, study plan

determination letter and based on information contained in technical memo 22, submitted

as part of PG&E’s license application, FR 38N11 (segments 1 and 2) and FR 38N53 do

not meet the Commission’s criteria for project roads used primarily for project purposes.

26 PG&E proposes to provide for its commensurate share of responsibility for

maintenance of certain non-project roads through an MOU with the Forest Service.
285

A road and transportation facilities management plan would establish a forum for

coordination of road maintenance activities among PG&E, the Forest Service, and other

affected parties, such as The Hearst Corporation. A plan would help to clarify and

memorialize PG&E’s road management responsibilities within the project boundary.

Specifically, the plan would address operations, maintenance, construction and

reconstruction, monitoring, and road use. The development and implementation of a road

and transportation facilities management plan would improve road management and

ensure public access to project lands and waters and the adequate protection of natural

and environmental resources in the project area.

A separate MOU with the Forest Service and other affected parties would address

shared road (non-project) management responsibilities; specifically, proportionate road

share costs, public safety needs, resource protection, and erosion control mitigations.

However, roads located outside of the project boundary are not subject to Commission

jurisdiction or the terms and conditions of the project license, and therefore are also

outside the scope of 4(e) conditions.

Fire Prevention and Response Plan

Steep topography, heavy vegetation, land use, and limited access make the project

area susceptible to wildfires. For these same reasons, fire fighting near the project is

challenging and there exists the potential for small fires to grow into large and very

destructive fires. The threat and potential damage from wildfires in the project area

would remain an issue under a new project license.

PG&E proposes to prepare a fire prevention and response plan in consultation with

the Forest Service, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and Big Bend

Volunteer Fire Department within one year after license issuance. At a minimum the

plan would address fuels treatment/vegetation management; fire prevention and control;

emergency response preparedness; and reporting requirements. Additionally, the plan

would ensure that fire prevention measures meet water quality BMPs. Upon Commission

approval, PG&E would implement the plan.

Forest Service condition 33 specifies that PG&E develop a fire and fuels plan in

consultation with the Forest Service and appropriate state and local fire agencies and file

the plan with the Commission within one year of license issuance. The specified

components of this plan would include fuels treatment; fire prevention and response;

emergency response preparedness; and reporting. Additionally, the Forest Service

specifies that PG&E would cooperate fully with the Forest Service on all fire

investigations and would produce upon request all materials and witnesses not subject to

the attorney-client or attorney work product privileges, over which PG&E has control,

related to the fire and its investigation.

Forest Service condition 33 also specifies that PG&E would preserve all physical

evidence, and give custody to the Forest Service of all physical evidence requested.

Similarly, the Forest Service would provide PG&E with reasonable access to the physical
286

evidence and documents PG&E needs to defend any and all claims, which may arise

from a fire resulting from project operations, to the extent such access is not precluded by

ongoing criminal or civil litigation.

PG&E alternative condition 33 proposes a few minor revisions intended to

improve comprehension, but does not materially change Forest Service condition 33.

Our Analysis

The development and implementation of a fire prevention and response plan in

consultation with the Forest Service, the California Department of Forestry and Fire

Protection, the Big Bend Volunteer Fire Department, and others, as appropriate, that

incorporates both the measures proposed by PG&E and specified by the Forest Service

would improve planning, management, and coordination of wildfire protection and

prevention measures, as well as lead to a reduction in the occurrence and suppression of

wildfires in the project area.

Hazardous Substance Management Plan

Forest Service condition 28 specifies that PG&E will file, for Commission

approval, a plan approved by the Forest Service for oil and hazardous substances storage

and spill prevention and cleanup. The plan would be filed within one year of license

issuance, and at least 60 days before the initiation of any activities that the Forest Service

determines to be of a land-disturbing nature on NFS lands. At a minimum, the plan

would require PG&E to:

 Maintain in the project area, a cache of spill cleanup equipment suitable to

contain any spill from the project;

 Periodically inform the Forest Service of the location of the spill cleanup

equipment on NFS lands and the location, type, and quantity of oil and

hazardous substances stored in the project area; and

 Inform the Forest Service immediately of the nature, time, date, location, and

action taken for any spill on or affecting NFS lands.

PG&E alternative condition 28 proposes to provide the Forest Service copies of

PG&E’s existing SPCC plans and HMBPs for the project.

Our Analysis

To meet the regulatory requirements for handling, storage, and emergency

response related to hazardous materials, PG&E has SPCC plans and HMBPs in place.

The content of these existing plans includes the information specified in Forest Service

condition 28, and both plans must be reviewed or updated, as necessary, every

three years. Consequently, there is no need for PG&E to develop an additional plan. The

provision of copies of the existing SPCC plan and HMBP to the Commission and the

Forest Service within 30 days of license issuance and the continued implementation of
287

these plans would ensure that spills of hazardous substances are promptly contained and

cleaned up to avoid/minimize the potential extent of adverse environmental effects.

Project Boundary

While the proposed McCloud powerhouse and Pit 7 afterbay dam would be

constructed within the existing project boundary at McCloud dam and Pit 7 afterbay dam,

respectively, the proposed new transmission line corridors associated with the new

powerhouses and certain proposed new recreation facilities would be constructed outside

of the existing project boundary. PG&E proposes to include the existing access road to

Hawkins Landing Campground and boat ramp, the Fenders Flat recreation site (both are

existing project recreation facilities), and lands necessary for the proposed generation

additions within the project boundary.

The Forest Service recommends under 10(a) that the following project-related

facilities, not currently included within the project boundary, be added to the project

boundary. Specific sites include:

 Segment 1 of FR 38N11 (Hawkins Creek Road);

 FR 37N78 around Iron Canyon reservoir;

 The area between the McCloud reservoir high waterline (elevation 2,680 ft

msl) and the outside right-of-way of FR 38N11 (Hawkins Creek, segment 1),

and FR 38N04Y (Star City Road); and

 All new project recreational facilities.

The Hearst Corporation does not support the proposed expansion of the project

boundary to the outside edge of the road system.

Our Analysis

As discussed previously, the Commission has determined that FR 38N11

(Hawkins Creek segments 1 and 2) does not meet the Commission’s criteria for project

roads used primarily for project purposes and should not be included in the project

boundary. A 0.7-mile (estimated) portion of FR 37N78 (Iron Canyon Loop) is necessary

to access project infrastructure and therefore meets the Commission’s criteria for project

roads. Oak Mountain Road (FR 37N34), a designated project road, provides access to

project infrastructure at Iron Canyon reservoir; therefore, the entire length of FR 37N78

(Iron Canyon Loop) is not necessary for access to project infrastructure. Additionally,

FR 37N78 (Iron Canyon Loop) provides access for non-project users and private

landowners.

The Forest Service’s rationale for including the area between the full pool

reservoir elevation of McCloud reservoir and the outside right-of-way of FR 38N11 and

FR 38N04Y in the project boundary is to ensure that all new project recreation sites and

the parking areas and access roads that serve them are included within the project

boundary. The Forest Service also recommends that all new project recreational facilities
288

be included within the project boundary. Since the Commission will have responsibility

to ensure compliance at the project’s existing and proposed recreation areas, these areas

must be included within the project boundary and be within the Commission’s

jurisdiction. By requiring PG&E to include all project recreation sites (existing and

proposed) within the project boundary, the Commission would have the authority to

ensure that PG&E maintains adequate and safe public access to project lands and waters

for recreational purposes.

In section 2.3, Staff Alternative, staff proposes to modify the Forest Service’s

recommendation to require PG&E to include all existing (at license issuance) project

roads and recreation sites and facilities within the project boundary and to file a revised

exhibit G within one year of license issuance. Staff also recommends PG&E file a

revised exhibit G with the Commission subsequent to completing construction of new

project generating and transmission facilities or recreation sites and facilities, which shall

also be included within the project boundary. The staff proposed modification would not

require PG&E to include segment 1 of FR 38N11 (Hawkins Creek) and FR 37N78 (Iron

Canyon Loop), with the exception of a 0.7-mile segment, in the project boundary. Staff’s

proposal to require PG&E to include all new recreation sites and facilities within the

project boundary and to file a revised exhibit E would include the area between McCloud

reservoir and FR 38N11 and FR 38N04Y if PG&E constructs new recreational facilities

in this area.

Aesthetic Resources

Visual Quality Management Plan

Forest Service condition 32 specifies that PG&E develop, for Forest Service

approval and filing with the Commission, procedures or a timeline to ensure

implementation of certain mitigation measures to provide for visual quality of project and

project-related NFS lands. These mitigation measures would include, but not be limited

to, painting or reconstructing project facilities with natural looking materials and colors,

planting vegetation to screen project facilities; maintaining reservoir elevations during the

peak recreation season; developing an education plan and providing interpretive

information; and disposing of debris piles.

PG&E alternative condition 32 proposes to define the applicability of Forest

Service condition 32 to existing and proposed project facilities (i.e., generation additions)

and clarifies certain terminology. PG&E alternative condition 32 also accounts for an

apparent inconsistency between the assigned VQO and the appearance of the area,

including existing project facilities. The existing Iron Canyon, Pit 6 and 7 dams, roads,

intakes, penstocks, transmission lines, and recreational facilities are not inconsistent with

the Retention VQO because these project facilities predated the Forest Service

establishment of VQOs for this area. Further, PG&E alternative condition 32 removes

text from Forest Service condition 32 that requires modification of existing project

facilities for visual quality purposes because studies conducted during relicensing did not

identify any needed modifications. PG&E alternative condition 32 appropriately
289

proposes provisions for visual screening, painting, and other necessary mitigation

measures for any new project facilities. PG&E alternative condition 32 also reflects

PG&E’s willingness to apply mitigation measures to attempt to meet VQOs when

existing project facilities are modified. Finally, PG&E alternative condition 32 limits

future mitigation to any new spoil or debris piles created by the project (i.e., mitigation

for existing piles would not be required).

In section 2.3, Staff Alternative, staff proposes to modify the Forest Service’s

recommendation to require PG&E to develop a visual quality management plan, in

consultation with the Forest Service and others, as appropriate, to protect the visual

quality of lands in the project area within one year of license issuance. At a minimum

this plan should address the impact of any proposed project facilities, including but not

limited to generating facilities, recreation sites and facilities, and spoil piles, on the

aesthetics in the project area.

The development and implementation of a visual quality management plan would

help to ensure that new project facilities are consistent with the Forest Service’s VQOs

for the project area. The mitigations contemplated by both PG&E and the Forest Service,

such as visual screening, painting, providing interpretive information, and maintaining

reservoir water levels during the peak recreation season would collectively reduce the

impacts on aesthetic resources in the project area.

3.4 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under the no-action alternative, the project would continue to operate as it has in

the past. None of the licensee’s proposed measures or the resource agencies’

recommendations and mandatory conditions would be required, and the existing trout

populations would not be enhanced as a result of increased minimum flows. The

continued operation of the existing McCloud-Pit facilities would continue to be of

importance to water supply, recreation, generation of renewable energy, and

minimization of atmospheric pollutants. The continued operation of the existing facilities

under the no-action alternative would, on average, result in the annual generation of

1,542.2 GWh of clean energy.
290

This page intentionally left blank.
291

4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS

In this section, we estimate the economic benefits of how the McCloud-Pit

facilities now operate, the cost of various environmental measures, and the effects of

these measures on project operation under a new license. We also analyze PG&E’s

proposal to install new units at the project.

4.1 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE PROJECTS

4.1.1 Economic Assumptions

Under its approach to evaluating the economics of hydropower projects, as

articulated in Mead Corporation, Publishing Paper Division (72 FERC ¶61,027, July 13,

1995) (Mead), the Commission employs an analysis that uses current costs to compare

the costs of the project and likely alternative power with no consideration for potential

future inflation, escalation, or deflation beyond the license issuance date. The

Commission’s economic analysis provides a general estimate of the potential power

benefits and costs of a project and reasonable alternatives to project-generated power.

The estimate helps to support an informed decision concerning what is in the public

interest with respect to a proposed license.

For our economic analysis of the PG&E’s proposed project and alternatives, we

used the assumptions, values, and sources shown in table 4-1.

Table 4-1. Staff assumptions for economic analysis of the McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric

Project. (Source: Staff)

Assumption Value Source

Base year for costs and benefits 2009 PG&E, 2009a

Peak/Off-peak energy value (mills/kWh)a87.5 PG&E, 2009a

Dependable capacity value ($/kW-yr)a0 PG&E, 2009a

Period of analysis 30 years Staff

Term of financing 20 years Staff

Federal and state tax rate 40.75% PG&E, 2009a

2009 to 2010 inflation for most final

license applications costs 0% Staff

Insurance rate 1.2% PG&E, 2009a

Discount rate 8.8% PG&E, 2009a

Interest rate 8.8% PG&E, 2009a

a Based on exhibit H of the application, we assumed the energy values reflect a

capacity component.
292

4.1.2 Current Annual Costs and Future Capital Costs Under the No-Action

Alternative

Total annualized costs for the no-action alternative for the McCloud-Pit

Hydroelectric Project amounts to $23,102,533 as table 4-2 shows.

Table 4-2. Summary of current annual costs and future costs under the no-action

alternative for the McCloud Pit Hydroelectric Project. (Source: PG&E,

2009a, staff)

Cost

Capital and

One-Time

Costs

Annual Costs,

Including O&M

Total Annualized

Costs

Total original net

investment a $44,700,000 $7,667,033

Total relicensing cost a$26,400,000 $4,528,181

Subtotal $71,100,000 $12,195,214

O&M including insurance $4,853,200 $4,853,200

Taxes and fees $1,674,119 $1,674,119

Commission fees $880,000 $880,000

Future capital additions a$3,500,000 $3,500,000

Subtotal annual costs $10,907,319 $10,907,319

Total $71,100,000 $23,102,533

a

PG&E (2009) exhibit D, page D-3, table D.4.3–1

4.2 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Table 4-3 compares the power value, annual costs, and net benefits of the noaction alternative, PG&E’s proposed action, the staff alternative, and the staff alternative

with mandatory conditions. In section 5, Comprehensive Development and

Recommended Alternative, we discuss our reasons for recommending the staff

alternative, and explain why we conclude the environmental benefits are worth the cost

increases and benefit reductions.
293

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

alternative, and staff alternative with mandatory conditions for the

McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project. (Source: Staff)

No Action

PG&E’s

Proposed

Action

Staff

Alternative

Staff

Alternative

With

Mandatory

Conditions

Annual power value

($) $134,942,500 $133,376,250 $131,442,500 $131,442,500

Annual power value

($/MWh) $87.50 $87.50 $87.50 $87.50

Annualized cost of

plant and current

environmental

measures ($)

$23,102,533 $23,102,533 $23,102,533 $23,102,533

Annualized cost of

new environmental

measures (including

energy losses

contained in the

power values above)

($)

$0 $11,818,570 $14,082,303 $14,709,494

Annualized cost of

new environmental

measures (excluding

energy losses

contained in the

power values above)

($)

$0 $10,252,320 $10,582,303 $11,209,494

Annual cost ($) $23,102,533 $33,354,853 $33,684,836 $34,312,027

Annual cost ($/MWh) $14.98 $21.88 $22.42 $22.84

Annual net benefit ($) $111,839,967 $100,021,397 $97,757,664 $97,130,473

Annual net benefit

($/MWh) $72.52 $65.62 $65.08 $64.66
294

4.2.1 No-Action Alternative

PG&E provided an estimate of average annual output of the project under the noaction alternative (current conditions) of 1,542.2 GWh, which would provide annual

power benefits of $134,942,500. Subtracting the current costs of $23,102,533 (see table

4-2) yields an annual net benefit of $111,839,967.

4.2.2 PG&E’s Proposed Action

The measures that PG&E proposes, summarized in table 4-4, increase the

annualized costs from $23,102,533 to $33,354,853 relative to the no-action alternative.

PG&E proposes some operational changes which would reduce annual generation by

17.9 GWh, resulting in annual power benefits of $133,376,250 and an annual net benefit

of $100,021,397. This equals an overall reduction in annual net benefits of $11,818,570

relative to the no-action alternative. The decrease in net benefits from $72.52/MWh under

the no-action alternative to $65.62/MWh for the proposed action represents a decrease of

9.5 percent.

4.2.3 Staff Alternative

The measures included in the staff alternative, summarized in table 4-4, would

increase annualized costs from $23,102,533 to $33,684,836 relative to the no-action

alternative. Operational changes would reduce annual generation from 1,542,200 MWh

to 1,502,200 MWh. The staff alternative would provide annual power benefits of

$131,442,500 and an annual net benefit of $97,757,664. This represents an overall

reduction in annual net benefits of $14,082,303 relative to the no-action alternative. The

decrease in net benefits from $72.52/MWh under the no-action alternative to

$65.08/MWh for the proposed action represents a decrease of 10.3 percent.

4.2.4 Staff Alternative with Mandatory Conditions

The measures included in the staff alternative with mandatory conditions,

summarized in table 4-4, would increase annualized costs from $23,102,533 to

$34,312,027 relative to the no-action alternative. Operational changes would reduce

annual generation from 1,542,200 MWh to 1,502,200 MWh. The staff alternative with

mandatory conditions would provide annual power benefits of $131,442,500 and an

annual net benefit of $97,130,473. This represents an overall reduction in annual net

benefits of $14,709,494 relative to the no-action alternative. The decrease in net benefits

from $72.52/MWh under the no-action alternative to $64.66/MWh for the staff

alternative with mandatory conditions represents a decrease of 10.8 percent.
295

4.3 COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES

4.3.1 Cost of Environmental Measures for the McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project

PG&E provided costs for environmental measures in current dollars. Costs are

taken from the final license application filed in 2009, and the PG&E reply comments on

comments, recommendations, terms, and conditions (PG&E, 2010). Table 4-4

summarizes the capital and O&M costs by major resource area. Proposed environmental

measures that are directly associated with the proposed powerhouses at McCloud and

Pit 7 afterbay are included separately in table 4-5. Changes in power benefits are

addressed in section 4.2.

Appendix B includes capital and O&M costs for individual measures proposed by

PG&E and included in terms, conditions, and recommendations received from agencies

and other interested parties.
296

Table 4-4. Summary of annualized costs by resource area for measures included in the proposed action and proposed

action with staff modifications for the McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project.a(Source: Staff)

PG&E’s Proposed Action Staff Alternative Staff Alternative with Mandatory

Conditions

Resource

Area

Annualized

Capital

Cost

Annualized

O&M Cost

Total

Annualized

Cost

(excluding

energy)

Annualized

Capital

Cost

Annualized

O&M Cost

Total

Annualized

Cost

(excluding

energy)

Annualized

Capital

Cost

Annualized

O&M Cost

Total

Annualized

Cost

(excluding

energy)

General $0 $90,000 $90,000 $0 $90,000 $90,000 $0 $90,000 $90,000

Geology

and soils $390,192 $182,000 $572,192 $393,998 $257,000 $650,998 $399,708 $257,000 $656,708

Aquatic

resources

$75,754 $70,000 $145,754 $111,348 $355,000 $466,348 $112,395 $358,500 $470,895

Terrestrial

resources

$139,518 $562,000 $701,518 $109,485 $495,000 $604,485 $109,485 $495,000 $604,485

Threatened

and

endangered

species

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Recreation

resources

$3,230,976 $1,011,000 $4,241,976 $3,475,655 $1,036,000 $4,511,655 $3,500,589 $1,365,000 $4,865,589

Cultural

resources

$83,748 $200,000 $283,748 $83,748 $200,000 $283,748 $83,748 $200,000 $283,748

Land use

and

aesthetic

resources

$2,952,132 $1,265,000 $4,217,132 $2,973,069 $1,002,000 $3,975,069 $2,973,069 $1,265,000 $4,238,069

Total $6,872,320 $3,380,000 $10,252,320 $7,147,303 $3,435,000 $10,582,303 $7,178,994 $4,030,500 $11,209,494

a

This summary does not include mitigation measures that are directly associated with the construction of a proposed

powerhouse.
297

Table 4-5. Summary of annualized costs by resource area for measures included in the proposed action and proposed

action with staff modifications for the McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project. This summary includes only

measures that are directly associated with construction of a proposed powerhouse. (Source: Staff)

PG&E’s Proposed Action Staff Alternative Staff Alternative with Mandatory

Conditions

Resource

Area

Annualized

Capital

Cost

Annualized

O&M Cost

Total

Annualized

Cost

(excluding

energy)

Annualized

Capital

Cost

Annualized

O&M Cost

Total

Annualized

Cost

(excluding

energy)

Annualized

Capital

Cost

Annualized

O&M Cost

Total

Annualized

Cost

(excluding

energy)

General $0 $0 $0 $31,025 $16,500 $47,525 $31,025 $16,500 $47,525

Geology

and soils $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Aquatic

resources

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Terrestrial

resources

$0 $0 $0 $59,005 $287,000 $346,005 $59,005 $287,000 $346,005

Threatened

and

endangered

species

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Recreation

resources

$26,838 $11,000 $37,838 $26,838 $11,000 $37,838 $26,838 $11,000 $37,838

Cultural

resources

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Land use

and

aesthetic

resources

$0 $0 $$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Total $26,838 $11,000 $37,838 $116,868 $314,500 $431,368 $116,868 $314,500 $431,368
298

4.3.2 Effect of Environmental Measures on Energy Generation

Several measures proposed by PG&E or included in the terms and conditions filed

by the agencies and other parties would affect energy generation. For the McCloud-Pit

Hydroelectric Project, increased minimum flows proposed for the McCloud river reaches

are the only measures that would have a substantive effect on energy generation.

Estimates of the power benefits under PG&E’s proposed action, the staff alternative

(which includes California Trout, Trout Unlimited, and the McCloud River Club’s

proposed flow regime), and the staff alternative with mandatory conditions (which

includes Forest Service condition 19 flows) are shown in table 4-6.

Table 4-6. Summary of the effect of environmental measures on energy for the noaction, proposed action, staff alternative, and staff alternative with

mandatory conditions for the McCloud-Pit Project. (Source: Staff)

No Action

PG&E’s

Proposed

Action

Staff

Alternative

Staff

Alternative

With

Mandatory

Conditions

Total power (MWh) 1,542,200 1,524,300 1,502,200 1,502,200

Total power value ($) $134,942,500 $133,376,250 $131,442,500 $131,442,500

Power lost relative to no

action (MWh) 0 17,900 40,000 40,000

Reduction in power value

relative to no action ($) $0 $1,556,250 $3,500,000 $3,500,000

4.4 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES FOR PG&E’S PROPOSED

POWERHOUSES

To develop the hydro potential from higher instream flows required in a new

license, PG&E proposed to install new units at both the Pit 7 afterbay and the McCloud

powerhouses. For Pit 7 afterbay, PG&E estimates a 5-MW powerhouse would produce

25 GWH and a 10-MW powerhouse would produce 50 GWh. For the McCloud project,

installing a 5-MW powerhouse would produce 30 GWh and installing an 8-MW

powerhouse would produce 40 GWh. In the final license application, PG&E says it will

determine the final size of the units and their hydraulic capacity based on instream flow

requirements of the new project license. In table 4-7, we compare our estimate of the

power value, annual costs, and net benefits of the powerhouse alternatives PG&E’s

presents in the license application.
299

Table 4-7. Summary of annual net benefits for the proposed powerhouses of the

McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project. (Source: Staff)

Pit 7 Afterbay

5 MW

Pit 7 Afterbay

10 MW

McCloud

5 MW

McCloud

8 MW

Annual power value ($) $2,187,500 $4,410,000 $2,625,000 $3,500,000

Annual power value

($/MWh) $87.50 $87.50 $87.50 $87.50

Annualized cost of

plant and environmental

measures ($)

$11,876,628 $17,269,763 $6,390,817 $8,597,123

Annual cost ($/MWh) $475.07 $342.65 $213.03 $214.93

Annual net benefit ($) ($9,689,128) ($12,859,763) ($3,765,817) ($5,097,123)

Annual net benefit

($/MWh) ($387.57) ($255.15) ($125.53) ($127.43)

As table 4-7 shows, the four alternatives that PG&E is considering would have

initial annual costs that far exceed the current power value. Although Commission staff

does not explicitly account for the effects inflation may have on the future cost of

electricity, the fact that hydropower generation is relatively insensitive to inflation

compared to fossil-fueled generators is an important economic consideration for power

producers and the consumers they serve. PG&E must also consider whether these hydro

proposals would qualify as part of its state requirement to develop renewable resources.

Based on the Commission’s policy under the Mead decision, it is the applicant who must

decide whether to accept any license and the financial risk that entails.
300

This page intentionally left blank.
301

5.0 STAFF’S CONCLUSIONS

5.1 COMPARISON OF EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION AND

ALTERNATIVES

In this section, we compare the developmental and non-developmental effects of

PG&E’s proposal, PG&E’s proposal as modified by staff (staff alternative), and the

no-action alternative.

We estimate the annual net benefits of operating and maintaining the McCloud-Pit

Project under the three alternatives identified above. Our analysis shows that the annual

net benefit would be $100,021,397 for the proposed action; $97,757,664 for the staff

alternative; and $111,839,967 for the no-action alternative.

We summarize the environmental effects of the different alternatives in table 5-1.

Table 5-1. Comparison of alternatives for the McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project.

(Source: Staff)

Resource No-action Alternative Proposed Action Staff Alternative

Generation 1,542.2 GWh 1524.3 GWh 1,502.2 GWh

Geology

and Soils

Continued removal of

LWD behind McCloud

dam

Prepare an LWD

management plan to

facilitate the placing of

LWD downstream of

McCloud dam

Same as proposed

action

Continue to maintain

roadways and

implement BMPs to

reduce sediment input

to project waters

Implement erosion and

sediment monitoring

and control plan to

minimize erosion

Same as proposed

action
302

Resource No-action Alternative Proposed Action Staff Alternative

Monitor gravel and

coarse sediment that

could benefit

downstream aquatic

habitat

The proposed action

plus implement a

gravel and coarse

sediment management

plan to add 150 to

600 tons of gravel and

coarse sediment, from

Star City Creek or

other potential sites, to

the Lower McCloud

River periodically for

protection of geology

and soil resources

Aquatic

Resources

Provide existing

minimum flows in all

stream reaches

Higher minimum

instream flows below

McCloud and Iron

Canyon dams

Higher minimum

instream flows below

McCloud and Iron

Canyon dams

consistent with a more

natural spring

hydrograph

No ramping rates for

seasonal minimum

flow changes, but

upramping at 100 cfs

per hour prior to

uncontrollable spills

Downramping at

150 cfs each 48 hours

at McCloud dam

during spills

controllable by valve

Maximum upramping

during controllable

spills at 200 cfs each

24 hours; implement

water quality and

temperature

monitoring plan

Move streamflow

measurements for

McCloud dam from

gage MC-1 to MC-7

Measure streamflow

compliance at two

compliance points

(MC-7 and MC-1)
303

Resource No-action Alternative Proposed Action Staff Alternative

No aquatic biological

monitoring plan

Implement an aquatic

biological monitoring

plan

Implement water

quality monitoring

plan

Same as proposed

action

Terrestrial

Resources

Continue to implement

vegetation

management programs

around project

facilities

Implement vegetation

management plan to

guide restoration using

native plants and

manage invasive

plants

Implement BMPs to

protect wetlands

during construction of

McCloud transmission

line

Use native vegetation

during restoration of

areas disturbed by

project-related

activities

Implement the

vegetation

management plan as

proposed under Forest

Service condition 25

with modifications to

include language from

the licensee’s

alternative condition

and the use of BMPs

and native vegetation

during restoration

activities
304

Resource No-action Alternative Proposed Action Staff Alternative

Monitor bald eagle

territories

Implement wildlife

management plan

Implement the

terrestrial biological

management plan as

proposed under Forest

Service condition 26

with modifications to

include language from

the licensee’s

alternative condition

Monitor known bat

habitat annually for

five years after plan

approval, then once

every five years

Prepare biological

evaluations for

special-status species

prior to new

construction within

the project boundary

Implement APLIC

standards for

transmission lines to

minimize avian

collision and

electrocution hazards

Same as proposed

action

Threatened

and

Endangered

Species

Implement Valley

Elderberry Longhorn

Beetle Conservation

Program

Same as no-action plus

conduct

preconstruction

surveys for Pacific

fisher and to minimize

effects on northern

spotted owl

Same as proposed

action
305

Resource No-action Alternative Proposed Action Staff Alternative

Recreation

Resources

Fund California Fish

and Game trout

stocking program

Continue funding to

California Fish and

Game for stocking

trout annually and to

evaluate fish stocking

program

Stock 60,000 pounds

of trout annually at the

project and develop

and implement a fish

stocking plan

Continue to operate

and maintain existing

recreational facilities

at the project

Implement recreation

development and

management plan to

include rehabilitation

and upgrades to

existing recreation

facilities, reservoir

water surface

management,

recreation monitoring,

and a signage and

education plan,

providing streamflow

information to the

public via the internet

Evaluation of fish

stocking at the project

and monitoring of boat

use at the reservoirs as

a part of the recreation

monitoring

Construct new day-use

area at McCloud

reservoir, include

fish/swimming

platform, reconstruct

and extend existing

boat ramp, and add

parking at Tarantula

Gulch

Same as proposed but

add lighting at

Tarantula Gulch boat

ramp

Provide a formal

campground at

McCloud reservoir at

Star City

Same as proposed

Conduct a feasibility

study to find a suitable

location for a floating

dock or pier and trail

at McCloud reservoir

Construct a floating

dock or pier and trail

at McCloud reservoir
306

Resource No-action Alternative Proposed Action Staff Alternative

Construct a day-use

site and access trail

along the Lower

McCloud River, at the

base of McCloud dam

Same as proposed

Reconstruct Hawkins

Landing boat ramp

and campground and

provide additional

parking, restroom

facilities, and conduct

a site evaluation to

provide three paved

parking areas with

shoreline access points

Same as proposed with

the inclusion of three

paved parking areas

with shoreline access

points at Iron Canyon

reservoir

Construct new boat

ramp and shoreline

access at Iron Canyon

reservoir

Same as proposed with

the inclusion of adding

lighting at the boat

ramp

Relocate (if feasible)

and reconstruct

Deadlun Campground

if a suitable location is

found

Same as proposed

action with the

exception of

reconstructing, not

relocating Deadlun

Campground

Remove snow at Iron

Canyon dam boat

ramp and access road

when project

operations require

snow removal from

Oak Mountain Road

Same as proposed
307

Resource No-action Alternative Proposed Action Staff Alternative

Evaluate the feasibility

of constructing a

pedestrian shoreline

access trail at the

upper end of Pit 7

reservoir, downstream

of Pit 6 powerhouse

tailrace, and

Construct the

shoreline access trail

Conduct feasibility

assessment for

providing boat put-in

or boat hand- launch at

Montgomery Creek,

near the lower end of

Pit 7 reservoir, if not

feasible construct a

fishing access trail

with boat hand-launch

Conduct a site

evaluation to

determine the location

of a pedestrian

shoreline access trail

at the lower end of Pit

7 reservoir with paved

parking. Once a

suitable location is

found, construct this

facility within five

years of license

issuance

Reconstruct Fenders

Flat day-use area

(above Pit 7 afterbay

dam) and provide

access near the

proposed Pit 7

afterbay powerhouse,

and provide parking at

the end of the

powerhouse access

road

Same as proposed

Conduct a site

evaluation to

determine the location

of three paved parking

areas along FR 37N78

Construct three paved

parking areas along

FR 37N78
308

Resource No-action Alternative Proposed Action Staff Alternative

Provide project patrols No requirement for

project patrol plan,

patrols, or funding for

law enforcement

position

Cultural

Resources

Finalize and

implement Historic

Properties

Management Plan

(HPMP)

Implement HPMP

with some additional

measures

Continue employee

environmental training

and sensitivity

program

Continue employee

environmental training

and sensitivity

program as part of the

HPMP

Same as proposed

action

Provide program to

educate public about

cultural significance of

area (with assistance

from Pit River Tribe,

Winnemem Wintu

Tribe, and Forest

Service)

Same as proposed

action

Land Use

and

Aesthetics

Continue to maintain

all project roads and

facilities

Develop and

implement a road and

transportation facility

management plan for

project roads

Same as proposed

action plus revise

project boundary to

include all project

roads and existing

recreational facilities

Execute a separate

MOU with the Forest

Service for areas with

shared responsibility

Outside of licensing

processing
309

Resource No-action Alternative Proposed Action Staff Alternative

Continue to implement

the Spill Prevention

Control and

Countermeasure

(SPCC) Plan and the

Hazardous Materials

Business Plan

(HMBP)

Same as No-action,

but provide the Forest

Service with copies of

the current SPCC

plans and HMBPs

Same as proposed

action

Develop and

implement visual

quality management

plan

Same as proposed

action

Develop and

implement a fire

response plan

Same as proposed

action

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

and no enhancement of environmental resources would occur.

5.2 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED

ALTERNATIVE

Sections 4(e) and 10(a)(1) of the FPA require the Commission to give equal

consideration to the power development purposes and to the purposes of energy

conservation; the protection, mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of fish and

wildlife; the protection of recreation opportunities; and the preservation of other aspects

of environmental quality. Any license issued shall be such as in the Commission’s

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

waterway or waterways for all beneficial public uses. This section contains the basis for,

and a summary of, our recommendations for relicensing the McCloud-Pit Project. We

weigh the costs and benefits of our recommended alternative against other proposed

measures.

Based on our independent review of agency and public comments filed on this

project and our review of the environmental and economic effects of the proposed action,

the staff alternative, and no-action, we recommend the staff alternative as the preferred

alternative for the McCloud-Pit project.

We recommend this alternative because: (1) issuing a new license would allow

PG&E to continue operating the project as a beneficial, dependable source of water and

electric energy; (2) the project, with a total installed capacity of 368 MW may eliminate
310

the need for an equivalent amount of fossil fuel-produced energy, which helps conserve

these non-renewable resources and limits atmospheric pollution; (3) our recommended

environmental measures would protect water quality and quantity, enhance fish and

wildlife resources, protect cultural resources; and improve public use of the project’s

recreational facilities and resources; and (4) the public benefit of these measures would

exceed those of the other alternatives. Although we did not adopt all of the Forest

Service’s 4(e) conditions, or adopted them with modifications, we recognize that the

Commission must include these conditions in their entirety, without modification in any

license it may issue, due to their mandatory nature.

In the staff alternative, we include the following environmental measures proposed

by PG&E, based on our analyses included in sections 3 and 4. In some cases, we

modified or supplemented PG&E’s proposed measures and these modifications are

indicated in italic text.

Geology and Soils

 Prepare an LWD management plan.

 Prepare an erosion and sediment monitoring and control plan.

Aquatic Resources

 Continue to implement the current minimum flow release schedule for the Pit 7

afterbay reach.

 Implement upramping rates of no more than 100 cfs per hour prior to the start

of an uncontrolled spill event at McCloud dam.

 Develop and implement a water quality monitoring plan.

Recreation Resources

 Implement a recreation development and management plan that would include:

location, conceptual designs, and schedules for upgrading existing recreation

facilities and constructing new recreation facilities; plans using Forest Service

design standards (including applicable standards for providing access to users

with disabilities); and details regarding O&M activities at all recreation

facilities including existing and new project recreation facilities. The plan also

should incorporate the following components:

o A project sign plan that includes an interpretive and education component;

o Monitoring, visitor surveys, and use estimation concurrent with the

recreation Form 80 reporting. This measure also should include details

addressing collection of annual use data at facilities where passes/fees are

collected; consult with Forest Service on the survey methods for the

Recreational Resource Survey and consult every six years (concurrent with

the FERC Form 80) with the Forest Service, appropriate agencies, and
311

interested parties to review and adjust project-wide recreation management

objective, if needed; and

o A water surface management plan to manage reservoir use at McCloud

reservoir. This plan component would include installing speed limit signs

in the northern end of the reservoir, LWD removal from the reservoir,

points of public access to the shoreline, and boating speeds. This measure

would also include details addressing monitoring and management of

recreation user safety, including developing protocols for all project

reservoirs for preventing/removing unapproved buoy courses, approved use

of docks, and measures to prevent unauthorized access to project lands and

waters; annual surface sweeps of McCloud and Iron Canyon reservoirs and

boat ramps to remove logs and other debris; monitoring boat use on

McCloud and Iron Canyon reservoirs every six years coinciding with the

Commission recreation Form 80 schedule; and reassessing water surface

management mitigations every six years.

 Provide real-time stream flow (gage MC-1) and drawdown information to the

public via PG&E’s webpage on the internet.

 At McCloud and Iron Canyon reservoirs, assess and implement closures of

user-created roads, trails, and dispersed use sites leading to the shoreline of

McCloud and Iron Canyon reservoirs, in coordination with the Forest Service.

McCloud Reservoir

 Within five years of Commission approval of the recreation plan, if feasible

within site constraint limitations, reconstruct the Tarantula Gulch boat ramp to

California Boating standards, provide a boarding dock, and extend the launch

ramp to 3 ft (vertical) below the minimum operating pool elevation, including

the specifications for reconstructing the boat ramp to California Boating

standards to provide one-lane ramp with boarding dock and sidewalk;

redesigning the parking lot to maximize parking spaces; developing a paved

parking area and turnaround; designating parking spaces; and maintaining or

relocating and maintaining a vault restroom.

 Within five years of Commission approval of the recreation plan, provide

access points (paved parking and shoreline access trail) at Battle Creek, West

dam, and East dam. This measure is modified to include details for picnic

tables and the number of vehicles that can be accommodated at the parking

areas (three).

 Within five years of Commission approval of the recreation plan, develop a

formal campground at Star City with walk-in sites (estimate six sites), paved

parking, vault restroom, potable water, tables, fire rings/grills, trash

receptacles/removal, and host site. This measure is modified to include
312

specifications for the camping area, including campsites, restroom, and

potable water.

Lower McCloud River

 Within five years of Commission approval of the recreation plan, provide

a day-use facility at the base of McCloud dam and provide parking, vault

restroom, trash receptacle/removal, and shoreline pedestrian access trail on

river left to the pool below the spillway. This measure is modified to include

details for a day-use area with paved parking for a minimum of three vehicles,

signage, and a shoreline access trail from the base of the dam to splash pool

below the spillway that accommodates fishing and boating access and an

access road.

Iron Canyon Reservoir

 Within five years of Commission approval of the recreation plan, reconstruct

Hawkins Landing Campground to Forest Service standards and provide

potable water and reconstruct or resurface the access road to allow all-season

use. This measure is modified to include details for the campground including

an entrance gate with signing; surfaced loop road; parking spurs; site posts;

picnic tables; anima- resistant food boxes; fire rings; vault restrooms; animalresistant trash receptacles; and developed trail from the campground to the

adjacent boat ramp and shoreline for pedestrian fishing access.

 Within five years of Commission approval of the recreation plan, retain

concrete ramp surface at Hawkins Landing Boat Launch and replace or repair

the surfacing that connects to the concrete ramp. This measure is modified to

include specifications for reconstruction of boat ramp surface (length and

width) to meet California Boating standards for one lane, and to specify a

surfaced and striped parking lot above high water level for a minimum of

10 vehicles with a single-vault toilet, animal-resistant trash receptacle, and an

information sign.

 Within five years of Commission approval of the recreation plan, reconstruct

Deadlun Campground to Forest Service standards and increase capacity by

about 10 sites to provide about 37 sites and provide potable water a shoreline

access trail. This measure is modified to include details for campsites and

campground including specifications for parking spurs, site posts, picnic

tables, animal-resistant food lockers, fire rings, two 2-vault restrooms, and

animal-resistant trash receptacles.

 Within five years of Commission approval of the recreation plan, construct a

new boat launch at the east end of Iron Canyon dam that meets California

Boating standards and provide vault restroom, picnic tables, potable water, and

trash receptacles/removal. This measure is modified to include specifications

for the boat ramp to be operable at minimum operating pool, for snow removal
313

for parking area and ramp when project operations require snow removal

from Oak Mountain Road, and one-lane ramp placement should include option

for two lanes if needed during mid-license review, and details for the parking

area capacity, number of picnic tables.

 Conduct a site evaluation to determine the location of three paved parking

areas along FR 37N78, each with a capacity of up to three vehicle parking

spaces and a pedestrian shoreline access trail. Once three suitable locations

are identified, design and construct these project facilities. This measure is

modified to specify the evaluation would be completed within two years of

license issuance.

 Allow public use of at least one campground year-round. This measure is

modified to specify that a schedule for implementation would be included in

the recreation plan.

Pit 7 Reservoir

 Conduct a site evaluation to determine the location of a pedestrian shoreline

access trail at the upper end of Pit 7 reservoir, downstream of Pit 6 powerhouse

tailrace. This measure is modified to include specifications for conducting the

site evaluation within two years of license issuance, consultation with the

Forest Service, and once a suitable location is found, constructing this facility

within five years of Commission approval of the recreation plan. The facility

would include a trailhead, parking for up to three vehicles, and hand-launch

boating access.

Pit 7 afterbay

 Within two years of Commission approval of the recreation plan, grade and

maintain FR 35N66 from its intersection with FR 37N78 to the car-top boat

launch. Provide a vault restroom near the car-top boat launch.

 Continue to prohibit public access to Pit 7 afterbay water surface and shoreline

by maintaining fencing, signage, and patrols.

 If the Pit 7 afterbay powerhouse is constructed, provide a paved parking area

for two to three vehicles at the end of the powerhouse access road or along

Fenders Ferry Road and provide a vault restroom, trash receptacle/removal,

and pedestrian access to the shoreline between the powerhouse and Fenders

Ferry Bridge. This measure is modified to include specifications for the

restroom and to condition the day-use area on public safety and homeland

security needs.

 Within five years of Commission approval of the recreation plan, provide a

day-use site at Fenders Flat with a capacity five sites, parking, vault restroom,

tables, fire grills, and trash receptacles/removal, and coordinate with the Forest

Service to develop and implement a plan to revegetate disturbed areas and
314

prevent vehicle access beyond the access road and parking area. This measure

is modified to include specifications for the parking area.

Land Use and Aesthetic Resources

 Develop, file, and implement, within one year of license issuance, a road and

transportation facilities management plan for all project roads.

 Develop, file, and implement, within one year of license issuance, a fire

prevention and response plan.

 File copies of the existing SPCC plan and HMBP with the Commission and

provide copies to the Forest Service within 30 days of license issuance and

continue to implement these plans.

 Include all project roads and recreation sites within the project boundary and

file a revised exhibit G with the Commission within one year of license

issuance.

 Develop, file, and implement, within one year of license issuance, a visual

quality management plan.

Additional Measures Identified by Staff

In addition to PG&E’s proposed measures listed above (and modified as

indicated), the staff alternative also includes the following additional measures identified

by staff based on agency, tribal, and non-governmental organization specifications,

recommendations, and our analysis.

Geology and Soils

 Within 12 months of license issuance, develop and implement a gravel and

coarse sediment management plan in consultation with agencies and approved

by the Forest Service. Augment gravel and coarse sediment periodically.

Evaluate Star City Creek as a primary source of gravel, and evaluate other

potential alternate local sites.

Aquatic Resources

 Implement a minimum flow release schedule for the McCloud dam reach, as

follows:
315

Month Lower McCloud River Flows (cfs) by Water Yeara

May – June 200

July– February 14 1751

February 15-29 0-75% ROb No flow change

76-89% ROb No flow change

90-99% RObIncrease flow by 75 cfs

100-119% RObIncrease flow by 125 cfs

≥120% RObIncrease flow by 175 cfs

March 1-15 0-75% ROb No flow change

76-89% RObIncrease flow by 50 cfs

90-99% RObIncrease flow by 50 cfs

100-119% ROb

Increase flow by 100 cfs

≥120% ROb

Increase flow by 150 cfs

March 16-31 0-75% ROc No flow change

76-89% ROc No flow change

90-99% ROc No flow change

100-119% ROc

Increase flow by 50 cfs

≥120% ROc

Increase flow by 150 cfs

April 1-15 0-75% ROc No flow change

76-89% ROc No flow change

90-99% ROc No flow change

100-119% ROc

No flow change

≥120% ROcIncrease flow by 50 cfs

April 16 – April 30 April 15 MC-7

Release ≥ 200 cfs

Decrease flow by 50 cfs each Friday after April 15

(if 0-99%RO) and by 75 cfs per week (if ≥ 100%

RO) until flow is 200 cfs.

Decrease flow by 50 cfs each Friday after May 1

until flow is 200 cfs. Maintain 200 cfs release at

gage MC-7 through June 30.

April 15 MC-7

Release <200 cfs

175 cfs at MC-7; maintain at least 200 cfs at AhDi-Na (MC-1)

1 Mean daily flow at USGS Gage 11367800 (MC-1) at Ah-Di-Na should be

at least 200 cfs.
316

 Implement a minimum flow release schedule for the Iron Canyon dam reach,

as follows:

Release from Iron Canyon Dam (cfs) by Water Year-type

Month Wet Above Normal

Below Normal, Dry,

Critically Dry

October 10 7 7

November 10 7 7

December 15 10 7

January 15 10 7

February 15 10 7

March >20b15 10

April >20b15 10

May 15 10 7

June 15 10 7

July 10 7 7

August 10 7 7

September 10 7 7

 Downramp all spill events controllable at McCloud dam by valve operation at

a maximum rate of 150 cfs per 48 hour until the prescribed minimum instream

flow value is reached and upramp operational controllable spills at McCloud

dam at a maximum rate of 200 cfs per 24 hour period.

 Determine water year type based on the forecast of unimpaired runoff of the

Sacramento River near Redding as provided by DWR Bulletin 120 or its

successor.

 Operate, maintain, and modify (if necessary) gages needed to determine river

stage and minimum streamflow and measure and document all instream flow

releases in publicly available formats.

 Develop and implement an aquatic biological monitoring plan within

12 months of license issuance and for Commission approval, after consultation

with interested parties and approved by the Forest Service, for fish, benthic

macroinvertebrates, special-status aquatic mollusks, other special-status

species, and invasive aquatic species in the McCloud River and Iron Canyon

Creek. Periodic sampling of fish, benthic macroinvertebrates, and specialstatus mollusks would occur once every three years for the first nine years, and
317

then once every five years thereafter. The number of sites, site locations,

sampling methods, and data protocols should be consistent with relicensing

studies.

Terrestrial Resources and Threatened and Endangered Species

 Implement a vegetation and invasive weed management and monitoring plan,

as specified by Forest Service condition 25, with the inclusion of the speciesspecific monitoring schedule proposed in PG&E alternative condition 25;

BMPs to avoid/minimize effects on wetlands; and restoration of native

vegetation in relevant areas disturbed as a result of project activities will also

be included in this plan.

 Implement a TBMP as specified by Forest Service condition 26, with the

inclusion of the species-specific monitoring schedule proposed in PG&E

alternative condition 26. The special-status species section of the TBMP also

should incorporate a foothill yellow-legged frog monitoring plan.

 Exclude the use of pesticides and herbicides on NFS land, unless prior written

approval is received first from the Forest Service, as specified by Forest

Service condition 15.

Recreation Resources

 Stock 60,000 pounds of trout annually at the project and develop (for

Commission approval) and implement a fish stocking plan in consultation with

California Fish and Game within two years of license issuance and evaluate

and monitor the amount of fish to be stocked every six years.

 Construct, within two years of license issuance, a floating dock or pier and trail

(away from Tarantula Gulch boat launch) at McCloud reservoir.

 Provide lighting at both the Tarantula Gulch and Iron Canyon boat launches.

 Conduct a site evaluation to determine the location of a pedestrian shoreline

access trail at the lower end of Pit 7 reservoir, with paved parking. Once a

suitable location is found, construct this facility within five years of

Commission approval of the recreation plan.

Cultural Resources

 Implement the final HPMP prior to license issuance, as proposed by PG&E

and specified by Forest Service condition 34. Include additional staff

modifications, including inclusion of treatment measures for site CA-SHA-252

and National Register evaluations for all adversely effected sites.
318

5.2.1 Discussion of Key Issues

The following paragraphs describe the basis for staff-recommended measures as

well as for not recommending measures recommended by other entities. Under each

major issue, we discuss our recommendations for the McCloud-Pit Project.

Geology and Soils

Large Woody Debris

LWD in the project streams functions primarily as: (1) aquatic habitat along the

channel margins, (2) riparian habitat where it rafts up onto surfaces above the low-flow

channel, and (3) in rare cases, as aquatic habitat where wood is retained in the active

portion of side channels. As LWD breaks apart and decays, it may also increase the

supply of organic material to the river channel, benefiting benthic macroinvertebrates and

other components of the aquatic food web.

In Iron Canyon Creek, LWD is abundant and project operations appear to have

little or no effect on LWD supply. In the Lower McCloud River, however, the large

channel width, high stream power, and normally low amount of LWD that passes the

McCloud dam limit the availability of downstream LWD. PG&E proposes to prepare an

LWD management plan after consultation with the Forest Service. The plan would

provide an operating procedure to facilitate the placing of woody debris downstream of

McCloud dam. The plan would specify size criteria, placement and storage sites, volume

and frequency of placement, and monitoring procedures.

Forest Service condition 21 is consistent with PG&E’s proposal and specifies that

monitoring procedures included in the plan should assess the effectiveness of LWD

mobilization and dispersal in the Lower McCloud River.

We recommend PG&E’s proposal to prepare an LWD management plan.

Monitoring procedures included in the plan would assess the effectiveness of LWD

mobilization and dispersal in the Lower McCloud River. These specific procedures

would provide information necessary to assess the location, timing, and quantity of LWD

appropriate to achieve the stated objectives. We estimate that the annualized cost of this

plan would be $452,506. Because LWD contributes to productive aquatic ecosystems,

is an important component in the formation of complex aquatic habitat units and channel

maintenance, and increasing the amount of LWD in downstream reaches could provide a

substantial benefit to fish habitat at a reasonable cost, we recommend adopting this

measure.

Gravel and Coarse Sediment

As a result of project operations and the resultant trapped sediment behind

McCloud dam, the reach from about 5 to 8 kilometers downstream of McCloud dam is

the most likely to exhibit degraded habitat through coarsening of the bed surface in

addition to reduction in the frequency and quantity of mobile sediment deposits. Project
319

operations could result in long-term adverse impacts on aquatic substrate habitat. PG&E

did not propose to augment gravel and coarse sediment in the Lower McCloud River.

Forest Service condition 23 specifies that PG&E should develop and implement a

gravel and coarse sediment management plan within one year of license issuance, after

consultation with the Forest Service, California Fish and Game, the California Water

Board, and other interested parties, and with approval of the Commission and the Forest

Service. The plan would require the annual addition of 150 to 600 tons of gravel and

coarse sediment to the Lower McCloud River, with inputs specifically within the reach

between the McCloud dam spillway and the Hawkins Creek confluence. The Forest

Service specifies that PG&E consider using sorted gravel and coarse sediment from the

Star City Creek inlet in McCloud reservoir as the source of material for the plan.

Furthermore, Forest Service condition 24 specifies that PG&E prepare a reservoir

dredging plan in consultation with the Forest Service and approved by the Commission

and the Forest Service, if required for the purposes of increasing gravel and sediment

supply or for removing sediment from reservoirs to accomplish project management

objectives. The plan would also include a monitoring component for the Lower McCloud

River between the McCloud dam and Bald Mountain Creek confluence that is integrated

into the biological monitoring plan.

California Fish and Game’s 10(j) recommendation 2 recommends that PG&E

prepare a gravel and sediment management plan requiring the annual addition of 150 tons

of gravel and sediment to the McCloud River, between the dam spillway and the

confluence with Hawkins Creek. California Fish and Game also recommends that PG&E

consider using the Star City Creek inlet as a material source. As part of the long-term

monitoring component of this plan, California Fish and Game’s recommendation

incorporates amphibians as an indicator species for assessing ecosystem health.

PG&E alternative condition 23 proposes to revise the time to develop the gravel

and coarse sediment management plan to two years, which PG&E states would allow for

receipt of license articles from the Commission and collaborative plan development, and

proposes that gravel and coarse sediment introductions occur periodically rather than

annually. The licensee specifies that the source of the coarse sediment will be the delta

deposit at the head of the Star City Creek arm of McCloud reservoir, where the coarse

sediment could be excavated “in the dry” and not dredged. The licensee recommends

that the monitoring component of the plan cover the Lower McCloud River between

McCloud dam and Ladybug Creek rather than Bald Mountain Creek, located

approximately 1.5 miles downstream of Ladybug Creek, as specified by the Forest

Service.

PG&E alternative condition 24 proposes that PG&E does not anticipate a need for

dredging during the license term, as PG&E alternative condition 23 for the gravel and

coarse sediment management plan would eliminate the need for dredging within

McCloud reservoir as a gravel source to support downstream gravel augmentation.
320

Given the adverse impacts with regard to gravel and coarse sediment noted above,

we recommend Forest Service condition 23, under which PG&E would develop and

implement a gravel and coarse sediment management plan, and monitoring and adaptive

management of gravel and coarse sediment augmentation. We further recommend

modification of Forest Service condition 23 according to PG&E alternative condition 23,

to specify that gravel augmentation should occur based on monitoring results, rather than

annually. Periodic gravel augmentation would provide a more flexible mechanism for

determining the volume and frequency of sediment introduction necessary to maintain

aquatic habitat, given that high spill flows capable of mobilizing sediment occur in

approximately 4 out of 10 years. To provide more options and greater flexibility in

implementing the gravel and coarse sediment program, we also recommend that multiple

sources of material be evaluated, to identify the volume, physical and chemical

characteristics, logistics for collection and transport of material, and range of costs.

While we recommend that Star City Creek be evaluated as a primary source of gravel,

PG&E should also evaluate other potential alternate local sites, such as other tributaries

to McCloud reservoir, Shasta Lake, or upland sites in the development of the coarse

sediment management plan. With respect to reservoir dredging, however, which is costly

and poses the threat for additional environmental risks, we find that the costs and risks

outweigh any potential environmental benefit; therefore, we do not recommend a

dredging plan as specified in Forest Service condition 24. Despite PG&E’s assertions

otherwise, we expect that one year is adequate time to produce the gravel and coarse

sediment management plan.

As previously indicated, we recommend PG&E employ an adaptive management

approach with monitoring for augmenting gravel and coarse sediments in the Lower

McCloud River as specified by the Forest Service. The monitoring plan will provide data

on progress of the augmentation program and improvements in the gravel substrate

through the reach downstream of the McCloud dam. These data will form the scientific

basis for judgments on the success of the program and adjustments to the source of

material, as well as its timing and placement, which may be necessary to support the fish

and invertebrate community utilizing this reach. We also recommend that Bald Mountain

Creek serve as the downstream terminus for the monitoring program, as specified by the

Forest Service. Although studies indicate suitable amounts of gravel and coarse sediment

in the reach between Ladybug Creek and Bald Mountain Creek, we note that this reach

could serve as an important comparative baseline for determining the success of the

proposed augmentation program. Finally, we note that foothill yellow-legged frog

is the only amphibian species in the project area that could benefit from the gravel

augmentation program. However, studies indicate that no foothill yellow-legged frogs

are present in the proposed augmentation reach, and furthermore, the species is excluded

from the reach due to cold water temperatures. Because amphibians are not effective for

assessments of sediment augmentation plan success in the proposed augmentation reach,

we do not recommend that PG&E include such assessments in their monitoring plan.
321

We consider the proposed staff alternative measure to develop a plan for gravel

and coarse sediment management to represent an effective approach for improving

instream aquatic habitat. We estimate that California Fish and Game’s plan would have

an annualized cost of $75,000, the Forest Service plan would have an annualized cost of

$84,517, and that our recommended approach would have an annualized cost of $78,807.

Given the benefits of implementing the staff-recommended alternative as described

above, we consider this cost to be warranted.

Erosion and Sediment Control

Fine sediment from reduction of seasonal high flow events, surface erosion,

increased overland flow, and mass wasting as a result of project operations can adversely

affect environmental resources through increased turbidity and degraded spawning

substrate. In order to manage existing erosion and reduce future erosion and sediment

delivery to stream channels, PG&E proposes to prepare an erosion and sediment

monitoring and control plan within one year after license issuance. The plan would guide

management of erosion and sediment control during the term of the new license and

would include the following elements:

 Methods for ongoing inventory of project-related erosion and sedimentation;

 A schedule for periodic monitoring;

 An inventory of erosion sites identified by periodic monitoring;

 Criteria for treating erosion sites;

 Protocols for emergency erosion and sediment control; and

 A process and schedule for reporting monitoring results, including periodic

plan review and revision.

Initial priority would be placed on the 56 sites identified during pre-filing studies,

ranked as having high erosion potential. Sites would be monitored for five years to

assess erosion activity and associated causes. Annual monitoring reports would include a

Forest Service-compatible database of erosion sites and detailed site-specific erosion and

sediment control measures where necessary and appropriate.

Forest Service condition 22 supports PG&E’s proposal and specifies that the plan

should provide direction for managing erosion and controlling sediment during the term

of the new license. Furthermore, Forest Service condition 22 specifies that during

planning, and before any new construction or non-routine maintenance projects with the

potential for causing erosion or stream sedimentation on or affecting Forest Service

lands, PG&E should develop site-specific erosion control plans. The plans would include

measures to control erosion, stream sedimentation, dust, and soil mass movement.

We recommend PG&E’s proposal for erosion and sediment control. We estimate

that the cost of this plan would be $119,686. Because the plan would help determine and
322

develop the success of effective erosion and sediment control procedures, and would

protect aquatic habitat, we consider this cost warranted.

Aquatic Resources

Instream Flows

Flow regulation at McCloud and Iron Canyon dams and diversion of water to the

project powerhouses affect both habitat for aquatic biota and recreational opportunities in

downstream reaches. These reaches include Iron Canyon Creek below Iron Canyon dam

(4.6-mile bypassed reach), the Pit River below Pit 7 dam, and the Lower McCloud River

below McCloud dam (24-mile bypassed reach). As we discussed in section 3.3.2, many

participants, including PG&E, recommend raising minimum flows in these affected

reaches and we analyzed these recommended flow regimes in section 3.3.2.2. In

section 4.1, we show how the proposed and recommended minimum flows decrease the

project’s power generation. Here we consider both the cost of raising instream flows and

how the recommended minimum flows affect other competing flow uses, including

aquatic habitat and recreational resources, such as angling and boating, and we then make

our final minimum flow recommendation for the Lower McCloud River.

PG&E proposes minimum flow regimes for each of its project reaches to protect

aquatic resources. For the reaches below McCloud and Iron Canyon dams, the minimum

flows would vary by month and water year type (tables 3-21 and 3-22). For the Pit River

below Pit 7 dam, the minimum flow would be the same year-round (150 cfs) whenever

the water surface elevation at Shasta Lake is below 1,055 ft msl. To determine

appropriate flows for aquatic and terrestrial biota, PG&E used both incremental flow

methods and resource studies. In all cases, PG&E’s proposed flows are equal to or

greater than the flows required in the current project license and would provide more

trout habitat in most months.

As we discuss in section 3.3.2.2, several participants recommended alternatives to

PG&E’s minimum flow regime proposals for the project’s reaches. Forest Service

condition 19 specifies seasonal flow regimes for each reach (tables 3-21, 3-22, and 3-23).

Filed pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 2005, PG&E alternative condition 19 proposes

a minimum flow regime that differs slightly from the flow regime proposed in its license

application (tables 3-21 and 3-22). California Trout, Trout Unlimited, and the McCloud

River Club; American Whitewater; and McCloud RiverKeepers alternative condition 19,

similar to PG&E alternative condition 19, recommends minimum flow regimes (table 3-

24) that are equal to or greater than the flows required in the current project license and

would provide more trout habitat in most months.

Iron Canyon Creek Below Iron Canyon Dam

Because of the steep canyons and private property restrictions, angling pressure

on the Iron Canyon Creek fishery is less than on the McCloud River and the project

reservoirs. PG&E now releases a year-round minimum flow of 3 cfs to the 4.6-mile Iron

Canyon Creek reach. We note that surveys of Iron Canyon Creek found a self-sustaining
323

rainbow trout population in good condition. However, the results of the PHABSIM

model show that increasing the minimum instream flow during all months would likely

benefit resident rainbow trout by increasing the usable habitat for juvenile and adult life

stages. Except for some small differences (2 cfs) during dry water years, PG&E’s

minimum flow regime for this reach and the minimum flow regimes filed by both the

Forest Service and California Fish and Game are very similar. In fact, PG&E alternative

condition 19 proposes a minimum flow regime that is now identical to the Forest Service

flow regime. All proposals would set minimum flows in the creek so that the monthly

minimum flows vary seasonally to mimic natural hydrologic conditions.

To enhance trout populations in Iron Canyon Creek, we recommend the PG&E /

Forest Service condition 19 minimum flow regime. Raising the minimum flows in this

manner would reduce the project’s average annual generation, at a cost of about $422,000

annually. While raising the minimum flow in this reach would enhance conditions for

the rainbow trout population, we acknowledge the loss in generation due to the increased

flows but conclude that the enhancement justifies this cost. To provide additional public

benefit as a result of this aquatic enhancement, we also recommend that PG&E provide

more angling access to the creek. Therefore, we recommend that PG&E file a plan for

enhancing angling access to Iron Canyon Creek.

Pit River Below Pit 7 dam

PG&E proposes, the Forest Service specifies, and California Fish and Game

recommends a continuation of the 150-cfs minimum flow in the Pit River below Pit 7

dam. Current project flows provide for a range of aquatic flow-habitat transitioning from

the riverine upstream conditions to broad, shallow lacustrine habitat near the afterbay

dam. This habitat supports a diverse fish assemblage, dominated by native hardhead and

Sacramento suckers. Furthermore, the fish populations in the reach have a recurrent

seasonal exchange with the fish community in the Pit River Arm of Shasta Lake.

Continuation of this minimum flow will ensure adequate flow-habitat in the reach, while

also ensuring continuity with the Pit River arm of Shasta Lake even when the water

surface elevation of Shasta Lake is below 1,055 ft msl. The proposed minimum flow of

150 cfs, consistent with current project operation, would not alter the project’s average

annual generation and would protect aquatic habitat and fish populations; therefore, we

recommend a minimum flow of 150 cfs in the Pit River below Pit 7 dam.

Lower McCloud River Below McCloud dam

PG&E proposes a minimum flow regime for the Lower McCloud River reach that

results in a low flow season from May to November of 150 cfs, and a high flow season of

200-220 cfs from December to April. Forest Service condition 19 specifies a higher

minimum baseflow (175 cfs) for the Lower McCloud River than was originally proposed

by PG&E, and a minimum flow regime that varies by month and water year type. The

Forest Service flow regime would create a spring pulse flow condition which more

closely reflects a natural hydrograph. PG&E alternative condition 19 baseflows are

25 cfs higher (175 cfs) than its proposed baseflows. PG&E’s alternative also
324

incorporates a minimum flow regime that varies by month and water year type and is

identical to the Forest Service condition 19 flows.27 California Fish and Game’s

recommended baseflows are slightly higher at 200 cfs. American Whitewater’s

alternative baseflows were the same as the Forest Service condition 19 flows, but

American Whitewater added seasonal peak flows for whitewater boating. Due to angler

safety concerns, McCloud RiverKeepers’ proposed alternative flows were substantially

lower (100 cfs) than the Forest Service / PG&E flows, with flows varying by month from

160 to 210 cfs (table 3-25).

The Lower McCloud River’s trout fishery is highly regarded in terms of aesthetics

and biological productivity;28 however, this fishery can be enhanced even further. The

results of aquatic flow-habitat studies generally predicted that increasing minimum

instream base flows from the current 40-50 cfs to between 175 and 200 cfs in summer

and fall would provide the greatest abundance and highest habitat values for resident

trout species. While PG&E and the Forest Service agree on a baseflow of 175 cfs,

California Fish and Game determined that PG&E should implement a baseflow of

200 cfs. Modeling results indicated a negligible difference in the amount of aquatic

habitat available with a 200-cfs baseflow, as compared to a 175-cfs baseflow. For this

reason, coupled with the loss of generation associated with a 200-cfs flow, we do not

recommend the California Fish and Game minimum flow regime.

Most flow recommendations from licensing participants are designed to create a

seasonal hydrograph that is more typical of natural patterns for the lower McCloud River

by increasing flows from the minimum baseflow during late winter and early spring

followed by decreasing flows through late spring returning to the baseflow through the

summer and fall. Specifically, the Forest Service and PG&E recommend increasing flow

twice a month beginning in mid-February, depending on the relative rate of runoff in a

given year as determined by the water year (as described in DWR Bulletin 120), reaching

a peak of 550 cfs in normal water years. Studies predicted that the maximal trout

spawning occurs between 300 and 400 cfs. Under the current license, the flow regime

does not provide for these high late winter − spring flows that mimic the natural

hydrograph.

27 We now refer to Forest Service condition 19 minimum flows and the identical

PG&E alternative minimum flows as “Forest Service / PG&E minimum flow regime.”

28 California Fish and Game designates the Lower McCloud River a “Wild Trout

Water,” defined as: “aesthetically pleasing and environmentally productive streams ...

managed exclusively for wild trout, where the trout populations are managed with

appropriate regulations to be largely unaffected by the angling process.” This

designation is similar to the “blue ribbon” designation used in other states.
325

California Trout’s minimum flow recommendations29 (table 3-24) differ slightly

from the Forest Service / PG&E flow regime, although it too attempts to mimic the

natural hydrograph in the spring. Under California Trout’s flow regime, flows would

increase at a slower rate beginning March 16 during normal to dry years and decrease at a

faster rate after April 15 during normal to wet years (table 3-24). As compared to the

Forest Service / PG&E flow regime, these slight changes in the rate of increase and

decrease in spring flows are not likely to have a significant effect on available habitat for

various trout life stages, and would still provide some benefits to spawning rainbow trout.

California Trout’s lower late winter − spring flow recommendation may provide some

additional benefits to anglers by allowing more wadeable conditions during the early

trout fishing season, as discussed below. The McCloud RiverKeepers recommended that

minimum flows be established at 100 cfs year-round at McCloud dam and flows varying

by month ranging from 160 to 210 cfs (table 3-25). While this recommendation would

increase minimum flows compared to the current license, it would not create a more

natural seasonally varying flow regime as offered by the other recommendations.

Seasonal variation in flow typical of most streams in lower mountain and foothill

landscapes helps create diverse aquatic habitat, promotes ecological diversity, and

benefits wild and native species that have adapted to seasonally variable conditions.

Because the McCloud RiverKeepers’ recommended minimum flow regime does not

include this seasonal variability, we do not recommend it.

Recreation Flows

PG&E proposed to provide a recreation flow event from McCloud dam if a natural

spill flow event of at least 300 cfs for seven consecutive days during the period of April 1

through October 31 has not occurred at any time in the previous three calendar years.

PG&E defined a recreation flow event as a minimum flow release of 300 cfs from

McCloud dam, for 11 consecutive days during the period between May 15 and June 15.

PG&E alternative condition 19 proposes flows different from PG&E’s own proposed

recreation flow event due to lack of support from stakeholders. While the Forest Service

did not specify flows for recreational boating, it comments that its proposed flow regime

would provide many more angling boating days than currently exist, especially in drier

years, and that the flow regime is not significantly different than the current flow regime

in terms of whitewater boating. Further, the Forest Service notes that a few more

whitewater boating days actually would be provided in wetter years under the proposed

flow regime.

American Whitewater recommends the release of elevated flows in April and May

to provide whitewater boating opportunities in addition to ecological benefits. In wet and

above normal water years, American Whitewater recommends peak flows of 600 cfs

through April and a ramping down of flows through May. In below normal water years,

29 Trout Unlimited and the McCloud River Club filed minimum flow

recommendations identical to California Trout’s recommendation.
326

American Whitewater recommends flows of at least 400 cfs during the month of April.

In dry and critically dry years, American Whitewater recommends flows of 300 cfs

ramping down to 200 cfs base flows by the opening day of trout season.

As noted in section 3.3.2, Aquatic Resources, in the surveys conducted for the

relicensing proceeding, anglers and guides indicated higher flows diminish fishing

quality by decreasing the angler’s ability to wade, cross the water, and cast, as well as

decreasing fishable water and safety. Focus groups indicated that optimal angling flows

existed between 200 and 300 cfs, while flows higher than 300 cfs were too stressful for

all but the youngest and most aggressive waders. In addition, while higher flows still

allow for some fishable locations, there are fewer of them and each has a smaller fishable

area, creating the potential for overfishing. PG&E’s controlled flow study also found that

as flow increased, use levels decreased, with fewer anglers fishing for shorter durations.30

Though all angling groups and Lower McCloud River users support enhancing aquatic

habitat in the Lower McCloud River, most do not support flow releases for whitewater

recreational boating in the Lower McCloud River. The groups oppose changes from the

existing daily flow requirements in the Lower McCloud River due to concerns for angler

safety and in order to preserve the high quality trout fishing for California licensed

anglers. Fishing is open in the Lower McCloud River from the last Saturday in April

through November 15. Under current conditions, after high spring flow conditions, the

river is usually fishable by mid-May.

As previously stated, California Trout’s spring pulse flow regime is slightly

different than the Forest Service / PG&E’s spring pulse flow regime. Under California

Trout’s flow regime, flows would increase at a slower rate at the beginning of the season

during normal to dry years and decrease at a faster rate at the end of the season during

normal to wet years. Additionally, during normal to dry years the spring pulse flow

would peak at approximately 450 to 100 cfs lower than the peak flow under the Forest

Service / PG&E’s regime in similar conditions. Therefore, during normal to wet years,

California Trout’s regime would allow for optimal angling conditions, between 200 and

300 cfs, up to four weeks earlier in the fishing season than in the Forest Service / PG&E’s

regime. California Trout’s recommendation would increase angling opportunities by

allowing anglers to access the river earlier in the fishing season.

In comparison to existing flows at the project, the Forest Service and PG&E’s

minimum flow regime would likely result in an additional 100 cfs available in the reach

in late March through mid-May in wet years and an additional 200 cfs in mid-April

through early June in very wet years, therefore providing more opportunities for

whitewater boating than currently exist during these water years. California Trout’s

recommended flow regime would likely provide for fewer days with flows greater than

300 cfs in wet years and fewer days with flows greater than 600 cfs in very wet years;

30 Technical Memorandum 58: Lower McCloud River Report on Flows and

Fishing Conditions (RL-S3).
327

however, California Trout’s proposal would still create more early spring whitewater

opportunities than currently exist. Although American Whitewater’s recommendation

and PG&E’s original proposal to release higher peak flows in April would create more

opportunity for whitewater boating at the project overall, these higher flows would

decrease the number of angling days at the project in all but critically dry water-years and

potentially compromise the safety of those anglers who wade in the stream to fish.

Conclusion

In making a final minimum flow recommendation for the Lower McCloud River,

in addition to power generation, we must weigh the needs of aquatic resources, anglers,

and recreational boaters. Given the importance of the existing blue ribbon fishery in the

Lower McCloud River, we give more weight to safe angling opportunities than to

recreational boating. Therefore, for reasons noted above, we do not recommend

American Whitewater’s recreational spring boating releases.

We conclude that the minimum flow regime recommended by California Trout

strikes the best balance between angling opportunities, aquatic resources, and recreational

boating because this regime would provide more aquatic habitat and create some early

spring whitewater opportunities while still making sure the river is accessible for fishing

by mid-May. While the Forest Service / PG&E minimum flow regime would also

provide these opportunities and enhancements, including more aquatic habitat and

recreational boating, it would result in fewer angling opportunities early in the fishing

season in a majority of water years. As such, and because the costs associated with both

recommendations are similar, we do not recommend the Forest Service / PG&E’s

minimum flow regime. Instead, we recommend that PG&E implement the California

Trout recommended flow regime (table 3-24). We estimate this flow regime would

reduce the average annual power generation at the project by 40 GWh and would reduce

the annual net benefit of the project by $3,500,000, compared to current operations.

Given the enhancements noted above, however, we conclude that implementation of the

minimum flow regime is worth the cost.

Flow Compliance and Monitoring

PG&E and Forest Service / California Fish and Game have proposed different

methods to measure compliance with the proposed minimum flow releases, although the

two approaches appear to accomplish essentially the same goal by requiring

compensation for under-release of minimum flows.

PG&E proposes that the minimum flow requirements be met on the basis of the

seven-day running average of mean daily flow. PG&E proposes the following:

(1) individual mean daily flows may be less than the required minimum stream flow;

(2) however, the instantaneous 15-minute stream flow should be at least 90 percent of the

required minimum stream flow; and (3) the seven-day running average of the daily mean

be equivalent to or greater than the required minimum flow. Therefore, any under-
328

release could be averaged out by over-releases on other days within each successive

seven-day window (averaging period).

Under Forest Service condition 19 and the California Fish and Game

recommendation, PG&E would release the equivalent under-released volume of water

within seven days following the discovery of the under-release. Credit for such

additional releases would not exceed 20 percent of the instantaneous flow amount, when

used to attain the equivalent of the under-released volume. In addition to this provision,

if PG&E finds that flow releases are non-compliant, it would be required to notify the

Commission of the potential violation, and to take immediate action to return to

compliance.

Both PG&E alternative condition 19 and Forest Service condition 19 / the

California Fish and Game recommendation accomplish the same objective. However,

PG&E’s proposal to determine compliance via a seven-day running average provides a

better defined and more reliable accounting mechanism that can be verified by any

outside entity and is consistent with flow compliance mechanisms used at other

Commission-licensed projects. Further, we note that if PG&E were found to be in noncompliance by the Commission, it would be required to take immediate action to return

to compliance consistent with Forest Service condition19. Therefore, staff recommends

PG&E’s proposed method.

In its license application, PG&E proposed to change the compliance point for

measuring instream flows below McCloud dam from gage MC-1 to gage MC-7, and

provide real-time flow data on the internet from gage MC-1. California Fish and Game

supported PG&E’s proposal for a single compliance point near McCloud dam and NMFS

also recommended a single compliance point at either MC-7 or MC-1. In contrast, Forest

Service condition 19 specified flows be measured at two compliance points (MC-1 and

near the dam) for McCloud dam. PG&E alternative condition 19 proposed the use of two

compliance points below McCloud dam.

The Ah-Di-Nah gage (MC-1) captures flow augmentation from Hawkins Creek

immediately upstream of the gage. Thus, under current conditions, the minimum flow

between the dam and Hawkins Creek (gage MC-7) can be as low as 40 cfs, as long as

flow from Hawkins Creek is adequate to augment flows to the required minimum at the

MC-1 gage. In order to assure that flows are augmented below Hawkins Creek, even

during dry periods and dry years when flows from Hawkins Creek could be minimal,

PG&E and the Forest Service proposed increasing the minimum flow at McCloud dam

if needed. Thus, at any time during the year, if discharge from Hawkins Creek is not

adequate enough to augment flows in the lower McCloud River to meet the minimum

instream flow requirement at MC-1, PG&E would be required to release additional flow

from the dam. We find the Forest Service’s specification to use two compliance points

below McCloud dam to be reasonable because it would ensure minimum flows at the

dam are adequate to provide sufficient habitat for fish and other aquatic biota throughout

the entire reach between McCloud dam and Squaw Valley Creek.
329

The Forest Service also specified the use of existing compliance points for

Iron Canyon dam and Pit 7 dam and that PG&E must provide flow values (generally

15-minute interval recordings) to resource agencies upon request. In addition, the Forest

Service specified that PG&E operate, maintain, and, if necessary, modify under USGS

supervision, all existing gages needed to determine the river stage and minimum instream

flow in project-affected reaches, and the Forest Service specified the methodology that

PG&E must utilize to determine water year type and guide implementation of minimum

flows. The Forest Service specified the use of the DWR 120 Bulletin of the Sacramento

River near Redding to determine water year type for the implementation of minimum

flows. Addressing Forest Service condition 19, PG&E alternative condition 19 includes

an alternative water year index, the DWR 120 Bulletin of the McCloud River above

Shasta Lake, for implementing minimum flows as specified by the Forest Service, which

is consistent with the water year type determination specified by the Forest Service for

the Lower McCloud River. We recommend PG&E’s alternative water year index as it

provides a better representation of local hydrology and serves as a consistent

methodology for implementing minimum flows on both the McCloud River and

Iron Canyon Creek.

Continued operation of the USGS gages in each of the affected reaches,

including any modifications that may be required to accurately measure minimum flows

or ramping rates that are included in the new license, would help to ensure that these

gages remain functional and can be used to effectively monitor compliance with flowrelated measures included in the new license. The gages would also help to ensure that

flow data continues to be available to other water users in the basin and to the general

public. Provision of flow data recorded at 15-minute intervals to the agencies upon

request would help to verify compliance with any instantaneous flows and ramping rates

that are included in the license. We estimate that funding the continued operation of the

USGS gages would have an annualized cost of $120,000. Because continued operation

of these gages is needed to verify license compliance and to ensure that the benefits of

implementing minimum flows to the project affected reaches are realized, we conclude

that the benefits of this measure are worth its costs.

Ramping Rates

Under the existing license, there are no ramping rate requirements downstream of

any project impoundments and no ramping is required when changing between seasonal

required minimum flow rates. PG&E proposes to establish a good-faith effort to achieve

a target maximum upramping rate of 100 cfs per hour for spill flows at McCloud dam

prior to the start of an uncontrolled spill event. This upramping rate is consistent with

current practice, although the existing project license does not require it. American

Whitewater proposed alternative upramping rates at McCloud dam using stage rather

than flow as a unit of measure for ramping operational controllable spills in order to

provide flow rates that more closely mimic the natural hydrograph. Specifically,

American Whitewater proposed maximum upramping rates based on river stage, 1-ft per

24 hours, as measured at gage MC-7.
330

Upramping of spill events, to the extent possible, allows aquatic organisms time to

seek refuge before high flow events and prevents excessive scour and destruction of

instream habitat structures. The relationship between flow and water depth (stagedischarge) varies along the stream channel depending on the complexity and

configuration of the channel cross-section and in particular the dimensions of the

floodplain; therefore, the gage location may not be indicative to the stage-discharge

relationship throughout much of the reach that it represents. Therefore, it is appropriate

to control ramping rates through changes in flow rather than American Whitewater’s

stage-discharge method. Because PG&E’s proposed upramping procedure would help

protect aquatic resources, we recommend it.

PG&E does not propose to downramp seasonal high flows. California Fish and

Game recommended and the Forest Service specified that PG&E ramp down all

McCloud dam spill events once the spill reaches 1,000 cfs at which point the control

valve could be used to control the discharge. Downramping would proceed at a 150-cfs

decrease every 48 hours until the prescribed minimum instream flow value is reached.

Additionally, operational controllable spills would be upramped in increments not to

exceed 200 cfs in a 24-hour period. In its alternative recommendation, PG&E

incorporated the downramping schedule outlined by California Fish and Game and the

Forest Service. American Whitewater proposed downramping rates of 0.2 ft per 48 hours

until the prescribed minimum flow value is reached, as measured at MC-7.

Rapid changes in streamflow have the potential to strand and kill young fish and

macroinvertebrates, and may also cause adverse effects on amphibians including the

foothill yellow-legged frog. Our recommended ramping protocol would reduce the

potential for fish stranding at times when flows are reduced following spill flows. As

previously explained, we find that the existing gage provides an appropriate control

cross section for determining the relationship between flow and stage. It is appropriate,

therefore, to control ramping rates through changes in flow rather than stage.

Implementing ramping rates would have a negligible cost; therefore, we conclude the

benefits of this measure warrant the cost.

PG&E also did not propose flow ramping for annual dam safety valve testing at

Iron Canyon Creek. California Fish and Game recommended and the Forest Service

specified that valve testing for dam safety compliance at Iron Canyon dam be conducted

between March 5 and March 15 when the highest instream flows are released, in order to

minimize impacts to the reproductive success of breeding aquatic organisms, that these

flows should be kept to the minimum level allowable (possibly in the range of 150 cfs) to

minimize channel damage, and that upramping and downramping related to testing of the

flow valve at Iron Canyon dam should occur in 20-cfs increments, assuming a 200-cfs

maximum. PG&E proposed an alternative valve testing schedule of March 1 to March 31

to allow for potential winter access issues and associated safety risks. We recommend

the inclusion of flow ramping procedures, as recommended by California Fish and Game

and specified by the Forest Service for valve testing at McCloud dam and Iron Canyon

dam. Implementing ramping rates would improve on existing conditions by providing a
331

clearly documented procedure for reducing high flows associated with operational testing

to reduce effects on aquatic resources. Our recommended ramping protocol would

reduce the potential for fish stranding at times when flows are reduced following

proposed test valve flow releases, as well as minimize the impacts to spring breeding

aquatic organisms. However, we recommend including PG&E’s alternative schedule for

the Iron Canyon safety valve testing for dam compliance in the staff alternative to ensure

safety at the project. The timing, frequency, and magnitude of natural peak spring runoff

events can be highly variable depending on storms and snowmelt; therefore, shifting the

valve test one to two weeks earlier or later to accommodate safety and access is not likely

to have adverse effects on aquatic resources.

Water Quality and Temperature Monitoring Plan

PG&E proposes to develop and implement a water quality and temperature

monitoring plan in consultation with the California Water Board, the Forest Service,

California Fish and Game, and other interested parties within one year of license

issuance. Under the plan, PG&E would provide monitoring for temperature, turbidity,

and contaminants in project affected reaches and reservoirs.

Forest Service condition 20 is similar to PG&E’s proposed water quality plan, but

includes a schedule and monitoring requirements for project affected reaches. The Forest

Service specified that PG&E: conduct periodic monitoring of contaminants including E.

coli in all project reservoirs once every five years for the term of the license; conduct

periodic monitoring of dissolved oxygen at McCloud, Pit 6, and Pit 7 reservoirs for the

term of the license; conduct annual monitoring of temperature for 10 years, with

additional monitoring if temperatures exceed 20°C in reservoirs or downstream reaches;

conduct continuous monitoring of turbidity in the Lower McCloud River during the

fishing season and provide real-time turbidity information on PG&E’s public project

website; conduct turbidity monitoring for at least five years in Iron Canyon Creek at MC10; and implement BMPs to satisfy Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives.

In response, the water quality plan proposed in PG&E alternative condition 20

generally supported the Forest Service specifications but recommended the plan be filed

within two years following issuance of the license. In addition, PG&E proposed an

alternative schedule for deployment and maintenance of temperature and turbidity

sensors because of potential access and safety issues resulting from inclement weather

during the period specified by the Forest Service. PG&E also proposed a provision to

terminate turbidity monitoring in Iron Canyon Creek if, at any time during the specified

five-year period, the Forest Service determines that turbidity has been sufficiently

reduced. Lastly, PG&E indicated that deployment of temperature and turbidity

monitoring sensors in some areas may be subject to landowner permission.

We find that one year following issuance of the license is ample time to

adequately develop all components and elements of the water quality temperature

monitoring plan; however, we support providing PG&E with some flexibility in the

specified schedule for deployment and maintenance of water quality and turbidity sensors
332

to ensure safety at the project and to address issues associated with access during

inclement weather or to private land, if necessary. We recommend that PG&E consult

with the Forest Service regarding the termination of turbidity monitoring in Iron Canyon

Creek, as proposed. Monitoring of contaminants, including E. coli, in project reservoirs

would provide information that could be used to ensure public health and determine

potential impacts of project facilities or operations. Dissolved oxygen data collected

periodically from McCloud, Pit 6, and Pit 7 reservoirs would ensure concentrations of

dissolved oxygen in project reservoirs are sufficient to support aquatic life and to

determine effects, if any, of changes to project operations resulting from the proposed

operational changes under the new license. Temperature data collected from project

reaches and reservoirs would ensure project operations are providing conditions

supportive of resident fish populations. Continuous monitoring of turbidity in the Lower

McCloud River during the fishing season and providing real-time turbidity on the

licensee’s public project website would provide valuable information to recreation users.

Continuous monitoring of turbidity in Iron Canyon Creek for at least five years would

provide information on the effectiveness of mitigation actions and ensure levels are

reduced to at or below the basin plan levels. Implementing BMPs would be beneficial for

minimizing any impacts to aquatic resources associated with O&M activities, recreation,

land use, and other practices associated with the project. We estimate that developing the

water quality and temperature monitoring plan specified by the Forest Service and

modified by PG&E would have an annualized cost of $86,179. Given the benefits of

water quality monitoring and temperature parameters, as described, we conclude that the

benefits of this measure are worth the costs.

Fish Entrainment

Entrainment of fish into hydroelectric intakes typically causes injury or mortality

to a portion of the fish that are entrained, with mortality rates tending to be lower for

smaller fish and higher for turbines that operate under higher levels of head, with higher

rotational speeds, and with smaller passageways. PG&E developed and implemented a

study in consultation with the agencies to assess the potential for entrainment losses to

affect fish populations in the project area. The results of PG&E’s entrainment studies and

literature review indicate that entrainment potential at the project intakes is negligible.

Therefore, PG&E did not propose any measures to protect fish from entrainment.

NMFS recommends that PG&E construct effective screening facilities at project

intakes following the return of listed salmonid species. No listed anadromous salmonids

would be expected to have access to habitat in the lower McCloud River until upstream

migration of listed species is implemented through Lake Shasta; therefore, at this time the

screening facilities recommended by NMFS would provide no benefit for listed species.

However, we recommend, at such time as fish passage facilities provide access to these

reaches for listed salmonid species, the need for screening facilities can be re-evaluated

based on fish population monitoring studies included in the new license.
333

Aquatic Biological Management and Monitoring Plan

Forest Service condition 20 specifies that PG&E develop and implement an

aquatic biological monitoring plan within 1 year of license issuance, in consultation

with interested parties and approved by the Forest Service, for fish, benthic

macroinvertebrates, special-status aquatic mollusks, special-status species, and invasive

aquatic species in the McCloud River and Iron Canyon Creek. The plan specifies

periodic sampling of fish, benthic macroinvertebrates, and special-status mollusks once

every three years for the first nine years, and then once every five years thereafter. The

number of sites, site locations, sampling methods, and data protocols would be consistent

with pre-filing relicensing studies and plans for PG&E’s recently relicensed

Pit 3, 4, 5 Project. In addition, the Forest Service specifies a reporting requirement for

providing monitoring results.

PG&E generally supports the aquatic biological management plan specified by the

Forest Service, but proposes clarification in PG&E alternative condition 20 to the

wording, schedule, and consultation requirements of the plan. However, PG&E proposes

that following license issuance, two years, rather than the one year specified by the Forest

Service, would be more adequate to develop and finalize the aquatic biological

management and monitoring plan. PG&E also proposes consultation with the Forest

Service, and if necessary, other interested parties rather than the specific parties identified

by the Forest Service. In addition, PG&E proposes monitoring of only stream fish

populations rather than reservoir and stream fish populations recommended by the Forest

Service.

We support the development and implementation of an aquatic biological

management and monitoring plan specified by the Forest Service with the minor changes

proposed by PG&E in its alternative. PG&E’s proposed changes to the Forest Service

plan provide clarification without substantially altering its intent. We expect that

one year is adequate time to produce the aquatic biological management plan.

Additionally, there should be adequate time to monitor benthic macroinvertebrates once

within the first three years. For special-status aquatic mollusks, given that it could take

PG&E up to 18 months following issuance of the license by the Commission to prepare

the aquatic resources sampling plan, we agree that the first survey should be initiated no

later than the third year following issuance of the license. This will allow three surveys

to be completed within the first nine years of the license. Analysis of project reservoir

fish population data obtained during project relicensing studies indicated that fish

populations do not appear to be affected by project operations and are sustained by

natural production and fish stocking. Therefore, monitoring of fish populations in project

reservoirs would provide little additional useful information. Furthermore, we expect

that monitoring and evaluation of fish populations in project reservoirs would be

conducted, as needed, as part of PG&E’s proposed fish stocking plan (discussed below

under Recreation), and therefore do not support additional monitoring studies in project

reservoirs specified by the Forest Service. We estimate that developing the aquatic

biological management and monitoring plan specified by the Forest Service and modified
334

by PG&E would have an annualized cost of $195,169. Because biological monitoring

would assist with determining the effects of any changes in operation or measures that are

implemented in the new license to enhance resident fish populations, and with assessing

whether any modifications or additional measures are needed, we conclude the benefits

of the program are worth the costs.

Fish Passage

Forest Service condition 20 specifies that, within one year of license issuance,

as a component of the aquatic biological management plan, PG&E develop specific

management actions and schedule for providing fish passage and monitoring for affected

reservoir streams, in consultation with the Forest Service, California Fish and Game,

potentially affected tribes, and other interested parties.

These management actions specified by the Forest Service include:

 Constructing or correcting fish passage structures on Deadlun, McGill, Cedar

Salt Log, Little Gap, and Gap Creek on Iron Canyon reservoir and Tarantula

Gulch and Battle Creek on McCloud reservoir.

 Maintaining the fish passage structures on an annual basis, if needed,

concurrent with road condition surveys.

 Monitoring each stream reach every three years to determine fish passage

structure effectiveness.

 PG&E would provide the results of fish passage monitoring concurrently with

aquatic monitoring reports.

PG&E alternative condition 20 proposes that roads impeding fish passage on

tributaries to the project reservoirs are not project roads, and therefore PG&E is not

responsible for maintaining fish passage structures associated with these roads.

However, PG&E did indicate that it would provide compensation to the Forest Service

for fish passage maintenance as part of an off-license road agreement.

We question the nexus of the Forest Service fish passage condition with effects

from the project. We concur with PG&E that because the Forest Service roads are not

project roads, PG&E is not responsible for maintaining fish passage. It is clear that these

roads and any resulting impediments to fish passage would be manifested with or without

the project. Subsequently, we have not included this provision in our staff alternative.

Listed Salmonid Technical Integration Committee

NMFS filed a recommendation that, as soon as listed salmonids are documented

within the McCloud River and affected by the project, PG&E should, in consultation with

the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, NMFS, FWS, California Fish and Game, and the

Commission, create and implement a Listed Salmonid Technical Integration Committee.

According to the recommendation, the Listed Salmonid Technical Integration Committee

would assess and mitigate the project’s effects on listed salmonids and could be
335

integrated with the existing Fish Passage Steering Committee (or affiliated Technical

Advisory Committees) to begin discussions of passage logistics at Shasta dam habitat

assessments that include studies of McCloud River historic anadromous salmonid

habitats.

No listed anadromous salmonids would be expected to have access to the lower

McCloud River until upstream fish passage is implemented through the Keswick and

Shasta dams, downstream of the project. In concert with continuing consultation, the

adaptive nature of proposed and specified existing biological and habitat monitoring

programs will allow for the re-evaluation of project mitigation and enhancement

measures at such time as fish passage facilities provide access to project reaches for listed

salmonid species. We estimate that, upon implementation, the annualized cost of this

measure would be $20,000. Because proposed and specified biological and habitat

monitoring programs will provide a mechanism for the continuing evaluation of project

and mitigation and enhancement measures, including the evaluation of environmental

requirements for listed salmonids, we do not recommend requiring PG&E to implement a

Listed Salmonid Technical Integration Committee, as the measure is not worth the cost.

Terrestrial Resources

Vegetation and Invasive Weed Management Plan

Project operations may potentially affect vegetation through the introduction and

spreading of invasive weed species. Any O&M activities that disturb soil or remove

existing vegetation could increase the spread of invasive weeds and would have a direct

effect on vegetation and associated wildlife species. Potential indirect project effects

could come from recreational users that spread invasive weed seeds or other regenerative

plant materials from colonized to non-colonized areas or whose activities disturb existing

plant communities.

PG&E proposes a vegetation management plan that would minimize adverse

effects on the environment, protect special-status species and culturally significant plants,

control the spread of noxious weeds, and ensure revegetation of disturbed sites.

Development and implementation of a vegetation management plan would provide

guidance, methods, and protocols for management and monitoring of botanical resources,

including special-status species, within the project area.

Forest Service condition 25 specifies that the licensee file a vegetation and

invasive weed management plan within one year of license issuance that would include:

treatment protocols and measures for removing or trimming vegetation within the project

and project-affected area; specific conditions for the protection of special-status and

culturally significant plants and populations; invasive species management and

monitoring; and pesticide or herbicide use restrictions and prohibitions. The licensee

would be required to consult with the Forest Service annually to review procedures for

special-status species surveys. Forest Service condition 25 also specifies that periodic

monitoring of special-status and culturally significant plants should occur every five
336

years at known locations and every 10 years for the entire project and project-affected

area.

Forest Service condition 15 specifies that the licensee exclude the use of pesticides

and herbicides on NFS lands unless prior written approval is received from the Forest

Service. Materials used would be limited to those registered by U.S. EPA and consistent

with those used by the Forest Service at Shasta-Trinity National Forest.

PG&E alternative condition 25 proposes revisions to the schedule for preparation

and implementation of the vegetation and invasive weed management plan and the

language of a few of the plan’s elements. PG&E alternative condition 25 would provide

a period of two years to develop the vegetation management plan, which is consistent

with PG&E’s original proposal. Additionally, PG&E would limit culturally significant

plant species to those species associated with TCPs and limit special-status species to

those on a list of high priority species, to be developed in consultation with the Forest

Service, FWS, NMFS, and other agencies, as appropriate.

Although both PG&E and the Forest Service propose to develop a plan to manage

vegetation within the project area, we have enough information now to recommend the

implementation of Forest Service condition 25 with modifications to include language

from PG&E alternative condition 25. We recommend several of the licensee’s proposed

modifications to the invasive weed monitoring strategy, including the alternative

language regarding frequency and extent of the monitoring. Annual monitoring of

ground or vegetation disturbance areas would be adequate in determining establishment

of noxious weed populations and allow responsive management treatment to manage and

control spread. Where high priority weed species are growing undisturbed, it would be

adequate for the licensee to monitor every five years in conjunction with other noxious

weed surveys and mapping. Should treatment or management be deemed necessary,

those populations would revert to the proposed annual monitoring for three years. We

also recommend that during the development of the vegetation management plan, the

licensee, agencies, and interested parties reach consensus on the list of high-priority

species of noxious weeds.

Additionally, we recommend inclusion of the licensee-provided alternative

language in the vegetation and invasive weed management plan specifying that culturally

significant plant species monitoring would be limited in scope to only those populations

associated with TCPs and above a certain threshold size; currently there are no

populations that fit this criterion. Surveys conducted every five years, concurrently with

other vegetation monitoring, would determine the range and extent of culturally

significant plant populations, and newly identified populations would be made known to

tribal members and assessed under the National Historic Preservation Act. Preconstruction surveys for culturally significant plant species would be conducted

concurrently with those for special-status plant species.
337

Furthermore, we recommend the inclusion of language to address the use of BMPs

to avoid/minimize effects on wetlands and the use of native vegetation for restoration

activities in areas disturbed by project activities, as originally proposed by PG&E.

Application of pesticides and herbicides on Forest Service lands within the project

area may occur as treatment or control methods for invasive weed species, as contained

within the proposed vegetation and invasive weed management plan. However, Forest

Service condition 15 requires PG&E to exclude the use of pesticides and herbicides on

NFS land, unless prior written approval is received first from the Forest Service.

We consider the proposed staff alternative measure for managing vegetation,

controlling the spread of noxious weeds, monitoring and protecting culturally significant

plant species, and limiting the use of pesticides and herbicides to represent an effective

approach to minimizing and avoiding project-related effects on vegetation and the

wildlife that depend on this vegetation for habitat. We estimate that the licensee’s

proposed plan would have an annualized cost of $332,101, and that our recommended

approach would have an annualized cost of $336,901. Given the added benefits of

implementing the staff recommended alternative as described above, we consider this

cost to be warranted.

Terrestrial Biological Management Plan

PG&E proposes to develop a wildlife management plan that would provide

protection and monitoring of special-status species, but also would protect the habitat and

general wildlife populations that co-exist with special-status species. The licensee’s

proposed wildlife management plan would contain monitoring methodologies,

preconstruction survey protocols, and avoidance and protection measures as appropriate

for special-status species. The wildlife management plan proposed by the licensee also

would include a process and schedule for reporting survey and monitoring results as well

as a process for periodic plan review and revision. The licensee also proposes an avian

hazard reduction measure to ensure transmission and distribution lines meet bird

electrocution prevention standards as recommended by APLIC.

Forest Service condition 26 specifies development and implementation of a

terrestrial biological management plan (TMBP)31 that would include: (1) monitoring of

populations and locations occupied by special-status species; (2) periodic surveys

throughout the term of the license within the project and project-affected area to

determine the location of any additional populations; and (3) reporting every five years

(or at species-specific frequencies identified by the Forest Service) of terrestrial survey

and monitoring results. Forest Service condition 26 also specifies pre- and post31 While PG&E proposes to develop a wildlife management plan and Forest

Service condition 26 refers to a terrestrial biological management plan or TBMP, we note

that these two plans are meant to address the same issues and the names are generally

interchangeable.
338

construction surveys for Forest Service special-status species along with post-disturbance

and construction monitoring to identify whether mitigation measures are necessary. The

Forest Service specifies that the licensee conduct surveys for neotropical breeding birds

within suitable habitat prior to disturbance activities or observe annual limited operating

periods during April 1through August 30. Furthermore, within one year of license

issuance, the licensee would be required to file with the Commission an avian collision

and electrocution hazards plan approved by the Forest Service, in consultation with

appropriate federal and state agencies, which minimizes adverse interactions between

project transmission lines and avian species.

PG&E alternative condition 26 addresses the schedule for preparation and

implementation of the TBMP and specific elements of the plan. PG&E alternative

condition 26 would provide a period of two years to develop the TBMP, consistent with

PG&E’s original proposal. Additionally, survey areas where access is unsafe (steep

terrain or high water flows) or private property for which the licensee does not have

access would be excluded. Furthermore, instead of developing a plan, avian collision and

electrocution hazards would be addressed by upgrading segments of existing distribution

lines that do not currently meet the APLIC standards within three years of license

issuance and ensuring that new lines would meet current APLIC standards. If existing

and new poles are brought into compliance with APLIC standards, an avian hazard and

electrocution plan would be unnecessary.

Although both PG&E and the Forest Service propose to develop a plan to manage

wildlife within the project area, we have enough information now to recommend

implementation of the TBMP with modifications to include language from PG&E

alternative condition 26.

Regarding species-specific monitoring, we recommend that special-status

amphibian and reptile monitoring surveys occur within one year of plan approval and

every 10 years thereafter. Shasta salamanders are particularly susceptible to disturbance,

and because construction is proposed within their known habitats, additional monitoring

is justified. As such, we recommend the monitoring of Shasta salamander in known

locations once per five years and suitable habitat monitoring once per 10 years,

concurrent with other species surveys. Pre-construction monitoring would protect

foothill yellow-legged frog and northwestern pond turtle within proposed disturbance

activity and would preclude the need for surveys once every 10 years as specified by

Forest Service condition 26. Northwestern pond turtle and foothill yellow-legged frog

are adapted to conditions within the McCloud-Pit watershed under normal O&M and,

therefore, a 10-year monitoring period as proposed by PG&E is acceptable for these

species. Although, for the foothill yellow-legged frog, we recommend that specific

suitable habitat in the project area be surveyed the first year after plan approval and every

tenth year thereafter. We also recommend that the foothill yellow-legged frog

monitoring plan, as proposed by the Forest Service in its 10(a) recommendation and with

the modified time line as provided by the licensee, be incorporated into the TBMP under

special-status species. Specific to northwestern pond turtle, the addition of
339

preconstruction surveys as proposed in PG&E alternative condition 26, in conjunction

with implementation of a TBMP, would provide additional protection for the

northwestern pond turtle.

For the bald eagle, American peregrine falcon, northern goshawk, and

Southwestern willow flycatcher, we recommend, as proposed in PG&E alternative

condition 26, that the following measures be incorporated into the TBMP:

 Pre-construction surveys for bald eagle would occur in suitable habitat within

1 mile of planned construction;

 Surveys for American peregrine falcon would occur within one year of plan

approval and every fifth year thereafter at known nest sites and within suitable

habitat specified by the presence of cliffs (Pit 6 and Pit 7 reaches of the Pit

River Canyon, McCloud River downstream of McCloud dam, and Iron Canyon

downstream of the Iron Canyon reservoir to the confluence with the Pit River),

as an alternative to monitoring within 0.25 mile of known sites;

 Northern goshawk surveys would occur within 0.5 mile of proposed

construction, as an alternative to monitoring within 0.25 mile once per five

years; and

 Willow flycatcher surveys would begin the first year after plan approval and

every fifth year thereafter, as alternative to once every five years, in contiguous

suitable habitat within 300 ft (public lands) and 200 ft (on private lands with

permission) from specific project features (Pit River from the James B. Black

powerhouse tailrace to Lake Shasta, Iron Canyon Creek downstream of Iron

Canyon dam, and the McCloud River from McCloud dam to Squaw Valley

Creek, project water bodies including all reservoirs and the Pit 7 afterbay, and

project-related recreation sites.

We recommend the inclusion of alternative language proposed by PG&E in the

TBMP that clarifies the initiation of surveys and, in the case of American peregrine

falcon and willow flycatcher, ensures that surveys are conducted in the habitat

specifically available to the species within the project area. Details defining precise

locations for surveys to occur should be a component of consultation with the Forest

Service and other appropriate agencies and interested parties during the development of

the TBMP. The language of PG&E alternative condition 25 identifying limits of

disturbance also should be incorporated into the TBMP; however, we note that the

application of specific survey distances could be limiting to the protective intent of the

TBMP. As such, survey area designations should be coordinated with the Forest Service,

FWS, NMFS, and other appropriate agencies during consultation and development of the

plan.

We concur with the actions proposed by the licensee to bring existing transmission

and distribution line poles into compliance with APLIC avian collision and electrocution

hazard reduction standards and ensure future actions meet APLIC standards. We agree
340

with PG&E that implementation of these measures would negate the need for

development of an avian hazard and electrocution plan.

We recommend the inclusion of alternative language in the TBMP clarifying that

special-status bat species surveys would begin within the first year after plan approval

and every fifth year thereafter. This clarified approach would be sufficient to assess the

presence and roosting use of project facilities within the project area, and preconstruction surveys would provide the necessary interim prevention measure if

disturbance from construction were probable. Sites would be identified in consultation

with participating agencies, and this alternative language would provide a good

mechanism for continued communication with agencies on the presence and status of bat

species within the project area.

We consider the proposed staff alternative measure for monitoring and mitigating

project effects on wildlife to represent an effective approach to minimize and avoid

project-related effects on wildlife, including special-status species. We estimate that our

recommended approach would have an annualized cost of $197,584. Given the benefits

of implementing the staff recommended alternative as described above and the projected

cost savings associated with the staff recommended alternative, we consider this cost to

be warranted.

Threatened and Endangered Species

The VELB, Pacific fisher, and northern spotted owl are federally-listed threatened

and endangered species that might occur within the project area and could potentially be

affected by project O&M and any proposed construction measures. In order to protect

threatened and endangered species, PG&E proposes a PM&E measure specifying that it

would prepare a biological evaluation of the potential effects to Forest Service specialstatus species prior to any action to construct project features on NFS lands. In addition,

specific measures for protection of elderberry are specified in the PG&E’s programmatic

biological opinion and incidental take permit (FWS, 2003); PG&E would apply these

measures to routine O&M activities, including development and maintenance of

recreational areas.

Forest Service condition 26 (the TBMP) includes components particular to

the VELB, specifically that known suitable habitat should be monitored once every

five years for VELB individuals, and if the species is detected, elderberry plants would be

protected from disturbance. Regarding the northern spotted owl, Forest Service condition

26 would require monitoring for this species within 0.25 mile of suitable habitat in the

project area once every five years. Surveys conducted once every 10 years in suitable

habitat would identify new individuals, pairs, or nest sites. Surveys also would be

conducted prior to any disturbance activities, or the licensee could schedule construction

or disturbance activities outside of the limited operating period of February 1 through

July 9. Regarding the Pacific fisher, Forest Service condition 26 specifies that the TBMP

should provide for surveys to be conducted once every five years in suitable habitat

within the project and project-affected areas.
341

Forest Service condition 11 specifies that the licensee prepare a biological

evaluation prior to any proposed action to construct project features on NFS lands.

This measure is consistent with PG&E’s proposed measure. NMFS and FWS also

recommend that PG&E prepare a biological evaluation prior to construction of new

project features or non-routine maintenance activities that may affect special-status

species or their habitats.

PG&E alternative condition 26 proposes alternative language that provides more

specificity to the monitoring schedule and survey area designations specified by the

Forest Service. PG&E alternative condition 26 proposes:

 Pre-construction surveys for the presence of elderberry shrubs would be

conducted for construction proposed below 3,000 ft msl in the project area, and

a 100-ft protective buffer would be provided around any identified VELB

habitat during construction consistent with the FWS biological opinion for

VELB. Monitoring surveys also would be conducted in areas of known VELB

habitat every five years, concurrently with noxious weed and vegetation

surveys.

 Pre-construction surveys for the presence of northern spotted owl would be

conducted in suitable habitat within 1.3 miles of proposed construction.

Surveys would follow standard protocols for the species. Alternatively, the

licensee could schedule construction activity for outside of the limited

operating period of February 1 to July 9.

 Pre-construction surveys for the presence of Pacific fisher would occur in areas

of suitable habitat within 0.5 mile of any planned construction.

We recommend that PG&E alternative condition 26 language be adopted into the

TBMP, as it provides more specifics and makes more efficient use of survey time within

the project area. The range of elderberry growth is limited by elevation, so maintaining

surveys below 3,000 ft msl is adequate for pre-construction surveys. Pre-construction

surveys and avoidance, protection, or mitigation measures for construction consistent

with those outlined in the VELB conservation program should be implemented to

minimize effects from construction on the population of elderberry located along the

proposed access road corridor for the construction of the Pit 7 afterbay powerhouse.

Additional monitoring of known elderberry populations could be implemented concurrent

with five-year monitoring conducted as part of the vegetation and invasive weed

management plan. We expect that PG&E alternative condition 26 language, when

implemented as proposed, would minimize any potential effects to elderberry populations

within the project area from O&M activities and most construction activity. We also

recommend implementing Forest Service condition 11, but modify it to include all

project lands. Requiring biological evaluations for special-status species on all project

lands when constructing new facilities, instead of just NFS lands as specified by the

Forest Service, would allow for more comprehensive protection of the species.
342

Although potential habitat for the northern spotted owl exists, no individuals are

known to be present within the project area and we expect that pre-construction surveys

as proposed by the licensee would sufficiently minimize any potential constructionrelated effects from disturbance. Alternatively, avoidance of construction activity during

the limited operation period also would protect any individuals within the project area

from construction activity.

Potential habitat for the Pacific fisher exists within the project boundary and while

no individuals were located during PG&E’s relicensing surveys, the Forest Service and

FWS have identified the Pacific fisher as potentially occurring in the project vicinity

based on tracks reported in the project vicinity in 1982, and a Pacific fisher skull found

on the ridge between Fisher Creek and Bald Mountain Creek in the mid-1970s. More

recently, a wildlife biologist observed a Pacific fisher crossing FR 11 on the northeast

side of Iron Canyon reservoir on April 25, 2007. As such, we conclude that the species

most likely is present within the project area. Due to the lack of known individuals, it is

unlikely that normal project O&M activity or proposed construction would have an effect

on the Pacific fisher. For the construction associated with the proposed additional

generation units, preconstruction surveys, as proposed by PG&E, will provide adequate

protection for the potential habitat that may occur within the project area.

We consider the staff alternative measure, which recommends Forest Service

condition 26 and aspects of PG&E alternative condition 26, for monitoring and

mitigating project effects on federally-listed wildlife species to represent an effective

approach to minimizing and avoiding project-related effects. Costs for the proposed

plans described above are included in the estimates for the Terrestrial Biological

Management Plan, in section 5.2.1, Discussion of Key Issues, Terrestrial Resources.

Given the benefits of implementing the staff recommended alternative as described

above, we consider this cost to be warranted.

Recreation Resources

Fish Stocking

One of the primary recreational activities associated with the project includes

angling and, based on recreation studies completed during the relicensing process, the

demand for angling at the project is projected to increase over the term of a new license.

In addition, the numerous proposed recreation facility upgrades and construction of new

recreation facilities have the potential to result in increased angling pressure at the

project. PG&E proposed to continue funding California Fish and Game for the stocking

of up to 38,800 pounds of trout and 500,000 kokanee per fiscal year (July 1 through

June 30) in the drainages of the Pit and McCloud Rivers between the uppermost project

reservoir and Shasta Lake. In contrast, California Fish and Game, in its

10(j) recommendation, recommends that PG&E reimburse California Fish and Game for

stocking of up to 60,000 pounds of trout annually within the McCloud-Pit Project

boundary and that costs would be assessed at the standard rate for catchable-sized

hatchery grown trout in the year of stocking. In addition, California Fish and Game
343

recommends that PG&E, if requested by California Fish and Game, pay $5,000 annually

for monitoring and evaluation of the fish stocking program or for mitigation of sturgeon

reintroduction into Shasta Lake. In its response comments, PG&E states that is agrees

with California Fish and Game’s fish stocking 10(j) recommendation

In 1942, the construction of Shasta Dam isolated a population of white sturgeon;

however, the population was self-sustaining in the Pit River arm of Shasta Lake, until

experiencing a decline in the 1970s and 80s. California Fish and Game began an

experimental sturgeon planting program early in 1988 to evaluate stocking as a means of

restoring the sturgeon fishery; however, the program was discontinued later that year due

to disease problems in the rearing facilities.32 California Fish and Game states that

1.8 percent of the planted sturgeon were caught or observed from 13 months to 13 years

after stocking, indicating that low natural recruitment may be the cause of the sturgeon

population decline.33 California Fish and Game further suggests that the construction of

Pit 6 and 7 dams in the early 1960s, which eliminated access to 16 miles of stream likely

utilized by white sturgeon during spawning, likely caused the decline. There is no

conclusive evidence, however, that the loss of riverine habitat, or any project-related

effects, is directly correlated to the low recruitment of white sturgeon.

Increasing the number of fish stocked at the project would help meet the estimated

future demand for angling at the project. Furthermore, annual monitoring and evaluation

of the fish stocking program would provide the means for coordinated development to

allow for the flexibility to increase or decrease stocking numbers over the term of a new

license in order to meet future demand for angling. However, consistent with

Commission policy to recommend a specific environmental measure for inclusion in a

license, we must be assured that the measure relates to project impacts or project

purposes.

34 At this time, and given low natural recruitment and the problems associated

with the previous sturgeon planting program, it is not clear how $5,000 would be used to

implement a mitigation program that would successfully maintain a white sturgeon

population in Shasta Lake. Furthermore, it also is not clear at this time how the $5,000

would be used to monitor and evaluate the fish stocking program and we have no way of

knowing if these funds would be used solely to evaluate the program at the project.

While PG&E agrees to reimburse California Fish and Game for fish stocking, we

note that PG&E is ultimately responsible for the management of all project reservoirs and

project reaches. Instead of recommending funding for California Fish and Game, we

recommend PG&E be responsible for stocking 60,000 pounds of trout annually within

32 Licensee’s Pre-Application Document.

33 California Department of Fish and Game. 10(j) Recommendations for the

McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project. January 28, 2010.

34 For more information regarding the Commission’s policy, please see the

Commission’s Policy Statement on Hydroelectric Licensing Settlements, issued

September 21, 2006.
344

the project boundary and develop a fish stocking plan to evaluate and monitor the amount

of fish to be stocked every six years. Accordingly, the number of pounds of fish to be

stocked could fluctuate up or down on a six-year cycle depending on monitoring results.

We estimate that the annualized cost of developing and implementing this plan would be

$117,000, and we conclude that the benefits of this measure warrant the cost.

Recreation Management Plan

PG&E proposes to finalize the recreation development and management plan

(recreation plan) after consultation with the Forest Service, California Fish and Game,

California Water Board, and other interested parties, within two years of license issuance.

In addition, PG&E proposes to develop and implement site rehabilitation measures for

each existing recreation facility within 25 years of license issuance. By upgrading or

replacing recreation facilities within 25 years of license issuance, recreation facilities and

infrastructure would continue to provide safe, reliable public access to recreational

opportunities at the project and would address growing recreational demand over the term

of the new license. PG&E’s proposal would allow the Forest Service and other

stakeholders to have input in the development of these plans and would ensure the

proposed measures would be implemented in a manner consistent with the Forest

Service’s management goals and other resource management plans at the project.

Although coordination among the licensee, governmental agencies, and interested

stakeholders is encouraged in development and implementation of the proposed

recreation measures, the licensee is ultimately responsible for the construction, operation,

and maintenance of the project’s recreation facilities. The specific measures are

discussed in more detail below.

McCloud Reservoir

PG&E’s proposal to construct a day-use area, including a floating

fishing/swimming platform, reconstruct and extend the existing one-lane boat ramp to

3 ft (vertical) below the minimum operating pool elevation, and add more parking spaces

at Tarantula Gulch would help relieve overcrowding and reduce user conflicts at

McCloud reservoir. Demand for boating access coupled with crowding issues at

McCloud reservoir demonstrates the need for improved recreational boating access at the

project. Moreover, constructing a floating fishing/swimming platform away from

Tarantula Gulch boat ramp might alleviate overcrowding and user conflicts even further.

The Forest Service specifies that PG&E reconstruct the Tarantula Gulch boat ramp to

provide two lanes, instead of one, and a minimum of 4-ft draft clearance below minimal

pool level to further reduce crowding at the ramp and include 30-40 more parking spaces.

However, PG&E states that site constraints may affect the amount and type of

improvements that can be made to project recreation facilities. Currently the bottom of

the boat ramp is 1 ft below the normal minimum operating reservoir level (elevation

2,634 ft msl) and typically provides boater access during most of the recreation season.

Reconstructing the boat ramp to 3-ft draft clearance, as proposed by PG&E, would

provide even greater access and extend the current recreation boating season. We
345

recommend that PG&E reconstruct the Tarantula Gulch boat ramp with the toe of the

ramp extending to an elevation no less than three vertical feet below minimum pool and

that the boat ramp remain one lane. We also recommend PG&E construct a

fishing/swimming platform and additional parking spaces.

Forest Service condition 30 specifies that PG&E provide lighting and snow

plowing during the winter at the Tarantula Gulch boat ramp to provide safety for anglers

fishing early or late in the day and to improve access at the ramp. Lighting would

improve safety at the boat ramp and allow anglers to fish longer during the recreation

season; however, there is little evidence to support snow plowing the ramp in winter

months. Although 10 percent of visitors reported use of the reservoir during the winter

and expressed the need for a longer use season, there is not enough use at McCloud

reservoir during the winter season to warrant the Forest Service’s specified snow

plowing. We recommend, however, that PG&E provide lighting at the Tarantula Gulch

boat ramp, which will allow anglers to fish longer by providing light during longer

periods of the day.

There are no existing campgrounds at McCloud reservoir to meet existing or

projected demand for overnight use; however, regular dispersed camping is occurring at

Star City. PG&E’s suitability assessment shows the only potential site to accommodate

camping at the reservoir is at Star City. Providing a formal campground at this location,

as proposed by PG&E and specified by the Forest Service, would help manage the

already existing use and reduce negative impacts on natural resources by eliminating

erosion and soil compaction from user-created trails and vehicles from dispersed camping

and provide for proper sanitation disposal and trash removal. We recommend PG&E

develop a campground at Star City with the inclusion of fire rings.

We estimate that the annualized cost of implementing these recreation measures at

McCloud reservoir would be $1,855,645 and we conclude that the benefits associated

with maintaining existing recreation facilities and expanding recreational opportunities at

McCloud reservoir would be worth this cost.

Lower McCloud River

Constructing a day-use site and designing an access trail to accommodate both

fishing and boating access at the Lower McCloud River, as proposed by PG&E and

specified by Forest Service condition 30, would facilitate the use of the area by both

anglers and boaters. Additionally, the Forest Service specifies that PG&E upgrade the

user-created river trail from Ash Camp Campground to Ah-Di-Na Campground and

reconstruct and provide operation and maintenance over the term of the license for Ash

Camp and Ah-Di-Na Campground. PG&E does not propose to upgrade and maintain the

Lower McCloud river trail nor does PG&E propose to reconstruct, operate, and maintain

the Ash Camp and Ah-Di-Na Campground because it does not believe these are project

facilities. The Forest Service notes that should it not reach agreement with PG&E

regarding these facilities outside of the license, mitigation at Ash Camp and Ah-Di-Na

Campground would be included in its modified 4(e) conditions.
346

Although upgrading the existing trail along the Lower McCloud River from Ash

Camp Campground at the Ash Camp bridge / PCT junction to Ah-Di-Na Campground

would improve access, our review does not lead us to conclude that the existing usercreated trail or the campgrounds have a nexus to the project. These facilities are located

on the Lower McCloud River, below the confluence with Squaw Valley Creek, about

6 miles below McCloud dam outside the project boundary. This stretch of the McCloud

River, until it flows into Shasta Lake, is reasonably free of project effects due to natural

aggregation of flows. As such, any angling and associated trail access near this portion

of the Lower McCloud River would exist irrespective of the project.

We recommend PG&E construct a day-use facility at the base of McCloud dam.

We estimate that the annualized cost of implementing this recreation measure at this

location would be $89,609, and we conclude that the benefits associated with expanding

recreational opportunities below McCloud dam would be worth this cost. For reasons

noted above, we are not recommending upgrading the trail from Ash Camp to Ah-Di-Na

and the reconstruction, operation, and maintenance of the Ash Camp and Ah-Di-Na

Campground.

Iron Canyon Reservoir

PG&E proposes to reconstruct Hawkins Landing boat ramp and campground, and

provide additional parking and restroom facilities, which would enhance recreational

opportunities at Iron Canyon reservoir and ensure that the project recreation facilities

meet current and future demand over the term of a new license. In addition, constructing

a new boat ramp at Iron Canyon reservoir and providing additional shoreline access

areas, also proposed by PG&E and specified by Forest Service condition 30, would

increase boating access at the reservoir and help alleviate dispersed recreation use

occurring along the shoreline. Forest Service condition 30 further specifies that PG&E

provide three paved parking areas for up to three vehicles. In PG&E alternative

condition 30, PG&E proposes to study the feasibility of providing the paved parking

areas with pedestrian shorelines access trails. Constructing the proposed shoreline access

areas with the addition of the parking areas would provide developed access areas along

the shoreline to help alleviate some of the dispersed recreation use occurring along the

reservoir shoreline.

We recommend that PG&E reconstruct the existing Hawkins Landing boat ramp

and construct a new boat ramp at Iron Canyon reservoir that is usable at the reservoir's

minimum operating pool (2,593 ft msl). In addition, we recommend PG&E construct

three shoreline access areas that include paved parking with pedestrian trails to the

shoreline. Because the Forest Service has not provided suggested locations for feasible

sites, we recommend PG&E conduct a site evaluation, as proposed, within 90 days of

license issuance to determine the locations for the three shoreline access areas.

Forest Service condition 30 also specifies that, if possible under reservoir

operations, the Hawkins Landing boat ramp should be operable a minimum of 155 days

during the recreation season and the new Iron Canyon reservoir boat ramp be functional
347

at 90 percent of operational lake levels. PG&E’s proposal to construct the new,

additional Iron Canyon dam boat ramp so that it is usable at the reservoir’s minimum

operating pool (2,593 ft msl) would result in public boating access to Iron Canyon

reservoir over the entire recreation season and should accomplish the level of use the

Forest Service is seeking. Furthermore, this additional boat ramp would help to alleviate

overcrowding of the existing Hawkins Landing boat ramp. As such, we recommend that

PG&E reconstruct the Hawkins Landing boat ramp and construct a new boat ramp at Iron

Canyon dam that is functional at the reservoir’s minimum operational lake levels

(2,593 ft msl) during the recreation season.

Forest Service condition 30 specifies that PG&E relocate Deadlun Campground to

one or two Forest Service-approved locations around Iron Canyon reservoir. Because

dispersed camping generally occurs along the main body of Iron Canyon reservoir and

the campground is currently located in a creek off the main body of the reservoir, the

Forest Service states that relocating Deadlun Campground to a more desirable location

would likely increase the use of this facility. PG&E states that poor facility conditions

and upkeep of the campground may contribute to the prevalence of dispersed sites around

the reservoir. As a result, PG&E originally proposed to reconstruct Deadlun

Campground. PG&E alternative condition 30, however, proposes conducting a site

assessment to determine if there are one or more suitable sites to relocate the existing

Deadlun Campground along the Iron Canyon reservoir shoreline. If agreement can be

reached on alternate location(s), PG&E would construct a new campground at the new

location. If a suitable location(s) does not exist, however, PG&E would reconstruct the

campground in its current location.

Reconstruction of Deadlun Campground at its existing location would improve

camping opportunities at the reservoir, improve facility conditions, and increase capacity

at the campground. Further, providing formal access to Iron Canyon reservoir shoreline

from its existing location would likely increase the use of this facility and therefore

alleviate dispersed camping around the reservoir. We do not see a need to relocate the

campground and therefore recommend PG&E reconstruct Deadlun Campground in its

existing location and provide access to the shoreline at this site.

The Forest Service specified that PG&E provide lighting and snow removal during

March-April and December at the new, additional Iron Canyon dam boat ramp to ensure

safety for anglers fishing early or late in the day. Lighting would allow anglers to fish

longer during the recreation season and increase safety at the boat ramp. Therefore, we

recommend that PG&E provide lighting at the new boat ramp, as specified in Forest

Service condition 30.

The Forest Service also specifies that PG&E provide snow removal at the Iron

Canyon boat ramp during the shoulder season (March/April and December) at the new

parking area when Oak Mountain access road and the new Iron Canyon boat ramp

surfaces are passable. PG&E alternative condition 30 proposes that PG&E would

remove snow from the access road to the boat ramp, the boat ramp, and parking area
348

when project operations require snow removal from Oak Mountain Road. Although

winter use is minimal at this site, because PG&E would already be plowing Oak

Mountain Road, plowing the short access road, boat ramp, and small parking area would

not add much additional time or cost. In addition, it would allow access to the boat ramp

during the winter season, therefore extending the regular recreation use season.

We estimate that the annualized cost of implementing these recreation measures at

Iron Canyon reservoir would be $1,408,466, and we conclude that the benefits associated

expanding recreational opportunities at Iron Canyon reservoir would be worth this cost.

Pit 6 and 7 Reservoir Recreation Facilities

Forest Service condition 30 specifies that PG&E develop a shoreline trail at Pit 6

reservoir if capacity or demand (based on six-year recreation use monitoring) indicates

increased use of the reservoir for fishing or boating. Providing access to the river near

Pit 6 and 7 reservoirs would improve recreational access at the project if there is an

increase in recreation use at the Pit 6 reservoir. This measure could be considered in the

future if the recreation use data collected every six years shows it is warranted.

Additionally, constructing the proposed river access trail at the upper end of Pit 7

reservoir and conducting a feasibility assessment for providing a boat put-in or a handcarry launch, as proposed by PG&E and specified by the Forest Service, at Montgomery

Creek near the lower end of Pit 7 reservoir, would enhance access to Pit 7 reservoir for

existing pedestrian fishing and hand-launch boating. The Forest Service further specifies

that if Montgomery Creek is not feasible, PG&E would construct a second trailhead with

parking for a minimum of three vehicles and develop a river access trail along one side of

the reservoir for pedestrian fishing, and hand-launch boat access from the lower end of

Pit 7 reservoir. PG&E has expressed concern for public safety if boating access is

provided at the upper and lower portions of Pit 7 reservoir due to riverine high flows

from the Pit 6 powerhouse and riverine conditions at low reservoir levels (fast flowing

water) that could increase the likelihood of boats overtopping the dam and prevent

boaters from returning upstream to exit the reservoir. Boating is prohibited within 500 ft

of the dam and PG&E is concerned that providing shoreline access may encourage

boating use which would create a concern for public safety. Although constructing a boat

put-in or a hand-carry launch where Montgomery Creek enters Pit 7 reservoir would

increase boating and fishing access, due to PG&E’s public safety concerns, it would not

be appropriate to launch boats at this location. Therefore, we do not recommend PG&E

conduct a feasibility assessment for providing a hand-launch or boat put-in where

Montgomery Creek enters Pit 7 reservoir.

We recommend PG&E construct a river access trail at the upper end of Pit 7

reservoir and a river access trail with parking at the lower end of Pit 7 reservoir. We

estimate that the annualized cost of implementing this recreation measure at Pit 7

reservoir would be $17,324, and we conclude that the benefits associated with providing

additional pedestrian access at Pit 7 reservoir would be worth this cost.
349

Pit 7 Afterbay Recreation Facilities

PG&E does not propose any new recreation facilities at the Pit 7 afterbay. Public

access to the Pit 7 afterbay is currently restricted by PG&E for public safety reasons due

to the rapidly fluctuating water level and strong water current. Both fencing and warning

signs have been posted to prohibit shoreline and boating access. However, PG&E’s

proposal to reconstruct Fenders Flat day-use area (above Pit 7 afterbay dam), provide

access near the proposed Pit 7 afterbay powerhouse, and provide parking at the end of the

powerhouse access road or along Fenders Ferry Road, subject to public safety, would

enhance recreational opportunities in the vicinity of the afterbay by formalizing this

existing dispersed recreation area. Moreover, reconstructing Fenders Flat car-top boat

launch would provide boater access to the Pit arm of Shasta Lake during late winter and

early spring when high lake levels allow boat launching.

PG&E’s proposal to upgrade the existing recreation facilities at Pit 7 afterbay and

continue prohibiting public access to Pit 7 afterbay water surface by maintaining fencing,

signage, and patrols would help to ensure public safety at the project. We recommend

PG&E reconstruct recreation Fenders Flat day-use area and car-top boat launch at Pit 7

afterbay and continue to prohibit public access to Pit 7 afterbay water surface. We

estimate that the annualized cost of implementing the recreation measures at Pit 7

reservoir would be $436,863, and we conclude that the benefits would be worth this cost.

Recreation Monitoring

Recreation use at the project is expected to double over the next 50 years. The

level and type of recreation use and recreation user preferences could change over the

term of a new license. PG&E proposal of periodic monitoring of recreation use, user

preference surveys, assessment of facility capacity and recreation demand, and

inventorying areas used for dispersed recreation would help to determine if the project’s

recreation facilities provide adequate public recreation access and meet user demand over

the term of the license. In addition to PG&E’s proposal, the Forest Service specifies that

PG&E include monitoring of boat use during the recreation season at both McCloud and

Iron Canyon reservoirs as a part of recreation monitoring efforts every six years.

Monitoring boat use would help to identify excessive use and potential user conflicts on

the reservoirs. FERC Form 80 already requires facility capacity and demand to be

reported every six years; however, the additional recreation report would provide more

specific information such as changes in use patterns and whether or not resource damage

is occurring. We recommend that PG&E implement recreation monitoring as a part of

the recreation plan for all project recreation facilities and file a monitoring report

concurrently with the FERC Form 80 schedule every six years after license issuance. We

estimate that the annualized cost of this measure would be $300,000 and conclude that

the benefits of this measure are worth the cost.
350

Reservoir Water Surface and Shoreline Management

PG&E originally proposed to clean debris from the McCloud reservoir boat ramp

and Iron Canyon reservoir water surface annually, weather permitting, and as needed

throughout the recreation season. Forest Service condition 30 specifies PG&E conduct

annual surface sweeps prior to the start of the recreation season on both McCloud and

Iron Canyon reservoirs and boat ramps to collect logs and debris from the lake surface

with smaller debris and trash removed from NFS lands. PG&E alternative condition 30

proposes to conduct annual surface sweeps of the reservoirs, if needed, prior to the start

of the recreation season and collect logs and other debris from the lakes’ surfaces once

every five years. Surface sweeps of McCloud and Iron Canyon reservoirs and boat ramps

would remove surface debris to reduce boating hazards and ensure that the boat ramps are

not blocked by debris. The annual sweeps, as specified by the Forest Service, would

ensure that winter storm debris that could accumulate seasonally is removed prior to the

beginning of each recreation season.

Additionally, PG&E proposed to develop a surface water and shoreline

management plan for McCloud reservoir that includes installing 5-mph signs on the

bridge that spans the northern end of the reservoir, LWD removal from the reservoir,

points of public access to the shoreline, and boating speeds. Developing protocols for

preventing/removing unapproved buoy courses and approved use of docks would help

prevent boating hazards and improve public recreational safety at the project reservoirs.

Forest Service condition 30 specifies that PG&E submit requests to the Shasta

County Boating Unit of the Sheriff’s office for the establishment of a 5-mph restriction

on a portion of McCloud reservoir and for a buoy line near Huckleberry Creek on

McCloud reservoir. Although speeding on the reservoirs has been identified as an issue

by project users, enforcement of speed restrictions is not the responsibility of the

Commission. PG&E is subject to local laws and ordinances as they pertain to reservoir

speed limits.

Additionally, the Forest Service specifies PG&E implement measures to prevent

trespass on private lands to protect public safety. The Commission does not have

authority on private lands outside the project boundary; it is the responsibility of private

landowners to clearly mark their property if trespassing is problematic.

We recommend PG&E implement a water surface management component of the

recreation plan to include protocols for preventing/removing unapproved buoy courses

and approved use of docks, surface sweeps of McCloud and Iron Canyon reservoirs and

boat ramps, annually or as needed, and measures to prevent unauthorized access to

project lands and waters, where necessary, to protect public safety. We estimate the

annualized cost of the overall surface water management component would be $5,000

and conclude that the benefits of this measure are worth the cost.
351

Project Signage and Interpretative Information

The project currently does not have a coordinated and systematic process for the

development of signage and interpretative information associated with the project.

Development and implementation of a project sign plan with associated interpretive and

educational measures for the project would provide the means for coordinated and

systematic development of signage and interpretative information to ensure public safety

and help the public get the most out of visits to the project. Furthermore, providing

informational kiosks at developed project facilities and a public website to host recreation

information would provide a source for visitors to locate recreation information about the

project both on the internet and onsite. Therefore, we recommend the development of the

project sign and education plan as a part of the recreation plan in consultation with the

Forest Service and that PG&E be responsible for ensuring that public information

required under the project sign and educations plan is available through the Internet, via

PG&E’s web site. We estimate that the annualized cost of the project sign plan would be

$41,874 and the annualized cost of the interpretive and educational component would be

$29,892 and conclude that the benefits of these measures are worth the cost.

Dispersed Use and OHV Use

PG&E’s proposal to work with the Forest Service to discourage dispersed

camping, littering, and OHV use through the assessment and evaluation of road closures,

trail closures, and dispersed use closure would improve visitors’ recreational experience

at the project and enhance public safety. Further, by implementing measures to block

vehicle access and discourage dispersed use and OHV use at the project, environmental

resources be would further protected. Although not included in Forest Service

condition 30 and PG&E alternative condition 30, including McCloud reservoir in the

evaluation would address areas identified at both reservoirs where dispersed use occurs.

Prohibiting dispersed camping and OHV use between the roads and reservoir shorelines

would help eliminate this resource damage and improve the aesthetic quality of the area

for visitors to the project. To discourage dispersed-use recreation, we recommend that

PG&E evaluate and implement appropriate road closures and trail closures, in

coordination with the Forest Service, for the area inside the project boundary around both

McCloud and Iron Canyon reservoirs. We estimate the annualized cost of this measure

would be $114,202 and conclude that the benefits of this measure would be worth the

cost.

Project Patrol

PG&E proposes to prepare a project patrol plan in consultation with the Forest

Service that would address patrol at the project, including NFS land within the project

area. Similarly, Forest Service condition 30 specifies that, as part of the recreation

management plan, PG&E develop and implement a project patrol component and

coordinate annually with appropriate agencies and other interested parties to review

information from the prior season and plan any adjustments for the next high-use season.

Forest Service condition 30 also species that PG&E would employ a seasonal, part-time
352

(April-November) project patrol person or, alternately, provide funding to an appropriate

federal, state, or local agency to provide that same. PG&E alternative condition 30 is

generally the same, but limits some of the duty-area of the project patrol. Hearst

Corporation filed comments supporting the concept of a host or project patrol person.

Although more visible patrol or law enforcement may help reduce conflicts

between recreation users and improve visitor safety, the state and county are responsible

for law enforcement activities at public recreation sites, including within the project area.

Further, the Commission has no way of ensuring that the hiring of a patrol person or

campground host paid for by the licensee (in this case staffing or funding a seasonal

employee) would actually accomplish a project purpose or ameliorate a project effect.

There would be no indication that existing recreation conflicts would be reduced through

the proposed measure; therefore, we do not recommend that PG&E provide patrol (i.e.,

seasonal employee, campground host) or funding for a law enforcement position.

Provision of Stream Flow Information

Accurate and timely stream flow information and information about the usability

of the project boat launches can assist recreationists in planning water-related visits to the

project. PG&E’s proposal to provide accurate and timely stream flow information to the

public would provide the means for the public to gain information regarding stream flow

and reservoir levels for specified stream reaches and reservoirs at the project. Therefore,

we recommend PG&E provide stream flow and reservoir drawdown information to the

public via its website on the Internet. We estimate the annualized cost of this measure to

be $4,000, and conclude that the benefits outweigh the costs.

Cultural Resources

National Register of Historic Places Eligibility

As part of the required cultural resource surveys, PG&E surveyed all accessible

project lands within the APE. Although requested, PG&E has not yet conducted

evaluations to determine which, if any, of the identified sites are eligible for inclusion in

the National Register. Based upon the information provided by PG&E, we find that one

archaeological site (CA-SHA-252) currently adversely affected by the project is eligible

for inclusion in the National Register. As discussed below, however, we continue to

recommend that PG&E determine National Register-eligibilities on all remaining cultural

resources that either currently or have the potential to be adversely affected by the

project.

Cultural Resource Management

Continued operation of the project, along with construction of the proposed

generation and recreation facilities, could adversely affect properties eligible for listing in

the National Register. To protect and manage historic properties within the project APE,

PG&E prepared and filed a draft HPMP and proposed to continue consultation to develop

a final HPMP. In the HPMP, PG&E proposes to conduct monitoring of sites within the

project area that are eligible for listing on the National Register. In addition, the HPMP
353

includes additional mitigation and management measures for historic properties affected

by the project, as well as proposals for continuous cultural resource consultation with the

Forest Service, the Pit River Tribe, and the Winnemem Wintu Tribe.

Forest Service condition 34 also specifies finalization and implementation of the

HPMP and that the HPMP should: (1) fully integrate all cultural resource studies

completed for the project relicensing, including each tribe’s TCP studies; (2) take into

account project effects on National Register-eligible properties that are being periodically

inundated by Iron Canyon reservoir and elsewhere on NFS lands; (3) provide measures to

mitigate effects on historic properties; (4) evaluate whether an archaeological or

ethnographic historic district should be established on the lower McCloud River within

the project’s expanded APE; and (5) provide for a monitoring program and management

protocols on NFS lands.

PG&E alternative condition 34 proposes slight modifications to Forest Service

condition 34. PG&E proposed that: (1) if a TCP report from the Winnemem Wintu is

completed after a final HPMP is filed, then the final HPMP would need to be amended;

(2) National Register eligibilities would be applied to sites periodically inundated that are

being affected by project-related effects; (3) mitigation measures would be applied after

the California SHPO determined that those project-related affects are adverse, and such

measures are necessary; and (4) determining a historic district involving archaeological

and ethnographic sites would be done only if there is compelling evidence that supports

such a historic district.

We have reviewed PG&E’s HPMP and recommend that PG&E include the

following additional measures within the HPMP:

 Treatment measures, to be conducted within one year of license issuance, that

resolve project-related adverse effects on National Register-eligible

archaeological site CA-SHA-252;

 National Register evaluations, to be completed within one year of license

issuance, on all cultural resources that are currently, or in the future will be,

adversely affected by the project;

 Site-specific protection measures, to be completed within two years of license

issuance, to resolve project-related erosion effects on all National Registereligible archaeological sites; and

 Measures for handling of newly discovered paleontological resources, due to

the recent paleontological law enacted by Congress in March 2009 that
354

requires all federal land managers to manage and protect paleontological

resources discovered on their lands.35

PG&E has not filed the results of its Winnemem Wintu TCP study. On

April 23, 2010, and May 25, 2010, PG&E and the Winnemem Wintu Tribe (Tribe),

respectively, filed letters with the Commission explaining the parties’ disagreement about

who can gain access to Tribe’s TCP study.36 The Commission is not the appropriate

venue for resolving this issue.37 The Commission’s responsibilities under NEPA and

section 106 of the NHPA necessitate that we receive all pertinent information concerning

the Tribe’s TCPs so that we may accurately determine how the relicensing of the

McCloud-Pit Project affects the Tribe’s cultural resources. Prior to issuance of a license,

and pursuant to section 106, Commission staff needs to know whether any properties of

religious or cultural significance to the Tribe could be affected by the project; therefore,

we recommend that any license for the project include a provision requiring PG&E

complete the Winnemem Wintu TCP study within 1 year of license issues.

Implementation of PG&E’s proposal, along with staff’s additional measures,

would ensure that adverse effects on historic properties as a result of project operation,

maintenance, recreation, vandalism, or other existing and future project-related activities

would be addressed over the term of any new license issued for the project. In order to

implement the protections provided by the HPMP, Commission staff would develop a

Programmatic Agreement (PA), executed among the Commission, the California SHPO,

and the Advisory Council, should the Council choose to participate. PG&E, the Forest

Service, Pit River Tribe, and Winnemem Wintu Tribe would be invited to sign the PA as

concurring parties. With the execution of the PA and implementation of a final HPMP,

all anticipated effects on any historic properties within the project APE would be

resolved. We estimate that implementation of the protective measures proposed in

PG&E’s final HPMP would have an annualized cost of $283,748. These costs would

35 See Omnibus Public Land Management Act (OPLMA) of 2009, Public

Law 111-011. P.L. 111-011, Title VI, Subtitle D on Paleontological Resources

Preservation (OPLMA-PRP) (123 Stat. 1172; 16 U.S.C. 470aaa). This statute requires

the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to manage and protect paleontological

resources on federal land using scientific principles and expertise. The OPLMA-PRP

includes specific provisions addressing management of these resources by the Forest

Service and other agencies.

36 Letter from Steve Nevares, PG&E, dated April 23, 2010, and letter from

Stephen Volker, Attorney for Winnemem Wintu Tribe, dated May 25, 2010.

37 As the MOU is a legal document between PG&E and the Tribe, the

Commission cannot enforce any of the clauses contained within the document. While the

Commission itself is not the appropriate venue for resolving these issues, we can refer the

parties to the Commission’s Dispute Resolution Service. If both parties feel facilitation

could assist in resolving their dispute, please contact Commission staff.
355

include the modifications to the HPMP as specified by Forest Service condition 34,

as well as staff’s recommendations, and we conclude that the expected benefits of

implementing the HPMP with the recommended modifications are worth the cost.

Land Use and Aesthetic Resources

Road and Transportation Facilities Management Plan

A road and transportation facilities management plan, as proposed by PG&E and

specified by Forest Service condition 29, would establish a forum for coordination of

road maintenance activities among PG&E, the Forest Service, and other affected parties.

Specifically, the plan would address operations, maintenance, construction and

reconstruction, monitoring, and road use within the project boundary (project roads are

listed in table 3-40). A plan would help to clarify and memorialize PG&E’s road

management responsibilities within the project boundary, ensure safe public access to

project lands and waters, and ensure the adequate protection of natural and environmental

resources in the project area. We estimate that the annualized cost of developing and

implementing this plan would be $3,950,229 and conclude that the benefits of this

measure warrant the costs. We recommend the implementation of this measure.

Fire Prevention and Response Plan

The development and implementation of a fire prevention and response plan in

consultation with the Forest Service, the California Department of Forestry and Fire

Protection, the Big Bend Volunteer Fire Department, and others, as appropriate, that

incorporates both the measures proposed by PG&E and specified by the Forest Service,

would improve planning, management and coordination of wildfire protection and

prevention measures, as well as lead to a reduction in the occurrence and suppression of

wildfires in the project area. We estimate that the annualized cost of developing and

implementing this plan would be $3,903. Given the benefits of improved public safety

and reduced potential damage to property and natural resources, we conclude that the

benefits of this measure are worth the cost and recommend the implementation of this

measure.

Hazardous Substance Management Plan

Forest Service condition 28 specifies that PG&E file, for Commission approval, a

plan approved by the Forest Service for oil and hazardous substances storage and spill

prevention and cleanup. To meet the regulatory requirements for handling, storage, and

emergency response related to hazardous materials PG&E has developed an SPCC plan

and HMBP. The content of these existing plans includes the information specified in

Forest Service condition 28. PG&E proposes to provide copies of these plans to the

Forest Service. The continued implementation of these plans would ensure that spills of

hazardous substances are promptly contained and cleaned up to avoid/minimize the

potential extent of adverse environmental effects. We estimate that the annualized cost of

filing the existing SPCC plan and HMBP with the Commission and providing copies to
356

the Forest Service would be minimal, and we recommend implementation of this

measure.

Project Boundary

We have concluded that certain roads and dispersed areas recommended by the

Forest Service to be included in the project boundary do not meet the Commission’s

criteria for roads used primarily for project purposes and should not be included in the

project boundary.38 The Forest Service further recommended that all new, proposed

recreation facilities be included within the project boundary. By requiring PG&E to

include all project recreation sites within the project boundary, the Commission would

have the authority to ensure that PG&E maintains adequate and safe public access to

project lands and waters for recreational purposes. If new recreation sites are included in

a new project license, PG&E would be required to file a revised exhibit G that would

include the new facilities. We estimate that the annualized cost of filing revised exhibit

maps with the Commission would be $9,517 and conclude the benefits of this measure

warrant the costs. We recommend the implementation of this measure.

Visual Quality Management Plan

Aesthetic resources can be affected by project facilities and operations. Project

facilities, such as project powerhouses, transmission lines, and recreation facilities can

dominate views, creating contrast with the natural landscape. Forest Service condition 32

specifies that PG&E develop procedures or a timeline to ensure implementation of certain

mitigation measures to provide for visual quality of project and project-related NFS

lands. PG&E alternative condition 32 proposes to include only existing and proposed

project facilities (i.e., generation additions) and does not propose modifications to

existing project facilities for visual quality purposes because studies conducted during

relicensing did not identify any needed modifications.

The implementation of a visual quality management plan would help to ensure that

new project facilities are consistent with the Forest Service’s Visual Quality Objectives

for the project area. The measures proposed by PG&E and specified by the Forest

Service, such as visual screening, painting, providing interpretive information, and

maintaining reservoir levels during the peak recreation season would collectively reduce

the impacts on aesthetic resources in the project area. We recommend PG&E finalize

and implement a visual quality management plan, in consultation with the Forest Service

and stakeholders, as appropriate, to protect the visual quality of lands in the project area

within one year of license issuance. At a minimum this plan should address the impact of

any proposed project facilities on the aesthetics in the project area, including but not

38 For more information regarding the Commission’s roads policy, please see the

Commission’s Policy Statement on Hydroelectric Licensing Settlements, issued

September 21, 2006.
357

limited to generating facilities, recreation sites and facilities, and spoil piles. We estimate

an annualized cost of $11,420 and recommend implementation of this measure.

Proposed Additional Generation Units

To develop the hydro potential from higher instream flows that may be required in

a new license, PG&E studied the feasibility of installing new generation units at both the

McCloud and Pit 7 afterbay dams. For McCloud dam, PG&E studied the feasibility of

both a 5-MW powerhouse and an 8-MW powerhouse. For the Pit 7 afterbay

development, PG&E analyzed both a 5-MW powerhouse a 10-MW powerhouse. In the

final license application, PG&E says it will determine the final size of the units and their

hydraulic capacity based on instream flow requirements of the new project license. In

table 4-7 of section 4.4, Comparison of Alternatives for PG&E’s Proposed Powerhouses,

we compare our estimate of the power value, annual costs, and net benefits of the

powerhouse alternatives presented by PG&E in the license application. As table 4-7

shows, the four alternatives that PG&E is considering would have initial annual costs that

far exceed the current power value.

PG&E needs to decide whether to propose the new units at McCloud dam and the

Pit 7 afterbay dam, and how to appropriately size them. Though our analysis shows that

the cost of these new units could exceed the potential power benefits, PG&E might

consider whether these hydro proposals would qualify as part of its state requirement to

develop renewable resources and whether to accept the financial risk that entails from

developing these units. Therefore, until PG&E decides on the final capacity of these

minimum flow units, we make no recommendation at this time regarding the proposed

additional generation units.

5.3 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS

The continued operation of the project would result in some minor unavoidable

adverse effects on geologic, soil, and terrestrial resources. The geologic and soil

resources effects could include some minor continued erosion associated with project

operation and renovation of recreational facilities and interruption of sediment transport

at project reservoirs. Most of these effects would be reduced by the proposed resources

enhancement measures, including: (1) development and implementation of an erosion

and sediment control plan; and (2) development and implementation of an LWD plan.

For terrestrial resources, these effects could include short-term loss of vegetation

communities along the proposed transmission line. Most of these effects would be

reduced by proposed resource enhancement measures, including the development and

implementation of a VMP and implementation of vegetation management BMPs.

Vegetation within the permanent corridor would re-establish; however, the vegetation

within the corridor would be managed and maintained as necessary and in the long-term

would be permanently altered from the original plant communities that existed prior to

the construction of the new transmission lines.
358

We have identified no other unavoidable adverse effects on resources influenced

by project operation.

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

CONDITIONS

5.4.1 Recommendations of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

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

by the Commission shall include conditions based on recommendations provided by state

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

fish and wildlife resources affected by the project.

Section 10(j) of the FPA states that whenever the Commission believes that any

fish and wildlife agency recommendation is inconsistent with the purposes and the

requirements of the FPA or other applicable law, the Commission and the agency shall

attempt to resolve any such inconsistency, giving due weight to the recommendations,

expertise, and statutory responsibilities of the agency. If the Commission still does not

adopt a recommendation, it must explain how the recommendation is inconsistent with

Part I of the FPA, or other applicable law and how the conditions imposed by the

Commission adequately and equitably protect, mitigate damages to, and enhance fish and

wildlife resources.

In response to the Commission’s Ready for Environmental Analysis notice, issued

December 1, 2009, California Fish and Game (February 2, 2010) and NMFS

(January 29, 2010) filed letters providing comments and terms and conditions for the

McCloud-Pit Project, pursuant to section 10(j). Table 5-1 summarizes the agency

recommendations made under section 10(j), as well as whether the recommendations are

adopted under the staff alternative. Environmental recommendations that we consider

outside the scope of section 10(j) have been considered under section 10(a) of the FPA

and are addressed in the specific resource sections of this document and in section 5.2,

Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.

Of the 15 recommendations, we make a preliminary determination that 10 of the

recommendations made by NMFS and two recommendations made by California Fish

and Game are within the scope of section 10(j). Of those 12 recommendations filed by

NMFS or California Fish and Game, we adopt three and partially adopt one. We do not

adopt the remaining eight, recommended by NMFS, because they are inconsistent with

the comprehensive planning standard of section 10(a) of the FPA, as well as the equal

consideration provision of section 4(e) of the FPA.

NMFS provided eight 10(j) recommendations that include protection, mitigation,

and enhancement measures to be implemented as soon as listed salmonids are

documented within the McCloud River. We note, however, that no listed salmonids have

been documented within the project area due to the barrier created by the Bureau of

Reclamation’s Shasta Dam and lack of fish passage facilities provided at that dam. As
359

such, it is premature to implement measures associated with the protection of these

species. If and when listed salmonids are documented in the Lower McCloud River, the

Commission’s standard reopening procedure can be used, if necessary, to address a need

for supportive habitat conditions in project reaches. Because there are no federally-listed

salmon that are currently affected by the project, implementation of NMFS’s

recommended measures would not be worth any associated cost. Therefore, we find

these nine measures inconsistent with the comprehensive planning standard of section

10(a) of the FPA, as well as the equal consideration provision of section 4(e) of the FPA.

While we recommend adopting the minimum instream flow regime recommended

by California Fish and Game for Iron Canyon Creek and Pit 7 dam, we do not

recommend adopting California Fish and Game’s recommended minimum flow regimes

for below McCloud dam. Our analysis in sections 3.3.2.2 and 5.2 indicates that the staffrecommend Lower McCloud River flow regime, as specified in Forest Service

condition 19 and proposed in PG&E’s alternative condition 19, would provide a similar

level of increased trout habitat with less loss to generation. We estimate that the

annualized cost of implementing the minimum flow regime recommended by California

Fish and Game would be $12,035,673 per year, which is $1,945,056 more than the cost

of the staff recommended flow regime and the added benefit is not worth the cost.

Therefore, we find that California Fish and Game’s recommended minimum flow regime

for the Lower McCloud River is inconsistent with the comprehensive planning standard

of section 10(a) of the FPA, as well as the equal consideration provision of section 4(e) of

the FPA.
360

Table 5-2. Analysis of fish and wildlife agency section 10(j) recommendations for the

McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project. (Source: Staff)

Recommendations Agency

Within

Scope of

10(j)?

Annualized

Cost Adopted?

1. Submit draft

biological evaluation or

assessment for specialstatus species protection

and mitigation

NMFS Yes $0 Yes

2. Consult annually on

newly added specialstatus species

NMFS No. Not a

specific

measure to

protect,

mitigate, or

enhance

fish and

wildlife

resources.

$11,000 Yes

3. Provide access to

suitable habitat for

anadromous fish and

restore fully functioning

habitat conditions for

spawning, rearing,

migration, and adjoining

habitats

NMFS Yes NA Not adopted;

premature given lack

of anadromous fish on

the McCloud River

4. Implement scheduled

instream flows for

McCloud River to the

benefit of native

anadromous fishes

NMFS Yes NA Not adopted;

premature given lack

of anadromous fish on

the McCloud River

5. Move instream flow

compliance point from

gage MC-1 to gage MC7 or at McCloud dam

NMFS Yes $60,000 Yes
361

Recommendations Agency

Within

Scope of

10(j)?

Annualized

Cost Adopted?

6. Implement instream

flow range estimates

that meet the thermal

summer spawning

requirements for winterrun Chinook salmon

NMFS Yes NA Not adopted;

premature given lack

of anadromous fish on

the McCloud River

7. Implement ramping

to minimize impacts of

flows on listed

salmonids

NMFS Yes NA Not adopted;

premature given lack

of anadromous fish on

the McCloud River

8. Augment gravel

substrates for listed

salmonids

NMFS Yes NA Not adopted;

premature given lack

of anadromous fish on

the McCloud River

9. Maintain channel to

minimize impacts of

project operations on

habitat for listed

salmonids

NMFS Yes NA Not adopted;

premature given lack

of anadromous fish on

the McCloud River

10. Protect and enhance

riparian habitat and

habitat function for

listed salmonids

NMFS Yes NA Not adopted;

premature given lack

of anadromous fish on

the McCloud River

11. Maintain water

quality, including

temperature, for the

benefit of listed

salmonids

NMFS Yes NA Not adopted;

premature given lack

of anadromous fish on

the McCloud River
362

Recommendations Agency

Within

Scope of

10(j)?

Annualized

Cost Adopted?

12. Create the Listed

Salmonid Technical

Integration Committee

NMFS No. Not a

specific

measure to

protect,

mitigate, or

enhance

fish and

wildlife

resources.

$20,000 Not adopted

13. Implement

minimum instream

flows for Lower

McCloud River, Iron

Canyon Creek, and Pit

River below Pit 7 dam

California

Fish and

Game

Yes $12,035,673 Partially adopted:

recommend

implementation of Iron

Canyon Creek and

Pit 7 dam flow, but

find Lower McCloud

River flow

recommendation

inconsistent with the

comprehensive

planning standard of

sections 4(e) and 10(a)

of the FPA, because

the loss of generation

associated with the

higher instream flows

do outweigh the

negligible benefits.

14. Prepare a

gravel/sediment

management plan,

which includes

requirement to add a

minimum of 150 tons of

gravel and associated

sediment to the

McCloud River

annually

California

Fish and

Game

Yes $75,000 Yes
363

Recommendations Agency

Within

Scope of

10(j)?

Annualized

Cost Adopted?

15. Reimburse

California Fish and

Game for increased

stocking of trout

annually, at levels above

current levels in order to

meet recreational needs.

Licensee shall also pay

California Fish and

Game $5,000 annually

for mitigation for white

sturgeon.

California

Fish and

Game

No. Not a

specific

measure to

protect,

mitigate, or

enhance

fish and

wildlife

resources.

$952 Yes

5.4.2 Forest Service 4(e) Conditions

In section 2.2.5.3, Section 4(e) Federal Land Management Conditions, we note

that section 4(e) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. §797(e), provides that any license issued by the

Commission for a project within a federal reservation shall be subject to and contain such

conditions as the Secretary of the responsible federal land management agency deems

necessary for the adequate protection and use of the reservation. Thus, any condition that

meets the requirements of the law may be included in a license issued by the

Commission, regardless of whether we include the condition in our staff alternative.

In section 2.2.5.3, we identify that we consider 16 of the Forest Service conditions

to be administrative or legal in nature and not specific environmental measures. We

therefore do not analyze these 16 conditions in our draft EIS. Table 5-2 summarizes our

staff conclusions with respect to the conditions that we consider to be environmental

measures. Of the 21 Forest Service conditions that we do not consider administrative or

legal in nature, we fully recommend six in the staff alternative, partially recommend 11,

and do not recommend four. Our reasons for not including measures in the staff

alternative are summarized in table 5-2 and are discussed in more detail in section 5.2.1,

Discussion of Key Issues.
364

Table 5-3. Forest Service 4(e) conditions for the McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project.

(Source: Forest Service, 2010a)

Condition Annualized

Cost Recommended?

Condition 1: Consult with the Forest Service

annually on project O&M activities. Shall include

status reports on license condition implementation,

results of monitoring studies, routine and nonroutine maintenance, review of any necessary

revisions or modifications of plans included in

license, discussion of any measures that are needed

to protect special-status species or changes to

existing management plans, and any planned

pesticide use.

$30,000 Yes

Condition 11: Submit a biological evaluation to

the Forest Service before taking actions to

construct new project features that may affect

Forest Service special-status species or their

critical habitat. This shall include procedures to

minimize impacts to special-status species, adhere

to restrictions in site management plans for specialstatus species, and develop monitoring to reduce

effects to special-status species.

$0 Yes

Condition 15: Obtain prior written approval from

the Forest Service for use of pesticides on NFS

lands or in areas affecting NFS lands. Pesticide

use will be excluded from NFS lands within 500 ft

of known locations of Shasta salamanders,

northwestern pond turtles, foothill yellow-legged

frogs, or known locations of Forest Service specialstatus or culturally significant plant populations.

$0 Yes
365

Condition Annualized

Cost Recommended?

Condition 19, Part 1b: Maintain specified

minimum streamflows in project reaches in

accordance with the provisions described in the

Forest Service filing. The minimum instantaneous

15-minute streamflow shall be at least 80 percent

of the prescribed mean daily flow for those

minimum streamflows less than or equal to 10 cfs,

and at least 90 percent of the streamflows required

to be greater than 10 cfs. Should the mean daily

flow as measured be less than the required mean

daily flow but more than the instantaneous flow,

licensee shall begin releasing the equivalent underreleased volume of water within 7 days of

discovery of the under-release.

$0 Yes, but with

incorporation

some of PG&E

alternative

condition 19 and

a flow regime for

the Lower

McCloud River

as recommend by

California Trout,

Trout Unlimited,

and the McCloud

River Club

Condition 19, Part 2: Determine the water year

type for minimum flow compliance based on the

DWR Bulletin 120 water year forecast of

unimpaired runoff for the Sacramento River near

Redding.

$5,000 No, instead

recommend the

use of DWR

Bulletin 120 of

the McCloud

River above

Shasta Lake

Condition 19, Part 3: Operate, maintain, and

modify (if necessary) gages needed to determine

river stage and minimum streamflow and measure

and document all instream flow releases in publicly

available formats.

$120,000 Yes
366

Condition Annualized

Cost Recommended?

Condition 20: Prepare a water quality and

temperature monitoring plan in consultation with

agencies and approved by the Forest Service. The

plan shall include monitoring of all project

reservoirs every 5 years for contaminants;

monitoring of dissolved oxygen at McCloud, Pit 6,

and Pit 7 reservoirs; annual monitoring during

months of May through September, for 10 years, of

potential water temperature effects to beneficial

uses including recreation, aquatic habitats, and

target species (i.e., foothill yellow-legged frogs,

fish, benthic macroinvertebrates), as a result of

modified in-stream flows and reservoir operations;

continuous monitoring of turbidity for the term of

the license in the Lower McCloud River during the

fishing season, and periodically during

construction or other soil disturbing activities;

continuous monitoring of turbidity for 5 years after

license issuance at Iron Canyon Creek to ensure

that repairs have reduced sedimentation into the

creek below the dam; implementation of best

management practices (BMPs) to satisfy the

Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives from the

Northwest Forest Planning area; and mitigation of

impacts from project O&M, recreation, road use

and maintenance, vegetation management, fire

management, and watershed practices.

$86,179 Yes, with

incorporation of

some of PG&E

alternative

condition 20

Condition 21: Prepare an LWD management plan

in consultation with agencies and approved by the

Forest Service. The plan will specify size criteria,

placement and storage sites, volume and frequency

of placement, and monitoring procedures to assess

the effectiveness of LWD mobilization and

dispersal in the Lower McCloud River.

$452,506 Yes
367

Condition Annualized

Cost Recommended?

Condition 22: Prepare an erosion and sediment

control management and monitoring plan

developed in consultation with agencies, and

approved by the Forest Service. The plan shall

include methods for inventorying and monitoring

project-related erosion and sedimentation,

inspection schedule, inventory of erosion sites,

criteria for treating erosion sites, schedule for

repair of erosion sites, protocols for emergency

erosion and sediment control, a process and

schedule for reporting monitoring results including

plan review and revision, and BMPs for erosion

control measures.

$119,686 Yes
368

Condition Annualized

Cost Recommended?

Condition 23: Develop a gravel and coarse

sediment management plan in consultation with

agencies and approved by the Forest Service. The

plan shall require the addition of 150-600 t of

gravel and coarse sediment to the Lower McCloud

River annually. The gravel shall be clean and

range between 8 and 128 millimeters in size. It is

recommended that the licensee use sorted gravel

and coarse sediment in the Star City Creek inlet as

the source of material. Inputs of gravel and coarse

sediment will occur within the reach of the Lower

McCloud River between the spillway and the

Hawkins Creek confluence. The plan shall identify

the source of materials, identify the locations for

gravel introduction in the Lower McCloud River

below McCloud dam, identify any facilities or

improvements necessary for accessing the sites for

gravel and coarse sediment placement, identify

approved temporary or long-term stockpile sites,

develop a schedule for placement, and include an

adaptive management component to allow higher

or lower quantities of gravel and coarse sediment

to be delivered based upon spill and monitoring

results. The plan shall also incorporate biological

monitoring of species affected by gravel and coarse

sediment, specifically trout and

macroinvertebrates. Monitoring shall be conducted

in the reach of the Lower McCloud River between

McCloud dam and Bald Mountain Creek

confluence.

$84,517 Yes, with

incorporation of

some of PG&E

alternative

condition 23
369

Condition Annualized

Cost Recommended?

Condition 24: Prepare a reservoir dredging plan in

consultation with and approved by the Forest

Service not less than 90 days prior to any proposed

reservoir dredging operations. The plan shall

include the location, amount, and timing of

dredging; the extent, amount, composition, and

size of dredged materials; and identify approved

stockpile sites, equipment, road access, storage

locations of material, proposed start and end date

of dredging, conditions to minimize ecological

impacts of dredging, and public notification of the

purpose, timing, and location of dredging.

$5,710 No

Condition 25: Develop a vegetation and invasive

species management plan in consultation with

agencies and approved by the Forest Service. The

plan will address special-status species, aquatic and

terrestrial invasive species, and culturally

significant plants within the project boundary and

adjacent to project features directly affecting NFS

lands including roads and distribution and

transmission lines. The plan shall address

treatment protocols for removing vegetation,

protection of special-status and culturally

significant plants, invasive species management

and monitoring, pesticide use restrictions.

$336,901 Yes, with

incorporation of

some of PG&E

alternative

condition 25
370

Condition Annualized

Cost Recommended?

Condition 26: Develop a terrestrial biological

management plan, including Forest Service

special-status species potentially affected by the

project on NFS lands. This plan should be

consistent with the recent plans for the relicensing

of the Pit 3, 4, 5 Project. The plan should include

monitoring for the species listed in the Forest

Service filing, periodic surveys of the project area

to determine if additional populations develop, and

reporting of survey results including suitable

habitat, populations, individuals, pairs, and nest

locations every 5 years. Mitigation measures

include conducting pre-construction surveys for

special-status species, observing limited operating

periods where required, and using surveys to

determine if additional mitigation measures are

necessary to protect Forest Service special-status

species. The licensee shall file an avian collision

and electrocution hazards plan with the

Commission, and all new or rebuilt power poles

shall conform to APLIC guidelines.

$197,584 Yes, with

incorporation of

some of PG&E

alternative

condition 26

Condition 27: Develop an aquatic biological

monitoring plan in consultation with agencies and

approved by the Forest Service. The plan should

be consistent with the recently relicensed Pit 3, 4, 5

Project plan. The plan should include population

trends, age-class structure, and fish condition

factors in the McCloud reservoir, Iron Canyon

reservoir, Pit 6 reservoir, Pit 7 reservoir, Lower

McCloud River, and Pit River; list of fish species

to be monitored; surveys every 3 years for 9 years,

then every 5 years for the term of the license; and

report aquatic survey and monitoring results every

5 years. The plan will cover benthic

macroinvertebrates, special-status aquatic

mollusks, special-status species, and invasive

aquatic species. The licensee will provide fish

passage structures at stream crossings at listed

streams.

$195,169 Yes, with

incorporation of

some of PG&E

alternative

condition 27
371

Condition Annualized

Cost Recommended?

Condition 28: File a plan approved by the Forest

Service for oil and hazardous substances storage

and spill prevention and cleanup. The plan shall

maintain in a cache of spill cleanup equipment

suitable to contain any spill from the project;

periodically inform the Forest Service of the

location of the spill cleanup equipment on NFS

lands and the location, type, and quantity of oil and

hazardous substances stored in the project area;

and inform the Forest Service immediately of the

nature, time, date, location, and action taken for

any spill on or affecting NFS lands.

$0 Yes, with

incorporation of

some of PG&E

alternative

condition 28

Condition 29: File a road and transportation

facility management plan, approved by the Forest

Service, for protection and maintenance of project

and project-affected roads on or affecting NFS

lands. The plan shall include the following

components: planning and inventory; operation,

maintenance, and road-associated debris;

construction and reconstruction; monitoring;

licensee road memorandum of understanding; road

use by government; and road use. The Forest

Service filing lists project and project-affected

roads, and roads with high erosion potential

requiring repair.

$3,950,229 Yes, with

incorporation of

some of PG&E

alternative

condition 29

Condition 30: Prepare a recreation development

and management plan in consultation with agencies

and approved by the Forest Service to address

recreation resource needs associated with the

project. All new and reconstructed project

recreation facilities will comply with federal

accessibility standards. The plan will address the

following components (included below) and

specify location, design, structures, and schedules

for completion as appropriate: O&M; recreation

survey and monitoring; project patrol; reservoir

water surface management; and construction and

reconstruction of project facilities.

$28,551 Yes, with staff

modifications

and

incorporation of

some of PG&E

alternative

condition 30
372

Condition Annualized

Cost Recommended?

Condition 30: Develop and implement recreation

survey and monitoring component of recreation

plan.

NA Yes, with staff

modifications

and

incorporation of

some of PG&E

alternative

condition 30

Condition 30: Develop and implement project

patrol component of recreation plan.

NA No

Condition 30: Develop and implement surface

water management component of recreation plan.

NA Yes, with staff

modifications

Condition 30: Reconstruct Tarantula Gulch boat

launch and provide day-use area.

NA Yes, with

incorporation of

some of PG&E

alternative

condition 30

Condition 30: Develop Star City day-use area and

campground.

NA Yes, with staff

modification and

incorporation of

PG&E

alternative

condition 30

Condition 30: Construct Red Banks day-use area. NA Yes, with

incorporation of

PG&E

alternative

condition 30

Condition 30: Construct Tarantula Gulch inlet

day-use area.

NA Yes, with

incorporation of

PG&E

alternative

condition 30

Condition 30: Provide West McCloud dam dayuse area.NA Yes, with

incorporation of

PG&E

alternative

condition 30
373

Condition Annualized

Cost Recommended?

Condition 30: Provide East McCloud dam day-use

area.

NA Yes, with

incorporation of

PG&E

alternative

condition 30

Condition 30: Provide Battle Creek day-use area. NA Yes, with

incorporation of

PG&E

alternative

condition 30

Condition 30: Provide McCloud dam angler

recreation access.

NA Yes, with

incorporation of

PG&E

alternative

condition 30

Condition 30: Upgrade/relocate river access trail

from Ash Camp to Ah-Di-Na.

NA No, this facility

does not have a

project nexus

Condition 30: Conduct site evaluation and provide

three day-use parking areas at Iron Canyon

reservoir.

NA Yes, with

incorporation of

PG&E

alternative

condition 30

Condition 30: Evaluate closures of off-highway

vehicle roads and dispersed use.

NA Yes, with staff

modifications

and

incorporation of

some of PG&E

alternative

condition 30

Condition 30: Design and construct Iron Canyon

dam boat launch.

NA Yes, with

incorporation of

some of PG&E

alternative

condition 30
374

Condition Annualized

Cost Recommended?

Condition 30: Reconstruct Hawkins Landing

Campground and boat launch.

NA Yes, with

incorporation of

some of PG&E

alternative

condition 30

Condition 30: Reconstruct or Relocate Deadlun

Campground.

NA Yes, with staff

modification and

incorporation of

some of PG&E

alternative

condition 30

Condition 30: Develop a shoreline trail at Pit 6

reservoir if determined necessary based on six-year

recreation use monitoring.

NA No, this is

premature to

include as

condition

Condition 30: Construct shoreline access trail

(upper end of Pit 7).

NA Yes, with staff

modifications

and

incorporation of

some of PG&E

alternative

condition 30

Condition 30: Evaluate feasibility and construct a

boat put-in at Montgomery Creek (Pit 7 reservoir).

NA Yes, with staff

modifications

and

incorporation of

some of PG&E

alternative

condition 30

Condition 30: If Montgomery Creek is not feasible

for a hand-launch boat put-in, develop a river

access trail along one side of the Pit 7 reservoir for

pedestrian fishing and hand-launch boat access.

NA No
375

Condition Annualized

Cost Recommended?

Condition 30: Reconstruct day-use site at Fenders

Flat.

NA Yes, with

incorporation of

PG&E

alternative

condition 30

Condition 30: Reconstruct the car-top boat launch

near Fenders Flat and provide re-vegetation.

NA Yes, with

incorporation of

PG&E

alternative

condition 30

Condition 30: If additional general is developed

[Pit 7 afterbay powerhouse], provide Pit 7 afterbay

powerhouse day-use area.

NA Yes, with staff

modifications

and

incorporation of

some of PG&E

alternative

condition 30

Condition 30a: Specific recreation and road

agreement. Ah-Di-Na Road (FS road 38N53):

Currently, there is concurrence that road

reconstruction, maintenance, and operation should

be shared between the Forest Service, licensee, and

other affected parties. The licensee has indicated

they would prefer this agreement be outside of the

license. This is acceptable with the Forest Service

as long as agreement on the terms can be reached.

Should agreement not be reached, it will be

included within the memorandum of understanding

(MOU) discussed in condition 29.

Ash Camp and Ah-Di-Na campground: The

concept of the licensee providing full

reconstruction, operation, and maintenance of this

facility outside of the license is acceptable in

concept with the Forest Service as long as

agreement on the terms can be reached. Should

agreement not be reached, this mitigation will be

included in modified 4(e) license conditions.

$0 No, a separate

agreement for

non-project roads

or these

campgrounds is

not within the

Commission’s

jurisdiction to

enforce.

Campgrounds do

not have a

project nexus.
376

Condition Annualized

Cost Recommended?

Condition 31: Develop a project sign plan which

includes road and trail safety, directional and

traffic signs, and an interpretive and educational

component. Sign locations and design elements

will be collaboratively developed.

$71,766 Yes, with

incorporation of

some of PG&E

alternative

condition 31

Condition 32: Develop procedures and a timeline

for mitigation measures to provide for visual

quality of project and project-affected NFS lands.

Specific measures are listed in the Forest Service

filing.

$11,420 Yes, with staff

modifications

and

incorporation of

some of PG&E

alternative

condition 32

Condition 33: Develop a fire and fuels

management plan in consultation with agencies and

approved by the Forest Service. The plan shall set

forth the licensee’s responsibility for prevention,

reporting, and emergency response to fires in the

vicinity of the project resulting from project

operations. The plan shall address fuels treatment,

prevention and response, and investigation of

project-related fires.

$3,903 Yes, with

incorporation of

PG&E

alternative

condition 33
377

Condition Annualized

Cost Recommended?

Condition 34: File a historic properties

management plan with the Commission, approved

by the Forest Service. The plan is tiered to a

programmatic agreement to which the Forest

Service will be a signatory, as defined by 36 CFR

800, and implements regulations of the NHPA.

The licensee shall consult with the SHPO, tribes,

Forest Service, and other applicable agencies

during preparation of the plan. The plan shall

include the CR-S1 and CR-S2 study results,

detailed site monitoring and schedule, National

Register determinations of eligibility for sites

periodically inundated by reservoir fluctuations in

Iron Canyon reservoir, and potential effects of

current or proposed project operations on historic

properties including detailed mitigations. If items

of potential cultural, historical, archaeological, or

paleontological value are reported or discovered

during ground disturbing activities or as a result of

project operations, the licensee shall cease work

immediately and notify the Forest Service.

$283,748 Yes, with staff

modifications

and

incorporation of

some of PG&E

alternative

condition 34

5.5 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS

Section 10(a)(2) of the FPA requires the Commission to consider the extent to

which a project is consistent with federal and state comprehensive plans for improving,

developing, and conserving waterways affected by a project. Under this section, federal

and state agencies filed numerous qualifying comprehensive plans, of which we

identified 13 California and five federal plans that are applicable to the project. The

continued operation of the McCloud-Pit project, as recommended in this draft EIS, is

consistent with the 18 state and federal plans listed below.

Bureau of Land Management. June 1993. Redding resource management plan and

Record of Decision. U.S. Department of the Interior, Redding, CA. 55 pp.

California Advisory Committee on Salmon and Steelhead Trout. 1988. Restoring the

balance: 1988 annual report. Sausalito, CA. 84 pp.

California Department of Fish and Game. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National

Marine Fisheries Service. Bureau of Reclamation. 1988. Cooperative agreement
378

to implement actions to benefit winter-run Chinook salmon in the Sacramento

River basin. Sacramento, CA. May 20. 10 pp. and exhibit.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1996. Steelhead restoration and management

plan for California. February. 234 pp.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2004. Lower McCloud River wild trout area

fishery management plan, 2004–2009. Redding, CA.

California Department of Parks and Recreation. 1998. Public opinions and attitudes on

outdoor recreation in California. Sacramento, CA. March 1998.

California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2009. California outdoor recreation

plan-2008. Sacramento, CA. 150 pp. and appendices.

California Department of Water Resources. 1983. The California water plan: projected

use and available water supplies to 2010. Bulletin 160-83. Sacramento, CA.

December. 268 pp. and attachments.

California Department of Water Resources. 1994. California water plan update. Bulletin

160-93. Sacramento, CA. October. Two volumes and executive summary.

California Department of Water Resources. 2000. Final programmatic environmental

impact statement/environmental impact report for the CALFED Bay-Delta

Program. Sacramento, CA. July. Three volumes and CD Rom.

California—The Resources Agency. Department of Parks and Recreation. 1983.

Recreation needs in California. Sacramento, CA. March 1983. 39 pp. and

appendices.

California State Water Resources Control Board. 1995. Water Quality control plan

report. Sacramento, CA. Nine volumes.

California—The Resources Agency. 1989. Upper Sacramento River Fisheries and

Riparian Habitat Management Plan. Sacramento, CA. January. 158 pp.

U.S. Forest Service, Land and Resource Management Plan. 1995. Shasta Trinity

National Forest, Redding, CA.

State Water Resources Control Board. 1999. Water Quality Control Plans and Policies

Adopted as Part of the State Comprehensive Plan. April. Three enclosures.

National Park Service. 2010. The nationwide rivers inventory. Department of the

Interior, Washington, D.C. http://www.ncrc.nps.gov/rtca/nri.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Canadian Wildlife Service. 1986. North

American waterfowl management plan. Department of the Interior. Environment

Canada. May.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Undated. Fisheries USA: The recreational fisheries

policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC. 11 pp.
379

6.0 LITERATURE CITED

Barrett et al. (Barrett, J.C., G.D. Grossman, and J. Rosenfield). 1992. Turbidity induced

changes in reactive distance in rainbow trout. Transactions of the American

Fisheries Society 121:437–443.

Berryman, R. 1999. Confidential archaeology addendum for timber operations on nonfederal lands in California. Shasta-Trinity National Forest, Redding, California.

BLM (Bureau of Land Management. 2006. Animal sensitive species list. Available

[online] at:

http://www.blm.gov/ca/pdfs/pa_pdfs/biology_pdfs/SensitiveAnimals.pdf.

Accessed on January 13, 2010.

Bradford, M.J., G.C. Taylor, J.A. Allan, and P.S. Higgins. 1995. An experimental study

of the stranding of juvenile coho salmon and rainbow trout during rapid flow

decreases under winter conditions. North American Journal of Fisheries

Management. American Fisheries Society 15:473-479.

Calflora. 2010. Information on wild California plants for conservation, education and

appreciation. Available [online] at: http://www.calflora.org/. Accessed on

January 6, 2010.

California Fish and Game (California Department of Fish and Game). 1990. Bull trout,

Salvelinus confluentus Suckley. In: The McCloud River: Status and recovery

recommendations. Inland Fisheries Administrative Report No. 90-15.

————. 1994. McCloud River wild trout migrations and angler harvest from weir

counts and tagging, 1984–1987. Inland Fisheries Administrative Report No. 94-1.

————. 2001. Pit 6 Reservoir fish survey data. Unpublished data. Redding,

California.

————. 2003. Species accounts–birds. Threatened and endangered species of

California. Available [online]:

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlif..._e_spp/docs/2004/t_ebirds.pdf. Accessed on

December 8, 2009.

————. 2010. State & federally listed endangered & threatened animals of

California. State of California Natural Resources Agency, Biogeographic Data

Branch, California Natural Diversity Database. October. Available [online]:

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/TEAnimals.pdf. Accessed on April

8, 2010.

California Water Board (California State Water Resources Control Board). 2006. List of

water quality segments requiring TMDLs. Sacramento, California.

Central Valley Regional Water Board (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control

Board. 2002. Resolution No. R5-2002-0150. Amending the water quality control
380

plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River basins to update the water

quality objectives for bacteria. Sacramento, California.

———. 2007. Water quality control plan (basin plan) for the Sacramento and San

Joaquin River Basins. Fourth Edition. Revised October 2007 (with approved

amendments). Sacramento, California.

Cook, T.C., G.E. Hecker, H.B. Faulkner, and W. Jansen. 1997. Development of a more

fish-tolerant turbine runner advanced hydropower turbine project. Prepared for

U.S. Department of Energy, DOE Idaho Operations Office, and Hydropower

Research Foundation, Inc. DOE/ID-10571. ARL Report No. 13-97/M63F.

CRMP (McCloud River Coordinated Resource Management Plan). 1991. Adopted

July 23, 1991. 29 pp.

CWHR (California Wildlife Habitat Relationships). 2010. Life history accounts and

range maps. California Department of Fish and Game and California Interagency

Wildlife Task Group. Available [online]:

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx. Accessed on January 7,

2010.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2003. Bacterial water quality standards

for recreational waters (freshwater and marine waters). Office of Water Report

No. EPA-823-R-03-008. Office of Water. Washington, DC.

FERC. 2004. Final Environmental Impact Statement Pit 3, 4, 5 Hydroelectric Project

(FERC No. 233-081). California. June 2004.

————. 2009. South Feather Power Project FERC Project No. 2088-068, California.

Final Environmental Impact Statement. FERC/EIS-0225F. Office of Energy

Projects. Washington, D.C. June.

FishersNet. 2010. California Lake Maps and Info web page.

www.fishersnet.com/fishmap.html, accessed on January 15, 2010. FishersNet.

Forest Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 1995. Shasta-Trinity

National Forest land and resource management plan and environmental impact

statement.

————. 2005. Shasta-Trinity CWE 2005 - cumulative watershed effects analysis.

Quantitative models for surface erosion, mass-wasting and ERA/TOC. Analysis

by D. Elder and M. Reichert, ACT2 Enterprise Team. U.S. Forest Service, ShastaTrinity National Forest, Redding, California.

————. 2010a. Section 4(e) Terms and Conditions and Section 10(a)

Recommendations: McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2106 Pacific

Gas and Electric Company. January 29, 2010.
381

————. 2010b. Pacific Southwest Region, Forest Visitor Maps, Shasta-Trinity

National Forest web page. http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/forestvisitormaps/shastatrinity,

accessed on April 14, 2010.

————. 2010c. Shasta-Trinity National Forest Service web page.

http://fs.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsinternet/!ut/p/c4/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9

CP0os3gDfxMDT8MwRydLA1cj72BTJw8jAwjQL8h2VAQAzHJMsQ!!/?ss=110

514&navtype=BROWSEBYSUBJECT&cid=FSE_003705&navid=110130000000

000&pnavid=110000000000000&position=BROWSEBYSUBJECT&recid=6571

&actid=29&ttype=recarea&pname=Shasta-Trinity%20National%20Forest%20-

%20Castle%20Lake%20Campground, accessed on April 14, 2010.

Franke, G.F., D.R. Webb, R.K. Fisher, D. Mathur, P.N. Hopping, P.A. March, M.R.

Headrick, I.T. Laczo, Y. Ventikos and F. Sotiropoulos. 1997. Development of

environmentally advanced hydro turbine design concepts. Prepared for the U. S.

Department of Energy, DOE Idaho Operations Office, Idaho Falls, ID. 456 pp.

FWS (Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2003. PG&E biological assessment for valley

elderberry longhorn beetle.

————. 2008. Northern spotted owl recovery plan. Available [online]:

http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data/NorthernSpottedOwl/Recovery/Plan/

#NoHeader. Accessed on January 13, 2010.

Heicksen, M.H. 1962. Site record for CA-SHA-252, Archaeological site survey record.

University of California Archaeological Survey.

Hunter, M.A. 1992. Hydropower flow fluctuations and salmonids: A review of the

biological effects, mechanical causes, and options for mitigation. Technical

Report No 119. State of Washington Department of Fisheries.

Huntington, C.W. 2004. Klamath River flows within the JC Boyle bypass and below the

JC Boyle powerhouse. Technical Memorandum to Larry Dunsmoor, Aquatic

Biologist, Klamath Tribes. April 15, 2004.

Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California. University of California Press,

Berkeley, California. Revised Edition. 502 pp.

————. Unpublished. McCloud River Preserve: Biology and management. Davis,

California.

NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web

application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed: December 14, 2009.

Nevares and Lindstrand (Nevares, S., and L. Lindstrand, III). 2008a. Northern goshawk

surveys in the project area (WL-S1). Technical Memorandum 59, Pacific Gas &

Electric and North State Resources, Inc. December 2.
382

Nevares and Lindstrand (Nevares, S., and L. Lindstrand, III). 2008b. Willow flycatcher

habitat and presence survey in the project area (WL-S2). Technical

Memorandum 20, Pacific Gas & Electric and North State Resources, Inc.

November 12.

Nevares and Lindstrand (Nevares, S., and L. Lindstrand, III). 2008c. Northern spotted

owl surveys in the project area (WL-S1). Technical Memorandum 53, Pacific Gas

& Electric and North State Resources, Inc. October 31.

Nevares et al. (Nevares, S., T. Cosio, and C. Champe). 2008a. Bald eagle habitat use

near project reservoirs and project- affected stream reaches. Technical

Memorandum 61, Pacific Gas & Electric and Stillwater Sciences. December 10.

Nevares et al. (Nevares, S., T. Cosio, and C. Champe). 2008b. Summary of peregrine

falcon habitat use near project reservoirs and project-affected stream reaches.

Technical Memorandum 60. Pacific Gas & Electric and Stillwater Sciences.

December 9.

Nevares et al. (Nevares, S., D. Trawick, and C. Champe). 2009. Pacific fisher habitat in

the project area (WL-S4). Technical Memorandum 62, Pacific Gas & Electric and

Stillwater Sciences. February 3.

NERC (North American Electric Reliability Corporation). 2009. 2009 Long-term

reliability assessment, 2009-2018. October. Princeton, New Jersey. 448 pp.

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

Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service). 2010. Federal Power Act

Preliminary Prescriptions, Terms, Conditions, Recommendations, and Comments;

Motion to Intervene; and Management Goals and Objectives for the McCloud-Pit

Hydroelectric Project, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Project No. 2106,

McCloud and Pit Rivers, California. January 28, 2010.

Osterkamp et al. (Osterkamp, W.R., C.R. Hupp, and J.C. Blodgett). 1986. Magnitude

and frequency of debris flows, and areas of hazard on Mount Shasta, Northern

California. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1396-C.

Parker, P. and T.F. King. 1998. National Register Bulletin 38, Guidelines for evaluating

and documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. U.S. Department of the

Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric). 1999. Environmental assessment for hydropower

license: Pit 1 Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 2687-014. California.

————. 2001. Exhibit E. Pit 3, 4, 5 Relicensing. FERC 233.

————. 2006. McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 2106,

Relicensing pre-application document (PAD). Volume I. Pacific Gas and Electric

Company.
383

————. 2008a. Regional Recreation Supply Assessment (RL-S2) Technical

Memorandum 45 (TM-45). October 6, 2008.

————. 2008b. Data Summary for Developed and Dispersed Recreation Inventory

(RL-S2) Updated October 2008 Technical Memorandum 16 (TM-16). October

27, 2008.

————. 2008c. Flatwater Boating Assessment (RL-S2) Technical Memorandum 23

(TM-23). April 4, 2008.

————. 2008d. Regional Recreation Demand Assessment (RL-S1) Technical

Memorandum 37 (TM-37). November 11, 2008.

————. 2009a. McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project application for new major

license. FERC Project No. 2106. July 2009.

————. 2009b. McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 2106 response

to FERC’s August 14, 2009 Additional Information Request (AIR Response).

September 10, 2009.

————. 2009c. Lower McCloud River 1-D

————. 2009d. McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 2106, Study

report CR-S1, Archaeological and historic-era properties (privileged). Pacific

Gas and Electric Company, relicensing application.

————. 2009e. McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 2106,

Historic properties management plan (privileged). Pacific Gas and Electric

Company, relicensing application, Volume IV.

Rehn et al. (Rehn, A,. C.N. Ellenrieder, and P.R. Ode). 2007. Assessment of ecological

impacts of hydropower projects on benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages: A

review of existing data collected for FERC relicensing studies. California Energy

Commission, PIER - Energy Related Environmental Research Program. CEC500-2007-040.

Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf (Sawyer, John O., and Todd Keeler-Wolf). 1995. A manual of

California vegetation. California Native Plant Society.

Sierra Forest Legacy. 2008. Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti). Available [online]:

http://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/FC_SierraNevadaWildlifeRisk/PacificFisher.ph

p. Accessed on December 8, 2009.

Stebbins, R.C. 2003. Western reptiles and amphibians. Peterson Field Guides. Third

Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York.

Tippets and Moyle (Tippets, W.E., and P.B. Moyle). 1978. Epibenthic feeding by

rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) in the McCloud River, California. Journal of

Animal Ecology 47:549–559.
384

Winchell, F.C., S. Amaral, and D. Dixon. 2000. Hydroelectric turbine entrainment and

survival database: An alternative to field studies. Presented at Hydrovision 2000,

August 8-11, 2000. Charlotte, North Carolina.

Yoshiyama et al. (Yoshiyama, R., E. Gerstung, F. Fisher, and P. Moyle). 2001.

Historical and present distribution of Chinook salmon in the Central Valley

drainage of California. Contributions to the Biology of Central Valley Salmonids.

California Department of Fish and Game, Fish Bulletin 179.
385

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

G. Matt Buhyoff—Geology and Soils and Aquatic Resources (Fisheries Biologist; M.S.

Fisheries Science)

Emily Carter— EIS Coordinator, Terrestrial Resources, Threatened and Endangered

Species, and Editorial Review (Environmental Biologist; B.A. Environmental

Studies)

Jim Fargo—Engineering and Developmental Analysis (Civil Engineer; M.S. Civil

Engineering)

Mary Greene—Terrestrial Resources and Threatened and Endangered Species

(Environmental Biologist; B.S. Biology)

Shana Murray—Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetic Resources (Outdoor Recreation

Planner; M.S. Recreation, Park, and Tourism Management)

Frank Winchell—Cultural Resources (Archeologist; B.A., M.A., Ph.D., Anthropology)

Jeffrey M. Boltz—Program Manager (Senior Scientist/Project Manager; Ph.D.,

Ecology/Ichthyology; B.S., Biology/Aquatic Sciences)

Thomas C. Cook—Engineering and Development Analysis (Senior Engineer; B.S., Civil

Engineering)

Janet L. Earickson—Editorial Review (Technical Writer/Editor; M.S., Professional

Writing; B.A., Geography and English; Certificate in Environmental Studies)

H. Jeffrey Elseroad—Project Manager, Water Quantity & Quality, Geology & Soils

(Senior Environmental Scientist; M.S.E., Environmental Engineering; B.A.,

Chemistry)

Jeffrey W. Hills—Program Management (Program Manager, Federal

Programs/Contracts; M.S., Civil Engineering (MSCE); M.S., Management

(MSM/MBA); B.S., U.S. Military Academy, West Point)

Mary Alice Koeneke—Terrestrial Resources (Senior Environmental Scientist; M.S.,

Biology/Environmental Science; B.S., Biology)

Paul H. Muessig—Aquatic Resources; Water Quantity and Quality; Geology and Soils

(Senior Environmental Scientist; M.S., Biological Oceanography; B.A., Biology)

Wendy Bley— Recreation/Land Use/Aesthetics (Senior Consultant; M.S., Natural

Resources Management)

Joyce Brooks—Recreation/Land Use/Aesthetics (Consultant; B.S., Biology –

Environmental Science Emphasis)

Mary Beth Reed—Cultural Resources

Christina Olson—Cultural Resources
386

This page intentionally left blank.
387

8.0 LIST OF RECIPIENTS

David Wright

1573 49th Street

Sacramento, California 95819

California Coastal Commission

45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000

San Francisco, California 94105-2219

Joshua Horowitz

Attorney

Bartkiewicz, Kronick & Shanahan

1011 22nd Street

Sacramento, California 95816-4907

Steve Rothert

Director, California Field Office

American Rivers

432 Broad Street

Nevada City, California 95959

Julie Gantenbein

Staff Attorney

Natural Heritage Institute

18255 Robin Avenue

Sonoma, California 95475-4043

Gerrit J. Jobsis, III

American Rivers

2231 Devine Street, Suite 100

Columbia, South Carolina 29205-2419

Kevin Richard Colburn

National Stewardship Director

American Whitewater

1035 Van Buren Street

Missoula, Montana 59802

Dave Steindorf

California Stewardship Director

American Whitewater

4 Baroni Drive

Chico, California 95928-4314

Kelly L. Catlett

Policy Advocate

Friends of the River

915 20th Street

Sacramento, California 95814

Robert Baiocchi

President

Anglers Committee

P.O. Box 1035

96103

Dan Smith

Director of Regulatory Affairs

Association of California Water

Agencies

910 K Street, Suite 100

Sacramento, California 95814

Philip M. Battaglia

Attorney

P.O. Box 209

Los Olivos, California 93441-0209

Stephan Volker

Law Offices of Stephan C. Volker

436 14th Street

Oakland, California 94612

Jim Crenshaw

California Sportfishing Protection

Alliance

1248 E. Oak Avenue, Suite D

Woodland, California 95776-4104
388

Regional FERC Coordinator

Northern California North Coast Region

601 Locust Street

Redding, California 96001-2711

Office of the General Counsel

1416 9th Street, Floor 12

Sacramento, California 95814-5511

Annie Manji

Statewide FERC Coordinator

California Department of Fish and Game

Water Branch

830 S Street

Sacramento, California 95814

Matt Myers

California Department of Fish and Game

601 Locust Street

Redding, California 96002

Stephen G. Puccini

California Department of Fish and Game

1416 9th Street, Floor 12

Sacramento, California 95814-5510

Sidney Manheim

Senior Staff Counsel

California Electricity Oversight Board

770 L Street, Suite 1250

Sacramento, California 95814

FERC Contact

California Fish and Game Commission

Attn: Environmental Services Division

1416 9th Street

Sacramento, California 95814-5511

Orlando Foote

Attorney

Horton, Knox, Carter & Foote

895 Broadway

El Centra, California 92243

Richard Roos-Collins

Director, Legal Services

Natural Heritage Institute

100 Pine Street, Suite 1550

San Francisco, California 94111

Charlton Bonham

Trout Unlimited

18088 5th Street

Berkeley, California 94710

Samuel D. Hough, ESQ

Directing Attorney

California Indian Legal Services

324 F Street

Eureka, California 95501

Governor of California

RE: FERC Projects

California Office of the Governor

State Capitol Building

Sacramento, California 95814

Nate Rangel

President

California Outdoors

PO Box 401

Coloma, California 95613-0401

Traci Bone

California Public Utilities Commission

505 Van Ness Avenue, 5

th Floor

San Francisco, California 94102
389

Margaret J. Kim

California Resources Agency

1416 9th Street, Suite 1311

Sacramento, California 95814-5509

Bob Baiocchi

Private Consultant

California Salmon and Steelhead

Association

P.O. Box 1035

California 96103

Percival Banks

Board Member

California Salmon and Steelhead

Association

78 Railroad Avenue

Richmond, California 94801

Christopher Shutes

FERC Projects Director

Individual

1608 Francisco Street

Berkeley, California 94703

Curtis Knight

Conservation Manager

California Trout, Inc.

P.O. Box 650

Mt. Shasta, California 96067-0650

Brian J. Johnson

Staff Attorney

Trout Unlimited

18088 5th Street

Berkeley, California 94710

Harold Shepherd

Center for Tribal Water Advocacy

P.O. Box 331

Moab, Utah 84532-0331

Eric R. Klinkner

Assistant General Manager

City of Pasadena Dept. of Water &

Power

150 S. Los Robles, Suite 200

Pasadena, California 91101

Julie Gantenbein

Staff Attorney

Natural Heritage Institute

18255 Robin Avenue

Sonoma, California 95475-4043

Monty Crump

City Manager

City of Rockingham, North Carolina

514 Rockingham Road

Rockingham, North Carolina 28379

Julie Gantenbein

Staff Attorney

Natural Heritage Institute

18255 Robin Avenue

Sonoma, California 95475-4043

Mark Perlis

Partner

Dickstein Shapiro LLP

1825 Eye Street, NW

Washington, DC 20006-5403

R. Winston Bell, Jr

Vice President

Foothill Conservancy

P.O. Box 1255

Pine Grove, California 95665

Jennifer Carville

P. ADVOCATE

Friends of the River

1418 20th Street, Suite A

Sacramento, California 95811-5206
390

Steven G. Lins

Assistant City Attorney

Glendale, City of

613 E. Broadway. Suite 220

Glendale, California 91206-4308

Lloyd T. Bradshaw

Manager

HEARST CORPORATION

P.O. Box 670

McCloud, California 96057-0670

Tamara C. Falor

Esquire

Humboldt, County of

825 5th Street

Eureka, California 95501-1153

John Steffan

Imperial Irrigation District

P.O. Box 937

Imperial, California 92251-0937

Kathy Turner

FERC Coordinator

Lassen & Shasta-Trinity National Forests

P.O. Box 220

Fall River Mills, California 96028-0220

Norman Pedersen

Attorney

Hanna and Morton LLP

444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500

Los Angeles, California 90071-2916

Robert Pettinato

Los Angeles Department of Water &

Power

P.O. Box 51111

Los Angeles, California 90051-5700

Perl Perlmutter

Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger

396 Hayes Street

San Francisco, California 94102

Kristin Burford

Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger

396 Hayes Street

San Francisco, California 95102

Robert Perlmutter

Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger

396 Hayes Street

San Francisco, California 94102

Dennis A. Amato

McCloud RiverKeepers

4723 Tee View Court

Santa Rosa, California 95405

John Whittaker

Winston & Strawn LLP

1700 K Street, NW

Washington, DC 20006-3817

Water Users Association

P.O. Box 31

El Nido, California 95317

Gregory Pohl

Modesto Irrigation District

P.O. Box 4060

Modesto, California 95352-4060

Ronald S. Nelson

General Manager

Nevada Irrigation District

P.O. Box 1019

Grass Valley, Nevada 95945-1019
391

Jeffrey Meith

Partner

Meith, Soares & Sexton, LLP

1681 Bird Street

Oroville, California 95965

Les Nicholson

Hydro Manager

Nevada Irrigation District

28311 Secret Town Road

Colfax, California 95713-9473

Eric Theiss

Fisheries Biologist

NOAA, General Counsel Southwest

1655 Heindon Road

Arcata, California 95521

Karl W. Meyer

Northern California Power Agency

180 Cirby Way

Roseville, California 95678-6420

Joshua Rider

United States Department of Agriculture

33 New Montgomery, 17th Floor

San Francisco, California 94105

Michael Glaze

General Manager

Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District

2310 Oro-Quincy Highway

Oroville, California 95966

Annette Faraglia

Attorney

Pacific Gas and Electric Company

P.O. Box 7442

San Francisco, California 94120

Randal S. Livingston

Lead Director

Pacific Gas and Electric Company

P.O. Box 770000

San Francisco, California 94177-0001

PG&E Law Dept FERC Cases

Pacific Gas and Electric Company

77 Beale Street, Room 3120 B30A

San Francisco, California 94120-7442

Michael W. Neville

Deputy Attorney General

People of the State of California

455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000

San Francisco, California 94102-7004

Tribal Council

Pit River Tribe

37118 State Highway 299 E

Burney, California 96013-4128

Delia Parr

Directing Attorney

California Indian Legal Services

324 F Street

Eureka, California 95501

Michelle Berditschevsky

Director

Pit River Tribe Environmental

Department

37118 State Highway 299E

Burney, California 96013-4128

David Arthur

Redding Electric Utility

P.O. Box 496071

Redding, California 96049-6071
392

Lon W. House

Regional Council or Rural Counties

4901 Flying C Road

Cameron Park, California 95682

Kirby Bosley

Manager

Reliant Energy Wholesale Group

P.O. Box 148

Houston, Texas 77001-0148

Kathy A. Valenzuela

Shasta-Trinity National Forest

3644 Avtech Parkway

Redding, California 96002

Michael Pretto

Silicon Valley Power

1500 Warburton Avenue

Santa Clara, California 95050-3713

Raymond C. Camacho

Assistant Director of Electric

Silicon Valley Power

1500 Warburton Avenue

Santa Clara, California 95050

County Clerk

Siskiyou, County of

510 N. Main Street

Yreka, California 96097-2525

Robert Isaac

General Manager

Solano Irrigation District

508 Elmira Road

Vacaville, California 95687-4931

Catherine Giovannoni

Steptoe & Johnson LLP

1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20036

Michael D. Mackness

Southern California Edison Company

P.O. Box 800

Rosemead, California 91770-0800

Michael Caranci

The Fly Shop

4140 Churn Creek Road

Redding, California 96002

Mike Michalak

Chief Executive Officer

The Fly Shop

4140 Churn Creek Road

Redding, California 96002

Steve Felte

General Manager

Tri-Dam Project

P.O. Box 1158

Pinecrest, California 95364-0158

Michael T. Brommer

Turlock Irrigation District

333 E. Canal Drive

Turlock, California 95380-3946

Kaylee A. Allen

U.S. Department of the Interior

Pacific Southwest Region

2800 Cottage Way, Suite E1712

Sacramento, California

Regional Environmental Officer

Office of Environmental Policy and

Compliance

Department of the Interior

1111 Jackson Street, Office 520

Oakland, California 94607
393

Stephen M. Bowes

Planner

U.S. Department of the Interior

National Park Service

1111 Jackson Street

Oakland, California 94607

Kerry O’Hara

Attorney of Record

Office of the Regional Solicitor

Department of the Interior

2800 Cottage Way, Room E-1712

Sacramento, California 95825

Field Supervisor

Attn: FERC Coordinator

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Sacramento Field Office

2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605

Sacramento, California 95825

Randy Thoreson

National Park Service

Rivers, Trails and Conservation

Assistance and Hydro Program

111 E. Kellogg Boulevard

St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1256

Commander

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

San Francisco District Office

1455 Market Street, #1760

San Francisco, California 94103

Robert Hawkins

Natural Resource Planner

USDA Forest Service Pacific SW

Region

650 Capital Mall Rm 8-200

Sacramento, California 95603

Julie Tupper

USDA Forest Service Pacific SW

Region

650 Capital Mall Rm 8-200

Sacramento, California 95603

Joshua S. Rider

USDA Office of the General Council

33 New Montgomery, 17th Floor

San Francisco, California 94105

Jim Canaday

Senior Environmental Scientist

Water Resources Control Board

1001 I Street

Sacramento, California 95814

Mark Franco

Headman

Winnemem Wintu Tribe

14840 Bear Mountain Road

Redding, California 96003

Curt Aikens

General Manager

Yuba County Water Agency

1220 F Street

Marysville, California 95901
394

This page intentionally left blank
Appendix A

McCloud-Pit Project

Mitigation and Monitoring Summary

A-1

Mitigation

Implementation

Duration Monitoring Duration

Mitigation

Responsibility

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing One-time or Ongoing

Implementation Monitoring

General –

Potential

project-related

impacts on

Forest Service

lands

Consult with the Forest

Service to present

project O&M activities

planned for the next

calendar year [Measure

1 and Forest Service

condition 1]

Ongoing: Annually;

the date of the

consultation meeting

will be mutually

agreed to by PG&E

and the Forest Service.

Ongoing: Meeting

would include review of

all monitoring activities

as well as any additional

information that has

been compiled for the

project area, including

progress reports on

other resource measures

PG&E PG&E

General –

Potential effect

of project

O&M on

sensitive

resources

Conduct annual

employee awareness

training [Measure 2

and Forest Service

condition 1]

Ongoing: Annual

employee awareness

training to familiarize

staff with local

resource issues,

special-status species,

noxious weeds,

procedures for

reporting to the Forest

Service, and

applicable Forest

Service orders, to

allow avoidance/

minimization of

impacts

PG&E
A-2

Mitigation

Implementation

Duration Monitoring Duration

Mitigation

Responsibility

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing One-time or Ongoing

Implementation Monitoring

General –

Potential

project-related

impacts on

Forest Service

lands

Obtain Forest Service

approval for all final

design plans [Measure

3]

Ongoing: Prior to

construction of any

new project facilities

on NFS lands, obtain

prior written approval

of the USFS for all

final design plans
A-3

Mitigation

Implementation

Duration Monitoring Duration

Mitigation

Responsibility

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing One-time or Ongoing

Implementation Monitoring

General –

Potential effect

of project

O&M on

sensitive

resources

Prepare and file a

biological evaluation

for newly added special

status species [NMFS

10(j) recommendation

1B]

Ongoing: In

consultation with the

resource agencies,

annually review the

current list(s) of

special status species

that might occur in the

project area directly

affected by project

operations. Prepare

biological evaluation

prior to construction

of new project features

or non-routine

maintenance activities

that may affect special

status species or their

habitats

Ongoing: Develop and

implement a study plan

in consultation with the

resource agencies to

assess the effects of the

project on newly added

special status species

PG&E PG&E
A-4

Mitigation

Implementation

Duration Monitoring Duration

Mitigation

Responsibility

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing One-time or Ongoing

Implementation Monitoring

General –

Potential effect

of project

O&M on

sensitive

resources

Prepare and submit a

biological evaluation

for Forest Service

special status species or

their critical habitat

[Measure 15 and Forest

Service condition 11]

Ongoing: Before

taking actions to

construct new project

features on NFS lands

that may affect Forest

Service special status

species or their critical

habitat, prepare and

submit a biological

evaluation for Forest

Service approval

PG&E

General –

Altered

seasonal

geohydrology

Determine water year

type annually and

apply to appropriate

minimum flow release

schedule and other

measures dependent on

water year type [PG&E

alternative condition

19, part 2]

Ongoing: Annual

determination of water

year type and

application of

appropriate minimum

flow release schedule

PG&E
A-5

Mitigation

Implementation

Duration Monitoring Duration

Mitigation

Responsibility

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing One-time or Ongoing

Implementation Monitoring

Geo/Soils –

Blockage of

downstream

transport of

LWD

Develop and

implement an LWD

management plan to

facilitate placement of

woody debris in Lower

McCloud River

downstream of

McCloud dam

[Measure 11 and Forest

Service condition 21]

One-time: Within

one year of license

issuance, prepare

LWD management

plan

Ongoing: Implement

the approved plan

through the term of

the license

Ongoing: Monitor

effectiveness of LWD

mobilization and

dispersal in the Lower

McCloud River

according to the

frequency specified in

the management plan

PG&E PG&E

Geo/Soils –

Potential effects

of project

operations on

erosion

sites/other

sediment

sources and

related effects

on project

infrastructure

and sediment

delivery to

project streams

Develop and

implement an erosion

and sediment control

management and

monitoring plan

[Measure 12 and Forest

Service condition 22]

One-time: Within

one year of license

issuance, develop and

file erosion and

sediment control

management and

monitoring plan

Ongoing: Implement

the approved plan

through the term of

the license

Ongoing: Monitor

project and projectrelated erosion and

sedimentation sites at

least once every 10

years during the term of

the license and for three

years after treatment at

high priority sites

PG&E PG&E
A-6

Mitigation

Implementation

Duration Monitoring Duration

Mitigation

Responsibility

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing One-time or Ongoing

Implementation Monitoring

Geo/Soils –

Obstruction of

downstream

gravel and

coarse sediment

transport by

project dam

Develop and

implement a plan for

gravel and coarse

sediment management

[Forest Service

condition 23]a

One-time: Within

one year of license

issuance, develop and

file a gravel and

coarse sediment

management plan

Ongoing: Implement

the approved plan

through the term of

the license

Ongoing: Monitor

trout and

macroinvertebrates in

the Lower McCloud

River between the

McCloud dam and Bald

Mountain Creek

confluence as part of the

biological monitoring

plan

PG&E PG&E

Geo/Soils –

Obstruction of

downstream

gravel and

coarse sediment

transport by

project dam

Develop and

implement a reservoir

dredging plan [Forest

Service condition 24

and PG&E alternative

condition 24]a

Ongoing: If required

for increasing gravel

and sediment supply

or for removing

sediment from

reservoirs, prepare a

reservoir dredging

plan and file the

approved plan not less

than 90 days prior to

any dredging

operations

PG&E
A-7

Mitigation

Implementation

Duration Monitoring Duration

Mitigation

Responsibility

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing One-time or Ongoing

Implementation Monitoring

Water –

Potential effects

of project

operations and

maintenance on

water quality

Develop and

implement a water

quality and temperature

monitoring [Forest

Service condition 20

and PG&E alternative

condition 20]a

One-time: Within

one year of license

issuance, develop and

file water quality and

temperature

monitoring plan

Ongoing: Implement

the approved plan

through the term of

the license

Ongoing: Periodic

monitoring of

contaminants once

every five years at all

project reservoirs,

periodic monitoring of

dissolved oxygen at

McCloud, Pit 6, and Pit

7 reservoirs, annual

temperature monitoring

for 10 years, continuous

turbidity monitoring in

the Lower McCloud

River during fishing

season, continuous

monitoring of turbidity

for a minimum of five

years in Iron Canyon

Creek, and for an

additional five years

thereafter, if turbidity

issues persist.

PG&E PG&E
A-8

Mitigation

Implementation

Duration Monitoring Duration

Mitigation

Responsibility

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing One-time or Ongoing

Implementation Monitoring

Aquatic –

Potential

impact on fish

and aquatic

invertebrate

populations in

project affected

reaches

Develop and

implement an aquatic

biological management

and monitoring plan in

consultation with

Forest Service and

other interested parties

and approved by the

Forest [Forest Service

condition 27 and

PG&E alternative

condition 27]a

One-time: Within

one year of license

issuance, develop and

file an aquatic

biological

management and

monitoring plan, to the

extent possible,

consistent with the

plan filed for Pit 3, Pit

4, and Pit 5

relicensing.

Ongoing: Implement

plan through term of

license

Ongoing: Monitor fish,

benthic

macroinvertebrates, and

special status mollusks

at number of sites and

site locations previously

established during the

relicensing once every

three years for the first

nine years and once

every five years

thereafter. Annually

review list of special

status aquatic species.

Assess threat of

invasive mussels and

implement prevention

plan. Prepare and

submit draft technical

report of all aquatic

biological monitoring

results within one year

following completion of

monitoring efforts.

PG&E PG&E
A-9

Mitigation

Implementation

Duration Monitoring Duration

Mitigation

Responsibility

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing One-time or Ongoing

Implementation Monitoring

Aquatic –

Minimum flows

downstream of

McCloud dam

Implement minimum

flows at McCloud

dam[California Trout

alternative condition

19]

Ongoing: Implement

minimum flows at

McCloud dam

PG&E

Aquatic –

Minimum flows

downstream of

Iron Canyon

dam

Implement minimum

flows at Iron Canyon

dam [PG&E alternative

condition 19]

Ongoing: Implement

minimum flows at

Iron Canyon dam

PG&E

Aquatic –

Potential effects

of

downramping

operations

during spill

events

Downramp spill events

controllable by valve

operation at McCloud

dam at a maximum rate

of 150 cfs per 48 hours

until the prescribed

minimum instream

flow is reached [Forest

Service condition 19,

part 1, subpart b and

California Fish and

Game 10(j)

recommendation 1]

Ongoing: Implement

downramping rates

during spill events

controllable by valve

operation

PG&E
A-10

Mitigation

Implementation

Duration Monitoring Duration

Mitigation

Responsibility

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing One-time or Ongoing

Implementation Monitoring

Aquatic –

Potential effects

of upramping

during

operational

controllable

spills

Upramp operational

controllable spills at a

maximum rate of 200

cfs per 24 hours

[Forest Service

condition 19, part 1,

subpart b and

California Fish and

Game 10(j)

recommendation 1]

Ongoing: Implement

upramping rates

during operational

controllable spills

PG&E

Aquatic –

Potential effects

of

uncontrollable

spill events

To extent possible,

upramp water flows

released at McCloud

dam prior to the start of

an uncontrolled spill

event at a maximum

target rate of 100 cfs

per hour [Measure 9]

Ongoing: Implement

upramping rate, if

possible, prior to start

of uncontrollable spill

event

PG&E
A-11

Mitigation

Implementation

Duration Monitoring Duration

Mitigation

Responsibility

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing One-time or Ongoing

Implementation Monitoring

Aquatic –

Confirmation of

compliance

with minimum

streamflows

Operate, maintain, and

modify (if necessary)

gages needed to

determine river stage

and minimum

streamflows [Forest

Service condition 19,

part 3]

Ongoing: Maintain and

operate gages for term

of license

PG&E

Aquatic –

Confirmation of

compliance

with minimum

streamflows

Measure streamflow

compliance at two

points below McCloud

dam [Forest Service

condition 19, part 3]

Ongoing: Use two

compliance points

below McCloud dam

(MC-1 and MC-7) to

ensure stream flows

meet minimum flow

requirements

Ongoing: Monitor flow

compliance below

McCloud dam at two

compliance points for

term of license

PG&E PG&E
A-12

Mitigation

Implementation

Duration Monitoring Duration

Mitigation

Responsibility

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing One-time or Ongoing

Implementation Monitoring

Aquatic –

Confirmation of

compliance

with minimum

streamflows

Measure and document

all instream flow

releases below

McCloud dam, Pit 7

dam, and Iron Canyon

dam in publicly

available and

accessible formats

Ongoing: Measure

instream flows below

project affected reaches

and provide data in

publically available and

readily accessible

format. Post real-time

flow data for MC-1

online.

PG&E

Aquatic –

Potential effect

of project dams

on fish passage

Reserve NMFS

authority to prescribe

fishways [NMFS 10(j)]

PG&E
A-13

Mitigation

Implementation

Duration Monitoring Duration

Mitigation

Responsibility

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing One-time or Ongoing

Implementation Monitoring

Terrestrial –

Potential

project

constructionrelated impacts

on upland

vegetation and

wetlands

Develop and

implement a vegetation

management plan

[Forest Service

condition 25 and

PG&E alternative

condition 25]

One-time: Within

one years of license

issuance, file a

vegetation

management plan

Ongoing: Monitor

known populations

special-status plant

species beginning in the

first year after plan

approval and every five

years thereafter; survey

for new populations and

new listings in the

project area beginning

in the first year after

plan approval and every

10 years thereafter

PG&E PG&E
A-14

Mitigation

Implementation

Duration Monitoring Duration

Mitigation

Responsibility

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing One-time or Ongoing

Implementation Monitoring

Terrestrial -

Potential

project related

alteration

of invasive

plant

populations

Develop and

implement a vegetation

management plan

[Forest Service

condition 25 and

PG&E alternative

condition 25]

One-time: Within

one year of license

issuance, file a

vegetation

management plan

Ongoing: Monitor

areas with ground

disturbing activities

annually for three years

after disturbance;

monitor known

populations beginning

in the first year after

plan approval and every

other year for 10 years

thereafter; control

infestations of highpriority invasive species

within one year of

detection or as soon as

practicable

PG&E PG&E
A-15

Mitigation

Implementation

Duration Monitoring Duration

Mitigation

Responsibility

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing One-time or Ongoing

Implementation Monitoring

Terrestrial -

Potential

project

impacts on

foothill yellowlegged frog

Develop a foothill

yellow-legged frog

monitoring planaThis

measure is modified to

specify that the foothill

yellow-legged frog

monitoring plan would

be incorporated into

the terrestrial

biological monitoring

plan [Forest Service

10(a) recommendation

1 and PG&E reply

comments to 10(a)

recommendation 1]

One-time: Within

two years of license

issuance, submit a

foothill yellow-legged

frog monitoring plan

Ongoing: Conduct

population survey at

specific suitable habitat

in the project area for

first year after plan

approval and every

tenth year thereafter.

PG&E PG&E
A-16

Mitigation

Implementation

Duration Monitoring Duration

Mitigation

Responsibility

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing One-time or Ongoing

Implementation Monitoring

Terrestrial -

Potential

project related

impacts

on general

wildlife and

avian species

Develop and

implement a terrestrial

biological management

plan and ensure new

and rebuilt power poles

conform to APLIC

standards for avian

collision and

electrocution hazards

reduction

[Forest Service

condition 26 and

PG&E alternative

condition 26]

a

One-time: Within

one year of license

issuance, develop a

terrestrial biological

management plan

Ongoing: Implement

through term of

license

Ongoing: Report

terrestrial survey and

monitoring results every

five years or at

frequency specified for

individual species in

PG&E alternative

condition 26. For

Shasta salamander, both

pre- and postconstruction surveys

should be conducted.

PG&E PG&E
A-17

Mitigation

Implementation

Duration Monitoring Duration

Mitigation

Responsibility

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing One-time or Ongoing

Implementation Monitoring

Land use –

potential

degradation of

access roads

needed to

safely maintain

project facilities

Road and

transportation facilities

management plan

[Measure 18 and Forest

Service condition 29]

One-time: Develop

and file a road and

transportation

facilities management

plan with the

Commission within

one year of license

issuance

Ongoing: Implement

the plan through the

term of the license

PG&E

Land use –

project O&Mrelated effects

on land

management

Develop and

implement a fire

prevention and

response plan [Measure

21 and Forest Service

condition 33]

One-time: Develop

and file a fire

prevention and

response plan with the

Commission within

one year of license

issuance

Ongoing: Implement

the plan through the

license term

PG&E
A-18

Mitigation

Implementation

Duration Monitoring Duration

Mitigation

Responsibility

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing One-time or Ongoing

Implementation Monitoring

Land use – oil

and hazardous

substances spill

Develop and

implement a Hazardous

Substance Management

Plan

[Forest Service

condition 28 and

PG&E alternative

condition 28]

One-time: File with

the Commission the

existing SPCC plan

and HMBP and

provide copies to the

Forest Service within

30 days of license

issuance

Ongoing: Implement

the plans throughout

the term of the license

PG&E
A-19

Mitigation

Implementation

Duration Monitoring Duration

Mitigation

Responsibility

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing One-time or Ongoing

Implementation Monitoring

Land use –

maintenance of

roads and

recreational

facilities

providing

access to

project lands

and waters

Revise project

boundary and file a

revised Exhibit Ga

One-time:

Incorporate all project

roads and recreation

sites within the project

boundary and file a

revised Exhibit G with

the Commission

within one year of

license issuance

Ongoing: As new

project facilities are

constructed, including

recreation sites, file

revised exhibit maps

with the Commission

PG&E
A-20

Mitigation

Implementation

Duration Monitoring Duration

Mitigation

Responsibility

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing One-time or Ongoing

Implementation Monitoring

Aesthetic

resources –

project facilities

and operation

may impact

aesthetic

resources in the

project area

Develop and

implement a visual

quality management

plan [Forest Service

condition 32 and

PG&E alternative

condition 32]a

One-time: Develop

and file a visual

quality management

plan with the

Commission within

one year of license

issuance

Ongoing: Implement

the plan through the

term of the license

PG&E

RecreationPotential effects

of streamflow

on

recreation

opportunities

Provide recreation flow

information for lower

McCloud River

[Measure 19, Forest

Service condition 19,

PG&E alternative

condition 19 ]a

Ongoing: Implement

by providing real-time

flow data for gage

MC-1 and drawdown

information to the

public via PG&E’s

webpage on the

internet through the

term of the license

PG&E
A-21

Mitigation

Implementation

Duration Monitoring Duration

Mitigation

Responsibility

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing One-time or Ongoing

Implementation Monitoring

Recreationpotential

increases in

project-related

recreation use

Recreation

Development and

Management plan

[Measure 19, Forest

Service condition 30,

PG&E alternative

condition 30 ] a

Modified to specify

submittal of final plan

to Forest Service for

review and to

Commission within one

year, PG&E O&M

responsibility for all

recreation facilities

including Forest

Service facilities, and

removal of ADA

compliance and project

patrol component.

One-time: Develop

and file recreation

plan with the

Commission within

one year of license

issuance

Ongoing: Implement

the plan through the

term of the license

PG&E
A-22

Mitigation

Implementation

Duration Monitoring Duration

Mitigation

Responsibility

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing One-time or Ongoing

Implementation Monitoring

RecreationPotential

safety issues,

provide public

information

Develop and

implement a project

sign plan [PG&E

Measure 19, Forest

condition 31, PG&E

alternative condition

31]aThis measure is

modified to also

include road and trail

safety signs and traffic

signs and an

interpretive and

education component

One-time: Develop

and file with

recreation plan with

the Commission

within one year of

license issuance

Ongoing: Implement

plan through the term

of the license

PG&E
A-23

Mitigation

Implementation

Duration Monitoring Duration

Mitigation

Responsibility

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing One-time or Ongoing

Implementation Monitoring

Recreationpotential

increases in

project-related

recreation use

Recreation monitoring

plan/component

[Measure 19, Forest

Service condition 30,

and PG&E alternative

condition 30] a

Modified to include

details on monitoring;

consultation with

Forest Service on

survey methods; Forest

Service report review;

and consult every six

years with Forest

Service and interested

parties to review

recreation management

objectives

One-time: Develop

and file with

recreation plan with

the Commission

within one year of

license issuance

Ongoing: Implement

through the term of

the license

Ongoing: Every 6 years PG&E PG&E
A-24

Mitigation

Implementation

Duration Monitoring Duration

Mitigation

Responsibility

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing One-time or Ongoing

Implementation Monitoring

Recreation--

potential

increases in

project-related

recreation use,

potential public

safety issues

Surface water

management

plan/component

[Measure 19, Forest

Service condition 30,

and PG&E alternative

condition 30]a Modified

to include protocols,

e.g., to prevent

unapproved buoy

courses, unauthorized

access to project areas;

approved use of docks;

annual surface sweeps

of McCloud and Iron

Canyon reservoirs

One-time: Develop

and file with

recreation plan with

the Commission

within one year of

license issuance

Ongoing: Implement

through the term of

the license

Ongoing: Boat use

monitoring - every 6

years

PG&E PG&E
A-25

Mitigation

Implementation

Duration Monitoring Duration

Mitigation

Responsibility

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing One-time or Ongoing

Implementation Monitoring

Recreation--

potential

increases in

project-related

recreation use,

potential public

safety issues

Annually stock up to

60,000 pounds of trout

at the project and

develop and

implement a fish

stocking plan

[California Fish and

Game 10(j)]a

Ongoing: Annually

stock 60,000 pounds

of trout at the project

and implement fish

stocking plan

One-time: Develop

(for Commission

approval) a fish

stocking plan in

consultation with

California Fish and

Game within two

years of license

issuance.

Ongoing: Evaluate and

monitor the amount of

fish to be stocked every

six years through the

term of the license

PG&E PG&E
A-26

Mitigation

Implementation

Duration Monitoring Duration

Mitigation

Responsibility

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing One-time or Ongoing

Implementation Monitoring

Recreation--

potential public

safety issues

and resource

damage

At McCloud and Iron

Canyon reservoirs,

assess and implement

closures of user-created

roads leading to the

shoreline of McCloud

and Iron Canyon

reservoirs[Measure 19,

Forest Service

condition 30, and

PG&E alternative

condition 30] aThis

measure is modified to

specify that this would

also include trail and

dispersed use closure

Ongoing: Implement

through the term of

the license

PG&E
A-27

Mitigation

Implementation

Duration Monitoring Duration

Mitigation

Responsibility

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing One-time or Ongoing

Implementation Monitoring

Recreationpotential

increases in

project-related

recreation use

Provide or reconstruct

day-use facilities:

Battle Creek, East

McCloud dam, Red

Banks, Star City,

Tarantula Gulch,

Tarantula Gulch Inlet,

West McCloud dam,

Iron Canyon Reservoir,

Iron Canyon dam, and

Fenders Flat [Measure

19, Forest Service

condition 30, and

PG&E alternative

condition 30] aThis

measure is modified to

include specific details

of what amenities

would be provided at

each facility

One-time: Construct

facilities

Ongoing: Operation

and maintenance of

facilities

PG&E
A-28

Mitigation

Implementation

Duration Monitoring Duration

Mitigation

Responsibility

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing One-time or Ongoing

Implementation Monitoring

Recreationpotential

increases in

project-related

recreation use

potential public

safety issues

and resource

damage

Provide or reconstruct

a campground at Star

City, Deadlun and

Hawkins Landing

[Measure 19, Forest

Service condition 30,

and PG&E alternative

condition 30] aThis

measure is modified to

include specifications

for camping area and

to remove the

requirement for a host

One-time: Construct

facilities

Ongoing: Operation

and maintenance of

facilities

PG&E

Recreationpotential

increases in

project-related

recreation use

Construct a pedestrian

shoreline access trail at

the upper end of Pit 7

reservoir [Measure 19,

Forest Service

condition 30, and

PG&E alternative

condition 30]a

One-time: Conduct

feasibility study

within two years of

license issuance and

construct facilities

within five years of

license issuance

Ongoing: Operation

and maintenance of

facilities

PG&E
A-29

Mitigation

Implementation

Duration Monitoring Duration

Mitigation

Responsibility

Impact Mitigation One-time or Ongoing One-time or Ongoing

Implementation Monitoring

Cultural

Resources –

project-related

impacts to

archaeological

and historic era

resources

Finalize and implement

historic properties

management plan

(HPMP) [Measure 22,

Forest Service

condition 34 and

PG&E alternative

condition 34]a

Ongoing: Implement

general and site

specific treatment

measures identified in

the HPMP, to begin

upon new license issue

Ongoing: Conduct

long-term historic

properties monitoring;

baseline monitoring

within one year

following new license

issuance, annual

monitoring thereafter

PG&E PG&E

a

Staff alternative: includes additional measures identified by staff based on agency and non-governmental organization

recommendations and our analysis.
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix B

Capital and Annual Costs of Measures for the

McCloud-Pit Project

B-1

Table B-1. Estimated capital and O&M costs of measures proposed by PG&E and recommended by staff and agencies

for the McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project. (Source: Staff)

Measure Entity and

Measure No.

Staff

Recommend?

Capital

Cost

(2009 $)

Annualized

Capital

Cost

(2009 $)

Annual

O&M

Cost

(2009 $)

Annual

Energy

Costs

(2009 $)

Total

Annualized

Cost

(2009 $)

Comments

Consult with Forest

Service annually

regarding planned

operation and

maintenance activities

on National Forest

System lands

FS (4e #1),

PG&E (#1) Adopt $0 $0 $30,000 $0 $30,000

Provide annual

employee training in

coordination with the

Forest Service

FS (4e #1,

25), PG&E

(#2)

Adopt $0 $0 $60,000 $0 $60,000

Obtain Forest Service

approval for all final

design plans

PG&E (#3) Adopt $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Consult annually on

newly added special

status species

NMFS/FWS

(10(j) #1B) Adopt $0 $0 $11,000 $0

The cost for

this measure

is reflected

in the cost

($30,000)

for FS

condition 1.

Implement gravel

augmentation and

amphibian indicator

species monitoring

CF&G

(10(a))

Adopt

with staff

modificati

on

$0 $0 $75,000 $0

The cost for

the staff

alternative

for this

measure is

$78,807.
B-2

Measure Entity and

Measure No.

Staff

Recommend?

Capital

Cost

(2009 $)

Annualized

Capital

Cost

(2009 $)

Annual

O&M

Cost

(2009 $)

Annual

Energy

Costs

(2009 $)

Total

Annualized

Cost

(2009 $)

Comments

Develop and

implement gravel

augmentation plan for

listed salmonids

NMFS/FWS

(10(j) #4A

and B)

Do not

adopt $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $100,000

The cost of

developing and

implementing

gravel

augmentation

plans that may

be prescribed in

the future cannot

be estimated at

this time

Develop a plan for

gravel and coarse

sediment management

FS (4e #23),

PG&E

(Alternative

to FS 4e #23)

Adopt

with

incorporation of

PG&E

alternative

$20,000 $3,807 $75,000 $0 $84,517

The cost for the

staff alternative

for this measure

is $78,807.

Maintain stream

channel in McCloud

River to minimize

impacts on listed

salmonid habitat

NMFS/FWS

(10(j) #5)

Do not

adopt $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000

The cost of

mitigation plans

that may be

prescribed in the

future cannot be

estimated at this

time
B

-3

Measure Entity and

Measure No.

Staff

Recom-

mend?

Capital

Cost

(2009 $)

Annual-

ized

Capital

Cost

(2009 $)

Annual

O&M

Cost

(2009 $)

Annual

Energy

Costs

(2009 $)

Total

Annualized

Cost

(2009 $)

Comments

Prepare a reservoir

dredging plan if

dredging is required

for increasing gravel

and sediment supply or

for removing

sediment from

reservoirs to

accomplish project

management

objectives

FS (4e #24),

PG&E

(Alternative

to FS 4e #24)

Adopt

alternative $30,000 $5,710 $0 $0 $5,710

Protect and enhance

riparian habitat

function for listed

salmonids

NMFS/

FWS(10(j)

#6)

Do not

adopt $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

The cost of

riparian

protection and

enhancement

measures that

may be

prescribed in the

future cannot be

estimated at this

time

Move flow compliance

gage from MC-1 to

MC-7

CF&G (10(j)

#1), NMFS/

FWS (10(j)

#3B)

Do not

adopt $0 $0 $60,000 $0 $60,000

Monitor instream flow

at two compliance

points below McCloud

dam

PG&E

(Alternative

to FS 4e #19,

part 1)

Adopt $0 $0 $60,000 $0 $60,000
B-4

Measure Entity and

Measure No.

Staff

Recommend?

Capital

Cost

(2009 $)

Annualized

Capital

Cost

(2009 $)

Annual

O&M

Cost

(2009 $)

Annual

Energy

Costs

(2009 $)

Total

Annualized

Cost

(2009 $)

Comments

Operate, maintain, and

modify (if necessary)

and provide real-time

flow data

FS (4e #19,

part 3) Adopt $0 $0 $120,000 $0 $120,000

Provide real-time flow

data for gage MC-1 on

the California Data

Exchange Center

website or its

successor.

FS (4e #19,

part 3)

Do not

adopt $0 $0 $2,000 $0 $2,000

Determine water year

type

FS (4e #19)

CF&G (10(j)

#1)

Do not

adopt $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000

Determine water year

type

PG&E

(Alternative

to FS 4e #19,

part 2)

Adopt $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000

Implement ramping

rates during

controllable spill

events and valve

testing

FS (4e 19)

CF&G (10j

#1)

Adopt $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Implement minimum

flows proposed in FLA

PG&E (#5, 7,

8)

Do not

adopt $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,972,222
B-5

Measure Entity and

Measure No.

Staff

Recommend?

Capital

Cost

(2009 $)

Annualized

Capital

Cost

(2009 $)

Annual

O&M

Cost

(2009 $)

Annual

Energy

Costs

(2009 $)

Total

Annualized

Cost

(2009 $)

Comments

Implement California

Fish and Game’s

recommended

minimum flows

CF&G (10(j)

#1)

Do not

adopt $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,035,673

Implement Forest

Service’s 4(e)

minimum flows

FS (4e #19) Do not

adopt $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,090,617

Implement PG&E’s

alternative 4(e) flows

below McCloud dama

PG&E

(Alternative

to FS 4e #19)

Do not

Adopt $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,090,617

Implement Trout

Unlimited, California

Trout, and McCloud

River Club’s

alternative 4(e) flows

below McCloud dam

Trout

Unlimited/

California

Trout/

McCloud

River Club

(Alternative

to FS 4e #19)

Adopt $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,090,617

Implement McCloud

RiverKeepers

alternative 4(e) flows

below McCloud dam

McCloud

RiverKeepers

(Alternative

to FS 4e #19)

Do not

adopt $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,255,446

Implement PG&E’s

alternative 4(e) flows

below Iron Canyon

dama

PG&E

(Alternative

to FS 4e #19)

Adopt $0 $0 $0 $0 $726,937
B

-6

Measure Entity and

Measure No.

Staff

Recom-

mend?

Capital

Cost

(2009 $)

Annual-

ized

Capital

Cost

(2009 $)

Annual

O&M

Cost

(2009 $)

Annual

Energy

Costs

(2009 $)

Total

Annualized

Cost

(2009 $)

Comments

Implement McCloud

dam up-ramping flows

prior to uncontrolled

spill events

a

FS (4e #19),

CF&G (10(j)

#1), PG&E

(#9,

Alternative to

FS 4e #19)

Adopt $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Provide a recreation

flow event from

McCloud dam

PG&E (#6) Do not

adopt $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Upgrade gage MC-10

FS (4e #19),

CF&G (10(j)

#1), PG&E

(#7)

Do Not

Adopt $41,000 $7,804 $0 $0 $7,804

Develop and

implement a water

quality monitoring

plan in consultation

with California Water

Board, Forest Service,

California Fish and

Game

FS (4e #20),

PG&E (#10,

Alternative to

FS 4e #20)

Adopt

with

incorpora-

tion of

PG&E

alternative

$85,000 $16,179 $70,000 $0 $86,179

Modify project

structure and

operations necessary

to mitigate impacts of

water quality and

temperature to listed

salmonids

NMFS/ FWS

(10(j) #7)

Do not

adopt $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

The cost of

project

mitigation plans

that may be

prescribed in the

future cannot be

estimated at this

time
B-7

Measure Entity and

Measure No.

Staff

Recommend?

Capital

Cost

(2009 $)

Annualized

Capital

Cost

(2009 $)

Annual

O&M

Cost

(2009 $)

Annual

Energy

Costs

(2009 $)

Total

Annualized

Cost

(2009 $)

Comments

Develop and

implement a Large

Woody Debris

Management Plan

FS (4e #21),

PG&E (#11) Adopt $1,500,000 $285,506 $167,000 $0 $452,506

Reserve authority to

prescribe fishways

NMFS

(Section 18) Adopt $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

The cost of any

fishways that

may be

prescribed in the

future cannot be

estimated at this

time.

Provide access to

suitable habitat for

anadromous fish and

restore habitat

conditions

NMFS/ FWS

(10(j) #2)

Do not

adopt $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

The cost of any

fishways that

may be

prescribed in the

future cannot be

estimated at this

time.

Develop and

implement an Erosion

and Sediment

Monitoring and

Control Plan

FS (4e #22),

PG&E (#12) Adopt $550,000 $104,686 $15,000 $0 $119,686

Develop and

implement a

Vegetation

Management Plan

PG&E (#13) Do not

adopt $300,000 $57,101 $275,000 $0 $332,101
B-8

Measure Entity and

Measure No.

Staff

Recommend?

Capital

Cost

(2009 $)

Annualized

Capital

Cost

(2009 $)

Annual

O&M

Cost

(2009 $)

Annual

Energy

Costs

(2009 $)

Total

Annualized

Cost

(2009 $)

Comments

Develop and

implement a

Vegetation

Management Plan

FS (4e #25),

PG&E

(Alternative

to FS 4e #25)

Adopt

with

incorporation of

PG&E

alternative

$325,215 $61,901 $275,000 $0 $336,901

Prepare a biological

evaluation to protect

Forest Service special

status species

FS (4e #11),

PG&E (#15) Adopt $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Prepare and file a

biological evaluation

for newly added

special status species

NMFS/ FWS

(10(j) #1B) Adopt $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Develop and

implement a foothill

yellow-legged frog

monitoring plan

FS (10(a)

#1), PG&E

(Alternative

reply

comments)

Adopt

with

incorporation of

PG&E

alternative

$0 $0 $70,000 $0 $70,000

Develop and

implement a wildlife

management plan

PG&E (#14,

16) Do not

adopt

$310,000 $59,005 $287,000 $0 $346,005
B-9

Measure Entity and

Measure No.

Staff

Recommend?

Capital

Cost

(2009 $)

Annualized

Capital

Cost

(2009 $)

Annual

O&M

Cost

(2009 $)

Annual

Energy

Costs

(2009 $)

Total

Annualized

Cost

(2009 $)

Comments

Develop and

implement a terrestrial

biological

management plan

FS (4e #26),

PG&E

(Alternative

to FS 4e #26)

Adopt

with

incorporation of

PG&E

alternative

$250,000 $47,584 $150,000 $0 $197,584

Develop and

implement an aquatic

biological

management and

monitoring plan

FS (4e #27),

PG&E

(Alternative

to FS 4e #27)

Adopt

with

incorporation of

PG&E

alternative

$500,000 $95,169 $100,000 $0 $195,169

Submit biological

evaluation or

assessment for special

status species

protection or

mitigation

NMFS/ FWS

(10(j) #1A)

Do not

adopt $20,000 $3,807 $1,800 $0 $5,607

Biological

evaluation

would be

conducted under

terrestrial and

aquatic

biological

management

plan

Create a listed

salmonid Technical

Integration Committee

NMFS (10(j)

#8)

Do not

adopt $0 $0 $20,000 $0 $20,000
B-10

Measure Entity and

Measure No.

Staff

Recommend?

Capital

Cost

(2009 $)

Annualized

Capital

Cost

(2009 $)

Annual

O&M

Cost

(2009 $)

Annual

Energy

Costs

(2009 $)

Total

Annualized

Cost

(2009 $)

Comments

Develop and

implement avian

hazard reduction

measures

PG&E (#16) Adopt $123,000 $23,411 $0 $0

The cost of

this measure

is reflected

in the

terrestrial

biological

management

plan

Stock trout in

McCloud and Iron

Canyon reservoirs and

Shasta Lake, as

proposed in FLA

PG&E (#17) Do not

adopt

$0 $0 $117,000 $0 $117,000

Stock up to 60,000

pounds of trout within

project boundary

annually

CF&G

(10(j) #3)

Adopted

with staff

modificati

ons

$0 $0 $117,000 $0 $117,000

Provide at least $5,000

annually for the

monitoring and

evaluation of fish

stocking program or

stocking of white

sturgeon within Shasta

Lake

CF&G

(10(j) #3)

Do not

adopt $5,000 $952 $0 $0 $952
B-11

Measure Entity and

Measure No.

Staff

Recommend?

Capital

Cost

(2009 $)

Annualized

Capital

Cost

(2009 $)

Annual

O&M

Cost

(2009 $)

Annual

Energy

Costs

(2009 $)

Total

Annualized

Cost

(2009 $)

Comments

Develop and

implement a Road and

Transportation Facility

Management Plan

FS (4e #29 &

30a), PG&E

(#18,

Alternative to

FS 4e #29)

Adopt

with

incorporation of

PG&E’s

alternative

$15,500,000 $2,950,229 $1,000,000 $0 $3,950,229

Develop and

implement a

Recreation

Development and

Management Plan in

consultation with

Forest Service,

California Fish and

Game, and California

Water Board

FS (4e #30 &

30a), PG&E

(Alternative

to FS 4e #30)

Adopt

with staff

modifications and

incorporation of

PG&E’s

alternative

$150,000 $28,551 $0 $0 $28,551

Develop and

implement a

Recreation

Development and

Management Plan in

consultation with

Forest Service,

California Fish and

Game, and California

Water Board

PG&E (#19) Do not

adopt $150,000 $28,551 $0 $0 $28,551
B-12

Measure Entity and

Measure No.

Staff

Recommend?

Capital

Cost

(2009 $)

Annualized

Capital

Cost

(2009 $)

Annual

O&M

Cost

(2009 $)

Annual

Energy

Costs

(2009 $)

Total

Annualized

Cost

(2009 $)

Comments

Provide recreation

flow information for

lower McCloud River

FS (4e #30,

PG&E (#19,

Alternative to

FS 4e #30)

Adopt

with staff

modifications

$0 $0 $4,000 $0 $4,000

Develop and

implement a Project

Sign Plan as proposed

in FLA

PG&E (#19) Do not

adopt $200,000 $38,067 $0 $0 $38,067

Develop and

implement a Project

Sign Plan

FS (4e #31),

PG&E

(Alternative

to FS 4e #31)

Adopt

with

incorporation of

PG&E’s

alternative

$314,000 $59,766 $12,000 $0 $71,766

The cost of the

Project Sign

Plan is $41,874

and the cost of

the Interpretive

and Education

Component is

$29,892

Develop and

implement an

Interpretive and

Education Sign Plan as

proposed in

FLA/component of

Sign Plan

PG&E (#19,

Alternative to

FS 4e #31)

Do not

adopt $94,000 $17,892 $2,000 $0 $19,892
B-13

Measure Entity and

Measure No.

Staff

Recommend?

Capital

Cost

(2009 $)

Annualized

Capital

Cost

(2009 $)

Annual

O&M

Cost

(2009 $)

Annual

Energy

Costs

(2009 $)

Total

Annualized

Cost

(2009 $)

Comments

Develop and

implement a

Recreation Monitoring

component

FS (4e #30),

PG&E (#19,

Alternative to

FS 4e #30)

Adopt

with staff

modifications and

incorporat

ion of

PG&E’s

alternative

$0 $0 $300,000 $0 $300,000

Develop a Surface

Water and Shoreline

Management Plan

PG&E (#19,

Alternative to

FS 4e #30)

Do not

adopt $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000

Develop and

implement Surface

Water Management

component

FS (4e #30)

Adopt

with staff

modifications

$0 $0 $50,000 $0 $5,000

Provide McCloud dam

angler recreation

access

FS (4e #30),

PG&E (#19,

Alternative

to FS 4e

#30)

Adopt with

incorporation of

PG&E’s

alternative

$413,000 $78,609 $11,000 $0 $89,609

Upgrade/relocate river

access trail from Ash

Camp to Ah-Di-Na

FS (4e #30) Do not

adopt $5,500 $1,047 $1,500 $0 $2,547
B-14

Measure Entity and

Measure No.

Staff

Recommend?

Capital

Cost

(2009 $)

Annualized

Capital

Cost

(2009 $)

Annual

O&M

Cost

(2009 $)

Annual

Energy

Costs

(2009 $)

Total

Annualized

Cost

(2009 $)

Comments

Provide Battle Creek

day-use area

FS (4e #30),

PG&E (#19,

Alternative to

FS 4e #30)

Adopt

with

incorporation of

PG&E’s

alternative

$216,000 $41,113 $6,000 $0 $47,113

Provide East McCloud

dam day-use area

FS (4e #30),

PG&E (#19,

Alternative to

FS 4e #30)

Adopt

with

incorporation of

PG&E’s

alternative

$216,000 $41,113 $6,000 $0 $47,113

Provide Red Banks

day-use area

FS (4e #30),

PG&E (#19,

Alternative to

FS 4e #30)

Adopt

with

incorporation of

PG&E’s

alternative

$783,000 $149,034 $21,000 $0 $170,034

Develop Star City dayuse area and

campground

FS (4e #30),

PG&E (#19,

Alternative to

FS 4e #30)

Adopt

with staff

modification and

incorporation of

PG&E’s

alternative

$2,646,000 $503,633 $67,000 $0 $570,633

Reconstruct Tarantula

Gulch boat launch and

provide day-use area

PG&E (#19

Alternative to

FS 4e #30)

Adopt

PG&E’s

alternative

$4,456,000 $848,143 $88,000 $0 $936,143
B-15

Measure Entity and

Measure No.

Staff

Recommend?

Capital

Cost

(2009 $)

Annualized

Capital

Cost

(2009 $)

Annual

O&M

Cost

(2009 $)

Annual

Energy

Costs

(2009 $)

Total

Annualized

Cost

(2009 $)

Comments

Reconstruct Tarantula

Gulch boat launch and

provide day-use area

FS (4e #30) Do not

adopt $4,456,000 $848,143 $228,000 $0 $1,076,143

Provide Tarantula

Gulch inlet day-use

area

FS (4e #30),

PG&E (#19,

Alternative to

FS 4e #30)

Adopt

with

incorporation of

PG&E’s

alternative

$188,000 $35,783 $4,000 $0 $35,783

Provide West

McCloud dam day-use

area

FS (4e #30),

PG&E (#19,

Alternative to

FS 4e #30)

Adopt

with

incorporation of

PG&E’s

alternative

$225,000 $42,826 $6,000 $0 $48,826

Conduct site

evaluation and provide

three day-use parking

areas at Iron Canyon

reservoir

FS (4e #30),

PG&E (#19,

Alternative to

FS 4e #30)

Adopt

with staff

modificati

ons

$816,000 $155,315 $22,000 $0 $177,315

Reconstruct/relocate

Deadlun Campground

FS (4e #30),

PG&E (#19,

Alternative to

FS 4e #30)

Adopt

with staff

modification and

incorporation of

PG&E’s

alternative

$2,016,000 $383,720 $59,000 $0 $442,720
B-16

Measure Entity and

Measure No.

Staff

Recommend?

Capital

Cost

(2009 $)

Annualized

Capital

Cost

(2009 $)

Annual

O&M

Cost

(2009 $)

Annual

Energy

Costs

(2009 $)

Total

Annualized

Cost

(2009 $)

Comments

Reconstruct Hawkins

Landing Campground

and boat launch

FS (4e #30),

PG&E (#19,

Alternative to

FS 4e #30)

Adopt

with

incorporation of

PG&E’s

alternative

$1,450,000 $275,989 $41,000 $0 $316,989

Design and construct

Iron Canyon dam boat

launch

PG&E (#19,

Alternative to

FS 4e #30)

Adopt

PG&E

alternative

with staff

modifications

$1,962,000 $373,442 $98,000 $0 $471,442

Design and construct

Iron Canyon dam boat

launch

FS (4e #30) Do not

adopt $1,962,000 $373,442 $198,000 $0 $571,442

Evaluate feasibility

and construct shoreline

access trail (upper end

of Pit 7)

FS (4e #30),

PG&E (#19,

Alternative to

FS 4e #30)

Adopt

with staff

modifications and

incorporation of

some of

PG&E’s

alternative

$70,000 $13,324 $4,000 $0 $17,324

Evaluate feasibility

and construct a boat

put-in at Montgomery

Creek (Pit 7 reservoir)

FS (4e #30),

PG&E (#19,

Alternative to

FS 4e #30)

Do not

adopt $125,000 23,792 $85,000 $0 $108,792
B-17

Measure Entity and

Measure No.

Staff

Recommend?

Capital

Cost

(2009 $)

Annualized

Capital

Cost

(2009 $)

Annual

O&M

Cost

(2009 $)

Annual

Energy

Costs

(2009 $)

Total

Annualized

Cost

(2009 $)

Comments

Provide day-use site at

Fenders Flat; maintain

access to car-top boat

launch; and provide

restroom near Pit 7

afterbay car-top boat

launch

PG&E (#19) Do not

adopt $1,404,000 $267,234 $109,000 $0 $376,234

Reconstruct day-use

site at Fenders Flat

FS (4e #30),

PG&E

(Alternative

to FS 4e #30)

Adopt

with

incorporation of

PG&E’s

alternative

$1,620,000 $308,346 $115,000 $0 $423,346

Close/rehabilitate/eval

uate off-highway

vehicle trails

FS (4e #30),

PG&E (#19,

Alternative to

FS 4e #30)

Adopt

with staff

modifications and

incorporation of

PG&E’s

alternative

$600,000 $114,202 $0 $0 $114,202

Develop and

implement plan to

provide project-wide

patrol as proposed in

FLA

PG&E (#20) Do not

adopt

$0 $0 $263,000 $0 $263,000
B-18

Measure Entity and

Measure No.

Staff

Recommend?

Capital

Cost

(2009 $)

Annualized

Capital

Cost

(2009 $)

Annual

O&M

Cost

(2009 $)

Annual

Energy

Costs

(2009 $)

Total

Annualized

Cost

(2009 $)

Comments

Provide project-wide

patrol for project and

project-affected NFS

land

FS (4e #30),

PG&E

(Alternative

to FS 4e #30)

Do not

adopt $0 $0 $263,000 $0 $263,000

Prepare a Fire

Response Plan in

consultation with the

Forest Service,

California Department

of Forestry and

Protection, and Big

Bend Volunteer Fire

Department

FS (4e #33),

PG&E (#21,

Alternative to

FS 4e #33)

Adopt

with

incorporation of

PG&E’s

alternative

$10,000 $1,903 $2,000 $0 $3,903

Implement the HPMP

included in the FLA PG&E (#22) Do notadopt $440,000 $83,748 $200,000 $0 $283,748

Additional measures

likely to be required in

an HPMP approved by

the Forest Service

FS (4e #34),

PG&E

Alternative to

FS 4e #34)

Adopt

with staff

modificati

ons

$440,000 $83,748 $200,000 $0 $283,748

Develop a shoreline

trail at Pit 6 Reservoir

if determined

necessary based on

six-year recreation use

monitoring

FS (4e #30.2) Do not

adopt $5,500 $1,047 $1,000 $0 $2,047
B-19

Measure Entity and

Measure No.

Staff

Recommend?

Capital

Cost

(2009 $)

Annualized

Capital

Cost

(2009 $)

Annual

O&M

Cost

(2009 $)

Annual

Energy

Costs

(2009 $)

Total

Annualized

Cost

(2009 $)

Comments

Develop and

implement a plan to

protect visual quality

of project lands

FS (4e #32)

Adopt

PG&E’s

alternative

with staff

modifications

$60,000 $11,420 $0 $0 $11,420

File a plan approved

by the Forest Service

for oil and hazardous

substances storage and

spill prevention and

cleanup.

FS (4e #28)

Adopt

with

inclusion

of

PG&E’s

alternative

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0

If Montgomery Creek

is not feasible for a

hand-launch boat putin, develop a river

access trail along one

side of the Pit 7

reservoir for

pedestrian fishing

FS (4e #30) Adopt $64,500 $12,277 $1,000 $0 $13,277

If Montgomery Creek

is not feasible for a

hand-launch boat putin, develop a river

access trail along one

side of the Pit 7

reservoir for handlaunch boat access

FS (4e #30) Do not

adopt $5,500 $1,047 $3,000 $0 $4,047
B-20

Measure Entity and

Measure No.

Staff

Recommend?

Capital

Cost

(2009 $)

Annualized

Capital

Cost

(2009 $)

Annual

O&M

Cost

(2009 $)

Annual

Energy

Costs

(2009 $)

Total

Annualized

Cost

(2009 $)

Comments

Reconstruct the cartop boat launch near

Fenders Flat and

provide re-vegetation

FS (4e #30),

PG&E

(Alternative

to FS 4e #30)

Adopt

with

incorporation of

PG&E’s

alternative

$50,000 $9,517 $4,000 $0 $13,517

Revise project

boundary and file a

revised Exhibit G

NA

Staff

recommended

alternative

$50,000 $9,517 $0 $0 $9,517

Total Applicant’s

Proposal $36,106,000 $6,872,320 $3,380,000 $1,566,250 $10,252,320

Staff Alternative $37,550,715 $7,147,303 $3,435,000 $3,500,000 $10,582,303

Staff Alternative with

4(e) Mandatory

Conditions

$37,717,215 $7,178,994 $4,030,500 $3,500,000 $11,209,494

a This measure would be implemented even if there is no new powerhouse constructed. Annual energy cost would differ, however, if the

new powerhouses are constructed.
B-21

Table B-2. Estimated capital and O&M costs of measures proposed by PG&E and recommended by staff and agencies

for construction of new powerhouses and transmission lines at the McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project.

(Source: Staff)

Measure Entity and

Measure No.

Staff

Recommend?

Capital

Cost (2009

$)

Annualized

Capital

Cost (2009

$)

Annual

O&M Cost

(2009 $)

Annual

Energy

Costs (2009

$)

Total

Annualized

Cost (2009

$)

Comments

Obtain Forest Service

approval for all final

design plans

PG&E (#3) Adopt $163,000 $31,025 $16,500 $0 $47,525

Move flow compliance

gage from MC-1 to

MC-7

CF&G (10(j)

#1),

NMFS/FWS

(10(j) #3B)

Do not

adopt $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Implement minimum

flows proposed in FLA PG&E (#5, 7, 8) Do notadopt $0 $0 $0

$2,062,222

to

$5,195,722a

$2,062,222

to

$5,195,722a

Implement California

Fish and Game’s

recommended

minimum flows

CF&G (10(j)

#1)

Do not

adopt $0 $0 $0

$4,125,673

to

$7,223,173a

$4,125,673

to

$7,223,173a

Implement Forest

Service’s 4(e)

minimum flows

FS (4e #19) Do not

adopt $0 $0 $0

$2,180,617

to

$5,278,117a

$2,180,617

to

$5,278,117a

Implement PG&E’s

alternative 4(e) flows

below McCloud damb

PG&E

(Alternative to

FS 4e #19)

Do not

adopt $0 $0 $0

$2,180,617

to

$5,278,117a

$2,180,617

to

$5,278,117a
B-22

Measure Entity and

Measure No.

Staff

Recommend?

Capital

Cost (2009

$)

Annualized

Capital

Cost (2009

$)

Annual

O&M Cost

(2009 $)

Annual

Energy

Costs (2009

$)

Total

Annualized

Cost (2009

$)

Comments

Implement Trout

Unlimited and

McCloud River Club’s

alternative 4(e) flows

below McCloud damb

Trout

Unlimited/McCl

oud River Club

(Alternative to

FS 4e #19)

Adopt $0 $0 $0

$2,180,617

to

$5,278,117a

$2,180,617

to

$5,278,117a

Implement McCloud

RiverKeepers

alternative 4(e) flows

below McCloud damb

McCloud

RiverKeepers

(Alternative to

FS 4e #19)

Do not

adopt $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Implement PG&E’s

alternative 4(e) flows

below Iron Canyon

damb

PG&E

(Alternative to

FS 4e 19)

Adopt $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Implement McCloud

dam up-ramping flows

prior to uncontrolled

spill eventsb

FS (4e #19),

PG&E (#9,

Alternative to

FS 4e #19)

Adopt $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Prepare a biological

evaluation before

taking actions that

may affect Forest

Service special status

species

on National Forest

System lands

FS (4e #11),

PG&E (#15) Adopt $310,000 $59,005 $287,000 $0 $346,005
B-23

Measure Entity and

Measure No.

Staff

Recommend?

Capital

Cost (2009

$)

Annualized

Capital

Cost (2009

$)

Annual

O&M Cost

(2009 $)

Annual

Energy

Costs (2009

$)

Total

Annualized

Cost (2009

$)

Comments

Provide Pit 7 afterbay

powerhouse day-use

area

FS (4e #30),

PG&E (#19,

Alternative to

FS 4e #30)

Adopt 4(e)

with staff

modifications and

incorporation of

some of

PG&E’s

alternative

4(e)

$141,000 $26,838 $11,000 $0 $37,838

a Costs based on estimated generation capacity of proposed McCloud and Pit 7 afterbay powerhouses

b This measure would be implemented even if there is no new powerhouse constructed; capital and annual costs are included only in

table B-1. Annual energy cost would differ, however, if the new powerhouses are constructed.
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix C

Commission Staff Recommended

License Conditions

C-1

I. MANDATORY CONDITIONS

On January 29, 2010, the United States Department of Agriculture - Forest Service

(Forest Service) filed 34 section 4(e) conditions, 19 of which we consider pertinent to

environmental resources (described in section 2.2.5.3 of the EIS and included in

Appendix D).1In the staff alternative, we recommend five of the 19 conditions specified

by the Forest Service. In addition, we recommend 13 of the specified conditions with

modifications and we do not recommend one condition (reservoir dredging plan).2 We

recognize, however, that the Commission is required to include valid 4(e) conditions in

any license issued for the project. As such, each of the measures that staff does not

recommend or recommends be modified in the staff alternative (as discussed in section 5

Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative) would not be included in

any license issued by the Commission. Instead, those conditions would be replaced with

the Forest Service’s corresponding conditions, as filed with the Commission.

II. ADDITIONAL LICENSE ARTICLES RECOMMENDED BY

COMMISSION STAFF

We recommend including the following license articles in any license issued for

the project, in addition to the mandatory conditions.

Draft Article 4XX. Gravel and Coarse Sediment Management Plan. Within one

year of license issuance, the licensee shall include in the gravel and coarse sediment

management plan that will be filed for approval with the Commission pursuant to the

United States Department of Agriculture – Forest Service (Forest Service)

4(e) condition 23 (Appendix D): (1) provisions for periodic gravel and coarse sediment

augmentation downstream of McCloud dam; (2) evaluation of Star City Creek as a

1 On March 1, 2010, the Forest Service filed a revised 4(e) condition 19, part 1, which is

discussed in the EIS and included in Appendix D.

2 As explained in section 5 of the draft Environmental Impact Statement, of the

18 conditions, we recommend modifying the following 12 conditions: (1) streamflow

(condition 19); (2) water quality and temperature monitoring (condition 20); (3) gravel

and coarse sediment management and monitoring (condition 23); (4) vegetation and

invasive weed management and monitoring (condition 25); (5) terrestrial biological

management and monitoring (condition 26); (6) aquatic biological management and

monitoring (condition 27); (7) Hazardous Substance Management (condition 28);

(8) road and transportation facility management (condition 29); (9) recreation

development, management, and monitoring (condition 30); (10) project sign plan

(condition 31); (11) visual quality management (condition 32); (12) fire prevention and

response (condition 33); and (13) heritage resources management and monitoring

(condition 34).
C-2

primary source of gravel; and (3) evaluation of other potential alternate local sites.

Additionally, as part of the plan, the licensee should consider fish and aquatic

invertebrate monitoring for assessments of sediment augmentation success.

The licensee shall develop the gravel and coarse sediment management plan in

consultation with the Forest Service, California Department of Fish and Game (California

Fish and Game), the California State Water Resources Control Board (California Water

Board), and other interested parties. The licensee shall include with the gravel and coarse

sediment management plan that it files with the Commission, documentation of agency

consultation, copies of comments and recommendations made in connection with the

plan, and a description of how the plan accommodates the comments and

recommendations. The licensee shall allow a minimum of 30 days for the agencies to

comment and to make recommendations before filing the plan with the Commission. If

the licensee does not adopt a recommendation, the filing shall include the licensee's

reasons, based on project-specific information.

The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the plan. The plan shall

not be implemented until the licensee is notified that the plan is approved. Upon

Commission approval, the licensee shall implement the plan, including any changes

required by the Commission.

Draft Article 4XX. Minimum Flow Releases. Within 90 days of license issuance,

the licensee shall maintain minimum flow releases in project reaches below McCloud

dam, Iron Canyon dam, and Pit 7 dam consistent with United States Department of

Agriculture – Forest Service (Forest Service) 4(e) condition 19, and revised Forest

Service condition 19, part 1, subpart B (Appendix D), except where noted herein. The

minimum flows required by Forest Service condition 19, part 1, subpart C shall be

modified as provided by California Water Resources Bulletin 120 (Bulletin 120) to:

(1) define the below normal, dry, critically dry water year as less than 100 percent of the

average forecasted runoff for April through July; (2) define the above normal water year

as 100 to 119 percent of the average forecasted runoff for April through July; (3) define

the wet water year as 120 percent or greater of the average forecasted runoff for April

through July; (4) allow flow changes in December of each year to be conducted as soon

as site accessibility permits; and (5) require flow changes during February through May

to be conducted once, within five business days of the actual publication date of each

month’s Bulletin 120, or as soon as site accessibility permits. The previous month’s

flows shall be allowed to continue through the first several days of these months until

new minimum flows have been determined and flow changes are conducted.

Draft Article 4XX. Flow Ramping Protocol. Upon license issuance, the licensee

shall implement ramping procedures consistent with United States Department of

Agriculture – Forest Service (Forest Service) 4(e) condition 19, part 1 subpart B for

McCloud dam and consistent with Forest Service condition 19, part 1, subpart C for Iron

Canyon dam (Appendix D). The requirements of Forest Service condition 19, part 1,

subpart C shall be modified to allow valve testing for dam safety compliance at Iron
C-3

Canyon dam to occur between March 1 and March 31 of each year for the term of the

license, if unsafe access conditions exist at the site.

Draft Article 4XX. Water Quality and Temperature Monitoring Plan. Within one

year of license issuance, the licensee shall file with the Commission, for approval, a

water quality and temperature monitoring plan consistent with United States Department

of Agriculture – Forest Service (Forest Service) 4(e) condition 20 (Appendix D), except

as noted herein. The water quality and temperature monitoring plan required by Forest

Service condition 20 shall be modified to: (1) allow a provision for delayed maintenance

and deployment of temperature and turbidity sensors resulting from site safety and access

constraints; (2) identify specific contaminant monitoring locations within project

reservoirs and a schedule for implementation of periodic monitoring; (3) identify specific

dissolved oxygen monitoring locations within McCloud, Pit 6, and Pit 7 reservoirs and a

schedule for implementation of periodic monitoring; (4) specify timeframes and reasons

to possibly revise the monitoring program after 10 years of data collection; and

(5) specify monitoring equipment to be used and a monthly maintenance and inspection

program for said equipment, for the period of deployment.

The licensee shall develop the plan in consultation with the Forest Service, United

States Department of Commerce – National Marine Fisheries Service, United States

Department of Interior – Fish and Wildlife Service, and California department of Fish

and Game. The licensee shall include with the plan copies of comments and

recommendations made on the completed plan after it has been prepared and provided to

the agencies, and specific descriptions of how the agencies’ comments are accommodated

by the plan. The licensee shall allow a minimum of 30 days for the consulted agencies to

comment and make recommendations before filing the plan with the Commission. If the

licensee does not adopt a recommendation, the filing shall include the licensee’s reasons,

based on project-specific information.

The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the plan. The plan shall

not be implemented until the licensee is notified that it has been approved by the

Commission. Upon Commission approval, the licensee shall implement the plan,

including any changes required by the Commission.

Draft Article 4XX. Annual Water Quality and Temperature Monitoring Report.

Within one year of license issuance, and as part of the Water Quality and Temperature

Monitoring Report required by United States Department of Agriculture – Forest Service

(Forest Service) section 4(e) condition 20, the licensee shall prepare an annual report that:

(1) summarizes the monitoring results, compares the results to applicable water quality

and temperature standards; (2) determines whether temperatures that do not meet criteria

of the water quality control plan (Basin Plan) for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River

Basins are project-controllable factors; (3) makes recommendations, if applicable, for

changes in project operations or facilities that may enable Basin Plan criteria to be met;
C-4

and (4) specifies any changes to the monitoring program or project operations that are

proposed for the following year based on the monitoring results.

The licensee shall provide a draft of the annual report to the Forest Service, United

States Department of Commerce – National Marine Fisheries Service, United States

Department of Interior – Fish and Wildlife Service, and California department of Fish

and Game for review and comment prior to the annual resource coordination meeting

specified in Forest Service condition 2 (Appendix D). Within 30 days following the

annual resource coordination meeting, the report shall be filed with the Commission,

along with a summary of agency comments on the report, and how the final report

addresses any comments received. If the licensee does not adopt a recommendation, the

filing shall include the licensee's reasons, based on project-specific information.

Draft Article 4XX. Reservation of Authority to Prescribe Fishways. Authority is

reserved to the Commission to require the licensee to construct, operate, and maintain, or

to provide for the construction, operation, and maintenance of such fishways as may be

prescribed by the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce pursuant to section 18 of the

Federal Power Act.

Draft Article 4XX. Aquatic Biological Management and Monitoring Plan.

Within one year of license issuance, the licensee shall file with the Commission, for

approval, an aquatic biological management and monitoring plan consistent with United

States Department of Agriculture – Forest Service (Forest Service) 4(e) condition 27

(Appendix D), except as noted herein. The aquatic biological management and

monitoring plan shall be modified to: (1) require resource-specific provisions for

monitoring and reporting requirements for fish populations, benthic macroinvertebrates,

and special status aquatic mollusks; (2) require a list of species to be monitored, if

applicable; (3) not require fish population monitoring in project reservoirs; (4) require

standardized sampling and data methodologies consistent with the McCloud-Pit Project

aquatic resources relicensing studies; and (5) require monitoring to begin following the

Commission’s approval of the plan and not following the effective date of the license.

The documentation and reporting component of Forest Service condition 27 shall

also be modified to include a provision that a draft technical report of all aquatic

biological monitoring components be prepared within one year following the completion

of each sampling effort.

The licensee shall prepare the plan and all components after consultation with the

Forest Service, California State Water Resources Control Board, United States

Department of Interior – Fish and Wildlife Service, and California department of Fish

and Game. The licensee shall include with the plan documentation of consultation,

copies of comments and recommendations on the completed plan after it has been

prepared and provided to the agencies, and specific descriptions of how the agencies'

comments are accommodated by the plan. The licensee shall allow a minimum of 30

days for the agencies to comment and to make recommendations before filing the plan
C-5

with the Commission. If the licensee does not adopt a recommendation, the filing shall

include the licensee's reasons, based on project-specific information.

The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the plan. The plan shall

not be implemented until the licensee is notified that the plan is approved. Upon

Commission approval, the licensee shall implement the plan.

Draft Article 4XX. Streamflow Measurement. Upon license issuance, the licensee

shall operate and maintain existing gages below McCloud dam, Pit 7 dam, and Iron

Canyon dam, under the supervision of the United States Geological Survey consistent

with United States Department of Agriculture – Forest Service (Forest Service) 4(e)

condition 19, part 3 (Appendix D). Within three years of license issuance, the licensee

shall modify, if necessary, the gage facilities necessary to measure the new minimum

streamflow releases consistent with Forest Service condition 19, part 3.

Draft Article 4XX. Vegetation Management Plan. Within one year of license

issuance, the licensee shall file with the Commission, for approval, a vegetation

management plan consistent with the United States Department of Agriculture - Forest

Service (Forest Service) section 4(e) condition 25 (Appendix D), except as noted herein.

The vegetation management plan shall be modified to include: (1) the implementation of

Best Management Practices to protect wetlands during construction any construction

activities; and (2) language requiring the use of native vegetation when restoring areas

disturbed by project-related operation and maintenance activities.

The licensee shall develop the plan in consultation with the Forest Service, the

United States Department of Interior – Fish and Wildlife Service, and the California

Department of Fish and Game. The licensee shall include with the plan copies of

comments and recommendations made on the completed plan after it has been prepared

and provided to the agencies, and specific descriptions of how the agencies’ comments

are accommodated by the plan. The licensee shall allow a minimum of 30 days for the

consulted agencies to comment and make recommendations before filing the plan with

the Commission. If the licensee does not adopt a recommendation, the filing shall

include the licensee’s reasons, based on project-specific information.

The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the plan. The plan shall

not be implemented until the licensee is notified that it has been approved by the

Commission. Upon Commission approval, the licensee shall implement the plan,

including any changes required by the Commission.

Draft Article 4XX. Special Status Species Review and Protection. The special

status species review and protection measures required by United States Department of

Agriculture - Forest Service (Forest Service) section 4(e) conditions 25 and 26

(Appendix D) shall apply to all accessible project lands and shall also include federal and

state rare, candidate, threatened, and endangered species. The Commission reserves the

right to require additional measures to protect special status species.
C-6

Draft Article 4XX. Fish Stocking Plan. Within one year of license issuance, the

licensee shall file with the Commission for approval, a plan to evaluate and monitor the

amount of fish to be stocked every 6 years in the reservoirs and affected stream reaches at

the project. The licensee shall develop the plan after consultation with California

Department of Fish and Game and include a description of the number, location, and

species of fish to be stocked in McCloud, Iron Canyon, Pit 6 and Pit 7 reservoirs, and

other affected stream reaches at the project and an implementation schedule. This

stocking plan shall be included as a part of the recreation monitoring effort that shall

occur concurrently with the FERC Form 80 schedule every 6 years after license issuance.

The licensee shall include with the plan documentation of consultation, copies of

comments and recommendations on the completed plan after it has been prepared and

provided to the entities above, and specific descriptions of how the entities’ comments

are accommodated by the plan. The licensee shall allow a minimum of 30 days for the

entities to comment and to make recommendations before filing the plan with the

Commission. If the licensee does not adopt a recommendation, the filing shall include

the licensee’s reasons, based on project-specific reasons.

The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the plan. Upon

Commission approval the licensee shall implement the plan, including any changes

required by the Commission.

Draft Article 4XX. Recreation Facilities. The following existing facilities shall

be operated and maintained for the term of the license: Tarantula Gulch Boat Launch,

Star City dispersed area, Deadlun Campground, Hawkins Landing Campground and boat

launch, and Fenders Flat Car-top boat launch.

Draft Article 4XX. McCloud Reservoir Swimming/Fishing Platform. Within two

years of license issuance, the licensee shall conduct a site evaluation to determine the

location of a fishing/swimming platform on McCloud reservoir, and file a report

containing the results of the evaluation and recommendations for the placement and

construction of the platform with the Commission, for approval. After Commission

approval, the licensee shall construct the platform within three years of license issuance.

The licensee shall provide the report to the U. S. Department of Agriculture –

Forest Service (Forest Service) for comment. The licensee shall include with the report

copies of comments and recommendations made on the completed report after it has been

prepared and provided to the Forest Service, and specific descriptions of how the

agencies’ comments are accommodated by the plan. The licensee shall allow a minimum

of 30 days for the Forest Service to comment and make recommendations before filing

the report with the Commission. If the licensee does not adopt a recommendation, the

filing shall include the licensee’s reasons, based on project-specific information.

The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the report. The report

shall not be implemented until the licensee is notified that it has been approved by the
C-7

Commission. Upon Commission approval, the licensee shall construct the platform with

any modifications required by the Commission.

Draft Article 4XX. Pit 7 Reservoir Fishing Access Trail. Within two years of

license issuance, the licensee shall conduct a site evaluation to determine the location of a

pedestrian shoreline fishing access trail at the lower end of Pit 7 reservoir, and file a

report containing the results of the evaluation and recommendations for the placement

and construction of the platform with the Commission, for approval. After Commission

approval, the licensee shall construct the trail within three years of license issuance.

The licensee shall provide the report to the U. S. Department of Agriculture –

Forest Service (Forest Service) for comment. The licensee shall include with the report

copies of comments and recommendations made on the completed report after it has been

prepared and provided to the Forest Service, and specific descriptions of how the

agencies’ comments are accommodated by the plan. The licensee shall allow a minimum

of 30 days for the Forest Service to comment and make recommendations before filing

the report with the Commission. If the licensee does not adopt a recommendation, the

filing shall include the licensee’s reasons, based on project-specific information.

The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the report. The report

shall not be implemented until the licensee is notified that it has been approved by the

Commission. Upon Commission approval, the licensee shall construct the trail with any

modifications required by the Commission.

Draft Article 4XX. Fire Prevention and Response Plan. Within one year of

license issuance, the licensee shall file with the Commission a Department of Agriculture

– Forest Service (Forest Service)-approved fire prevention and response plan prepared

consistent with Forest Service section 4(e) condition 33 (Appendix D). During the

development of the plan, the licensee shall also consult with the California Department of

Forestry and Fire Protection and the Big Bend Volunteer Fire Department. The plan shall

include provisions for fuels treatment/vegetation management, fire prevention,

emergency response, preparedness, reporting, and identifying fire control extinguishing

locations within the project boundary.

The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the plan. The plan shall

not be implemented until the licensee is notified that the plan is approved. Upon

Commission approval, the licensee shall implement the plan, including any changes

required by the Commission.

Draft Article 4XX. Road and Transportation Facilities Management Plan.

Within one year of license issuance, the licensee shall file with the Commission a road

and transportation facilities management plan, as specified by United States Department

of Agriculture – Forest Service section 4(e) condition 29 (Appendix D), for all roads and

transportation facilities within the project boundary, consistent. The plan shall address

operations, maintenance, construction and reconstruction, monitoring, and road use.
C-8

The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the plan. The plan shall

not be implemented until the licensee is notified that the plan is approved. Upon

Commission approval, the licensee shall implement the plan, including any changes

required by the Commission.

Draft Article 4XX. Programmatic Agreement and Historic Properties. The

licensee shall implement the “Programmatic Agreement among the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, the California State Historic Preservation Officer, and the

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for Managing Historic Properties that may be

Affected by Issuing a License to Pacific Gas & Electric for the Continued Operation and

Maintenance of the McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project in Shasta County, California,

(FERC No. 2106-059)” executed on (future date). Within 1 year of license issuance, and

pursuant to the requirements of the (future date) Programmatic Agreement and United

States Department of Agriculture – Forest Service section 4(e) condition 34 (Appendix

D), the licensee shall implement the Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) with

the following modifications: (1) treatment measures, to be conducted within 1 year of

license issuance, that resolve project-related adverse effects on National Register-eligible

archeological site CA-SHA-252; (2) National Register evaluations, to be completed

within 1 year of license issuance, on all cultural resources that are currently, or in the

future will be, adversely affected by the project; (3) site-specific protection measures, to

be completed within 2 years of license issuance, to resolve project-related erosion effects

on all National Register-eligible archeological sites; and (4) measures for handling of

newly discovered paleontological resources, due to the recent paleontological law

enacted by Congress in March 2009 that requires all federal land managers to manage

and protect paleontological resources discovered on their lands. In the event that the

Programmatic Agreement is terminated, the licensee shall continue to implement the

provisions of its approved HPMP. The Commission reserves the authority to require

changes to the HPMP at any time during the term of the license.

Draft Article 4XX. Use and Occupancy. (a) In accordance with the provisions of

this article, the licensee shall have the authority to grant permission for certain types of

use and occupancy of project lands and waters and to convey certain interests in project

lands and waters for certain types of use and occupancy, without prior Commission

approval. The licensee may exercise the authority only if the proposed use and

occupancy is consistent with the purposes of protecting and enhancing the scenic,

recreational, and other environmental values of the project. For those purposes, the

licensee also shall have continuing responsibility to supervise and control the use and

occupancies for which it grants permission, and to monitor the use of, and ensure

compliance with the covenants of the instrument of conveyance for any interests that it

has conveyed under this article. If a permitted use and occupancy violates any condition

of this article or any other condition imposed by the licensee for protection and

enhancement of the project’s scenic, recreational, or other environmental values, or if a

covenant or a conveyance made under the authority of this article is violated, the licensee
C-9

shall take any lawful action necessary to correct the violation. For a permitted use or

occupancy, that action includes, if necessary, canceling the permission to use and occupy

the project lands and waters and requiring the removal of any non-complying structures

and facilities.

(b) The types of use and occupancy of project lands and waters for which the

licensee may grant permission without prior Commission approval are: (1) landscape

plantings; (2) non-commercial piers, landings, boat docks, or similar structures and

facilities that can accommodate no more than 10 watercraft at a time and where said

facility is intended to serve single-family type dwellings; (3) embankments, bulkheads,

retaining walls, or similar structures for erosion control to protect the existing shoreline;

and (4) food plots and other wildlife enhancement. To the extent feasible and desirable to

protect and enhance the project’s scenic, recreational, and other environmental values, the

licensee shall require multiple use and occupancy of facilities for access to project lands

or waters. The licensee shall also ensure to the satisfaction of the Commission’s

authorized representative that the use and occupancies for which it grants permission are

maintained in good repair and comply with applicable state and local health and safety

requirements. Before granting permission for construction of bulkheads or retaining

walls, the licensee shall: (1) inspect the site of the proposed construction, (2) consider

whether the planting of vegetation or the use of riprap would be adequate to control

erosion at the site, and (3) determine if the proposed construction is needed and would

not change the basic contour of the impoundment shoreline. To implement this

paragraph (b), the licensee may, among other things, establish a program for issuing

permits for the specified types of use and occupancy of project lands and waters, which

may be subject to the payment of a reasonable fee to cover the licensee’s costs of

administering the permit program. The Commission reserves the right to require the

licensee to file a description of its standards, guidelines, and procedures for implementing

this paragraph (b) and to require modification of those standards, guidelines, or

procedures.

(c) The licensee may convey easements or rights-of-way across, or leases of

project lands for: (1) replacement, expansion, realignment, or maintenance of bridges or

roads where all necessary state and federal approvals have been obtained; (2) storm

drains and water mains; (3) sewers that do not discharge into project waters; (4) minor

access roads; (5) telephone, gas, and electric utility distribution lines; (6) non-project

overhead electric transmission lines that do not require erection of support structures

within the project boundary; (7) submarine, overhead, or underground major telephone

distribution cables or major electric distribution lines (69 kV or less); and (8) water intake

or pumping facilities that do not extract more than one million gallons per day from a

project impoundment. No later than January 31 of each year, the licensee shall file three

copies of a report briefly describing for each conveyance made under this paragraph (c)

during the prior calendar year, the type of interest conveyed, the location of the lands

subject to the conveyance, and the nature of the use for which the interest was conveyed.
C-10

If no conveyance was made during the prior calendar year, the licensee shall so inform

the Commission in writing no later than January 31 of each year.

(d) The licensee may convey fee title to, easements or rights-of-way across, or

leases of project lands for: (1) construction of new bridges or roads for which all

necessary state and federal approvals have been obtained; (2) sewer or effluent lines that

discharge into project waters for which all necessary federal and state water quality

certification or permits have been obtained; (3) other pipelines that cross project lands or

waters but do not discharge into project waters; (4) non-project overhead electric

transmission lines that require erection of support structures within the project boundary

for which all necessary federal and state approvals have been obtained; (5) private or

public marinas that can accommodate no more than 10 watercraft at a time and are

located at least one-half mile (measured over project waters) from any other private or

public marina; (6) recreational development consistent with an approved report on

recreational resources of an Exhibit E; and (7) other uses, if: (i) the amount of land

conveyed for a particular use is 5 acres or less; (ii) all of the land conveyed is located at

least 75 feet, measured horizontally, from project waters at normal surface elevation; and

(iii) no more than 50 total acres of project lands for each project development are

conveyed under this clause (d)(7) in any calendar year. At least 60 days before

conveying any interest in project lands under this paragraph (d), the licensee must submit

a letter to the Director, Office of Energy Projects, stating its intent to convey the interest

and briefly describing the type of interest and location of the lands to be conveyed (a

marked Exhibit G map may be used), the nature of the proposed use, the identity of any

federal or state agency official consulted, and any federal or state approvals required for

the proposed use. Unless the Director, within 45 days from the filing date, requires the

licensee to file an application for prior approval, the licensee may convey the intended

interest at the end of that period.

(e) The following additional conditions apply to any intended conveyance under

paragraph (c) or (d) of this article:

(1) Before conveying the interest, the licensee shall consult with federal and state

fish and wildlife or recreation agencies, as appropriate, and the State Historic

Preservation Officer.

(2) Before conveying the interest, the licensee shall determine that the proposed

use of the lands to be conveyed is not inconsistent with any approved report on

recreational resources of an Exhibit E; or if the project does not have an

approved report on recreational resources, that the lands to be conveyed do not

have recreational value.

(3) The instrument of conveyance must include the following covenants running

with the land: (i) the use of the lands conveyed shall not endanger health,

create a nuisance, or otherwise be incompatible with overall project

recreational use; and (ii) the grantee shall take all reasonable precautions to
C-11

ensure that the construction, operation, and maintenance of structures or

facilities on the conveyed lands will occur in a manner that will protect the

scenic, recreational, and environmental values of the project.

(4) The Commission reserves the right to require the licensee to take reasonable

remedial action to correct any violation of the terms and conditions of this

article, for the protection and enhancement of the project’s scenic, recreational,

and other environmental values.

(f) The conveyance of an interest in project lands under this article does not in

itself change the project boundaries. The project boundaries may be changed to exclude

land conveyed under this article only upon approval of revised Exhibit G drawings

(project boundary maps) reflecting exclusion of that land. Lands conveyed under this

article will be excluded from the project only upon a determination that the lands are not

necessary for project purposes, such as operation and maintenance, flowage, recreation,

public access, protection of environmental resources, and shoreline control, including

shoreline aesthetic values. Absent extraordinary circumstances, proposals to exclude

lands conveyed under this article from the project shall be consolidated for consideration

when revised Exhibit G drawings would be filed for approval for other purposes.

(g) The authority granted to the licensee under this article shall not apply to any

part of the public lands and reservations of the United States included within the project

boundary.
This page intentionally left blank
Appendix D

Forest Service 4(e) Conditions

Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

1

PRELIMINARY LICENSE TERMS AND CONDITIONS

NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION AND UTILIZATION

OF THE SHASTA-TRINITY NATIONAL FOREST

IN CONNECTION WITH

THE APPLICATION FOR LICENSE

McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project

FERC Project No. 2106

Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Table of Contents

ENCLOSURE 1: PRELIMINARY LICENSE TERMS AND CONDITIONS .................. 3

I. GENERAL ................................................................................................................... 3

II. ADMINISTRATIVE FOREST SERVICE PROVISIONS........................................ 5

Condition No. 1 - Consultation........................................................................................ 5

Condition No. 2 - Approval of Changes.......................................................................... 6

Condition No. 3 - Maintenance of Improvements on or Affecting National Forest

System Lands......................................................................................................... 6

Condition No. 4 - Existing Claims................................................................................... 7

Condition No. 5 - Compliance with Regulations............................................................. 7

Condition No. 6 - Surrender of License or Transfer of Ownership................................. 7

Condition No. 7- Protection of United States Property ................................................... 7

Condition No. 8 - Indemnification................................................................................... 8

Condition No. 9 - Damage to Land, Property, and Interests of the United States........... 8

Condition No. 10 - Risks and Hazards on National Forest System Lands...................... 9

Condition No. 11 – Protection of Forest Service Special Status Species........................ 9

Condition No. 12 - Access............................................................................................... 9

Condition No. 13 - Crossings ........................................................................................ 10

Condition No. 14 - Surveys, Land Corners ................................................................... 10

Condition No. 15 - Pesticide-Use Restrictions on National Forest System Lands........ 10

Condition No. 16 - Modifications of 4(e) Conditions after Biological Opinion or Water

Quality Certification ............................................................................................ 11

Condition No. 17 - Signs ............................................................................................... 11

Condition No. 18 – Ground Disturbing Activities......................................................... 11

III. ADDITIONAL FOREST SERVICE PROVISIONS.............................................. 13

Condition No. 19- Streamflow....................................................................................... 13

Condition No. 20 - Water Quality and Temperature Monitoring.................................. 19

Condition No. 21 - Large Woody Debris ...................................................................... 20

Condition No. 22 - Erosion and Sediment Control Management and Monitoring........ 20
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

2

Condition No. 23 - Gravel and Coarse Sediment Management and Monitoring .......... 22

Condition No. 24 - Reservoir Dredging......................................................................... 23

Condition No. 25 - Vegetation and Invasive Weed Management and Monitoring....... 24

Condition No. 26 - Terrestrial Biological Management and Monitoring...................... 29

Condition No. 27 - Aquatic Biological Management and Monitoring.......................... 34

Condition No. 28 - Hazardous Substance Management................................................ 37

Condition No. 29 - Road and Transportation Facility Management ............................. 37

Condition No. 30 - Recreation Development, Management and Monitoring ............... 46

Condition No. 30a – Specific Recreation and Road Agreement ................................... 56

Condition No. 31 – Informational Sign Plan ................................................................. 56

Condition No. 32 - Visual Quality Management........................................................... 57

Condition No. 33 - Fire and Fuels Management ........................................................... 59

Condition No. 34 - Heritage Resources Management and Monitoring......................... 61

ENCLOSURE 2: FOREST SERVICE RATIONALE........................................................ 1

General Comments: ......................................................................................................... 1

Standard Conditions 1-18 ................................................................................................ 6

Project Specific Conditions 19-34 ................................................................................... 7

Hydrology/Streamflow Management, Water Quality, Erosion, LWD, Dredging, Gravel,

and Aquatic Biology.............................................................................................. 8

Fishability/Boatability................................................................................................ 30

Erosion Control and Monitoring ................................................................................ 46

Turbidity Monitoring: ................................................................................................ 47

Gravel: ...................................................................................................................... 48

Large Woody Debris:................................................................................................. 58

Terrestrial Wildlife and Botany ..................................................................................... 59

Wildlife ...................................................................................................................... 63

Botanical: ................................................................................................................... 64

Roads, Facilities, Hazardous Substance ........................................................................ 68

McCloud Reservoir Roads......................................................................................... 74

Lower McCloud River Roads .................................................................................... 77

Iron Canyon Roads..................................................................................................... 79

Recreation, Signs, and Visual Quality Conditions ........................................................ 83

General ...................................................................................................................... 86

McCloud Reservoir.................................................................................................... 86

Iron Canyon Reservoir............................................................................................... 87

Pit River...................................................................................................................... 88

Project Nexus to Lower McCloud River.................................................................... 89

Fire Management and Response .................................................................................... 96

Heritage Resources ........................................................................................................ 99

IV. Literature Cited.........................................................................................................109

ENCLOSURE 3: Preliminary 10(A) LICENSE recommendations AND RATIONALE . 1

Recommendation No. 1 - Foothill Yellow Legged Frog Monitoring Plan ..................... 1

Recommendation No. 2 – White Sturgeon Augmentation Plan...................................... 3
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

3

ENCLOSURE 1:

PRELIMINARY LICENSE TERMS AND CONDITIONS

NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION AND UTILIZATION OF THE

SHASTA-TRINITY NATIONAL FOREST

IN CONNECTION WITH THE

MCCLOUD-PIT HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT, FERC NO. 2106

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

I. GENERAL

The Forest Service (FS) provides the following Preliminary Section 4(e) conditions for

the McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2106 in accordance with 18 CFR

4.34(b)(1)(i). Section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), which states the Commission

may issue a license for a Project within a reservation only if it finds that the license will

not interfere or be inconsistent with the purpose for which such reservation was created

or acquired. This is an independent threshold determination made by FERC, with the

purpose of the reservation defined by the authorizing legislation or proclamation (see

Rainsong v. FERC, 106 F.3d 269 (9th Cir. 1977). The Forest Service, for its protection

and utilization determination under Section 4(e) of the FPA may rely on broader purposes

than those contained in the original authorizing statutes and proclamations in prescribing

conditions (see Southern California Edison v. FERC, 116F.3d 507 (D.C. Cir. 1997)).

The following terms and conditions are based on those resource and management

requirements enumerated in the Organic Administration Act of 1897 (30 Stat. 11), the

Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 215), the National Forest

Management Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2949), and any other law specifically establishing a

unit of the National Forest System (NFS) or prescribing the management thereof (such as

the Wilderness Act or the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act), as such laws may be amended

from time to time, and as implemented by regulations and approved Land and Resource

Management Plans prepared in accordance with the National Forest Management Act.

Specifically, the 4(e) conditions in this document are based on the Land and Resource

Management Plan (as amended) for the Shasta-Trinity National Forest, as approved April

28, 1995 by the Regional Forester of the Pacific Southwest Region.

Pursuant to Section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act, the Secretary of Agriculture, acting by

and through the Forest Service, considers the following conditions necessary for the

adequate protection and utilization of the land and resources of the Shasta-Trinity

National Forest. License articles contained in the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission’s (Commission) Standard Form L-1 (revised October 1975) issued by Order
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

4

No. 540, dated October 31, 1975, cover general requirements. Section II of this

document includes administrative conditions deemed necessary for the administration of

National Forest System lands. Section III covers specific resource requirements for

protection and utilization of National Forest System (NFS) lands.
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

5

II. ADMINISTRATIVE FOREST SERVICE PROVISIONS

CONDITION NO. 1 - CONSULTATION

The Licensee shall, beginning the first full calendar year after license issuance,

participate in annual meetings with the Forest Service to present Project operation and

maintenance activities planned for the next calendar year. In addition, Licensee shall

present results from current year monitoring of noxious weeds and special status

species as well as any additional information that has been compiled for the Project

area, including progress reports on other resource measures. The goals of this

meeting are to share information, mutually agreed upon planned maintenance

activities, and identify concerns that the Forest Service may have regarding activities

and their potential effects on sensitive resources, and any measures required to avoid

or mitigate potential effects.

The date of the consultation meeting will be mutually agreed to by the Licensee and

the Forest Service. Representatives from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS), California Department of Fish and Game (CDF&G), State Water

Resources Control Board (SWRCB) or other interested agency representatives

concerned with operation of the Project may request to attend the meeting.

Consultation shall include, but not be limited to:

 A status report regarding implementation of license conditions;

 Results of any monitoring studies performed over the previous year in

formats agreed to by the Forest Service and the Licensee during

development of study plans;

 Review of any non-routine maintenance;

 Discussion of any foreseeable changes to Project facilities or features;

 Discussion of any necessary revisions or modifications to plans

approved as part of this license;

 Discussion of needed protection measures for species newly listed as

threatened, endangered, or sensitive, or changes to existing management

plans that may no longer be warranted due to delisting of species or, to

incorporate new knowledge about a species requiring protection;

 Discussion of elements of current year maintenance plans, e.g. road

maintenance; and

 Discussion of any planned pesticide use.
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

6

A record of the meeting shall be kept by the Licensee and shall include any

recommendations made by the Forest Service for the protection of NFS lands and

resources. The Licensee shall file the meeting record, if requested, with the

Commission no later than 60 days following the meeting.

Copies of other reports related to Project safety and non-compliance shall be

submitted to the Forest Service concurrently with submittal to the FERC. These

include, but are not limited to: any non-compliance report filed by the Licensee,

geologic or seismic reports, and structural safety reports for facilities located on or

affecting NFS lands.

The Forest Service reserves the right, after notice and opportunity for comment, to

require changes in the Project and its operation through revision of the Section 4(e)

conditions to accomplish protection and utilization of NFS lands and resources.

CONDITION NO. 2 - APPROVAL OF CHANGES

Notwithstanding any license authorization to make changes to the Project, when such

changes directly affect NFS lands the Licensee shall obtain written approval from the

Forest Service prior to making any changes in any constructed Project features or

facilities, or in the uses of Project lands and waters or any departure from the

requirements of any approved exhibits filed with the Commission. Following receipt

of such approval from the Forest Service, and a minimum of 60-days prior to

initiating any such changes, the Licensee shall file a report with the Commission

describing the changes, the reasons for the changes, and showing the approval of the

Forest Service for such changes. The Licensee shall file an exact copy of this report

with the Forest Service at the same time it is filed with the Commission. This

condition does not relieve the Licensee from the amendment or other requirements of

Article 2 or Article 3 of this license.

CONDITION NO. 3 - MAINTENANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS ON OR

AFFECTING NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS

The Licensee shall maintain all its improvements and premises on NFS lands to

standards of repair, orderliness, neatness, sanitation, and safety acceptable to the

Forest Service. Disposal of all materials will be at an approved existing location,

except as otherwise agreed by the Forest Service.
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

7

CONDITION NO. 4 - EXISTING CLAIMS

The license shall be subject to all valid claims and existing rights of third parties. The

United States is not liable to the Licensee for the exercise of any such right or claim.

CONDITION NO. 5 - COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATIONS

The Licensee shall comply with the regulations of the Department of Agriculture for

activities on NFS lands, and all applicable Federal, State, county, and municipal laws,

ordinances, or regulations in regards to the area or operations on or directly affecting

NFS lands, to the extent those laws, ordinances or regulations are not preempted by

federal law.

CONDITION NO. 6 - SURRENDER OF LICENSE OR TRANSFER OF

OWNERSHIP

Prior to any surrender of this license, the Licensee shall provide assurance acceptable

to the Forest Service that Licensee shall restore any Project area directly affecting

NFS lands to a condition satisfactory to the Forest Service upon or after surrender of

the license, as appropriate. To the extent restoration is required, Licensee shall

prepare a restoration plan which shall identify the measures to be taken to restore such

NFS lands and shall include or identify adequate financial mechanisms to ensure

performance of the restoration measures.

In the event of any transfer of the license or sale of the Project, the Licensee shall

assure that, in a manner satisfactory to the Forest Service, the Licensee or transferee

will provide for the costs of surrender and restoration. If deemed necessary by the

Forest Service to assist it in evaluating the Licensee's proposal, the Licensee shall

conduct an analysis, using experts approved by the Forest Service, to estimate the

potential costs associated with surrender and restoration of any Project area directly

affecting NFS lands to Forest Service specifications. In addition, the Forest Service

may require the Licensee to pay for an independent audit of the transferee to assist the

Forest Service in determining whether the transferee has the financial ability to fund

the surrender and restoration work specified in the analysis.

CONDITION NO. 7- PROTECTION OF UNITED STATES PROPERTY

The Licensee, including any agents or employees of the Licensee acting within the

scope of their employment, shall exercise diligence in protecting from damage the
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

8

land and property of the United States covered by and used in connection with this

license.

CONDITION NO. 8 - INDEMNIFICATION

The Licensee shall indemnify, defend, and hold the United States harmless for:

 any violations incurred under any laws and regulations applicable to, or

 judgments, claims, penalties, fees, or demands assessed against the

United States caused by, or

 costs, damages, and expenses incurred by the United States caused by,

or

 the releases or threatened release of any solid waste, hazardous

substances, pollutant, contaminant, or oil in any form in the

environment related to the construction, maintenance, or operation of

the Project works or of the works appurtenant or accessory thereto under

the license.

The Licensee’s indemnification of the United States shall include any loss by personal

injury, loss of life or damage to property caused by the construction, maintenance, or

operation of the Project works or of the works appurtenant or accessory thereto under

the license. Indemnification shall include, but is not limited to, the value of resources

damaged or destroyed; the costs of restoration, cleanup, or other mitigation; fire

suppression or other types of abatement costs; third party claims and judgments; and

all administrative, interest, and other legal costs. Upon surrender, transfer, or

termination of the license, the Licensee’s obligation to indemnify and hold harmless

the United States shall survive for all valid claims for actions that occurred prior to

such surrender, transfer or termination.

CONDITION NO. 9 - DAMAGE TO LAND, PROPERTY, AND INTERESTS OF

THE UNITED STATES

The Licensee has an affirmative duty to protect the land, property, and interests of the United

States from damage arising from the Licensee's construction, maintenance, or operation of

the Project works or the works appurtenant or accessory thereto under the license. The

Licensee's liability for fire and other damages to NFS lands shall be determined in

accordance with the Federal Power Act and standard Form L-1 Articles 22 and 24.
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

9

CONDITION NO. 10 - RISKS AND HAZARDS ON NATIONAL FOREST

SYSTEM LANDS

As part of the occupancy and use of the Project area, the Licensee has a continuing

responsibility to reasonably identify and report all known or observed hazardous

conditions on or directly affecting NFS lands within the Project boundary that would

affect the improvements, resources, or pose a risk of injury to individuals. Licensee

will abate those conditions, except those caused by third parties or not related to the

occupancy and use authorized by the License. Any non-emergency actions to abate

such hazards on NFS lands shall be performed after consultation with the Forest

Service. In emergency situations, the Licensee shall notify the Forest Service of its

actions as soon as possible, but not more than 48 hours, after such actions have been

taken. Whether or not the Forest Service is notified or provides consultation, the

Licensee shall remain solely responsible for all abatement measures performed. Other

hazards should be reported to the appropriate agency as soon as possible.

CONDITION NO. 11 – PROTECTION OF FOREST SERVICE SPECIAL

STATUS SPECIES

Before taking actions to construct new project features on NFS lands that may affect

Forest Service special status species or their critical habitat, the Licensee shall prepare

and submit a biological evaluation (BE) for Forest Service approval. The BE shall

evaluate the potential impact of the action on the species or its habitat. In

coordination with the Commission, the Forest Service may require mitigation

measures for the protection of the affected species.

The biological evaluation shall:

 Include procedures to minimize adverse effects to special status species.

 Ensure project-related activities shall meet restrictions included in site

management plans for special status species.

 Develop implementation and effectiveness monitoring of measures taken or

employed to reduce effects to special status species.

CONDITION NO. 12 - ACCESS

The Forest Service reserves the right to use or permit others to use any part of the

licensed area on NFS lands for any purpose, provided such use does not interfere with

the rights and privileges authorized by this license or the Federal Power Act.
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

10

CONDITION NO. 13 - CROSSINGS

The Licensee shall maintain suitable crossings as required by the Forest Service for

all roads and trails that intersect the right-of-way occupied by linear Project facilities

(powerline, penstock, ditch, and pipeline).

CONDITION NO. 14 - SURVEYS, LAND CORNERS

The Licensee shall avoid disturbance to all public land survey monuments, private

property corners, and forest boundary markers. In the event that any such land

markers or monuments on NFS lands are destroyed by an act or omission of the

Licensee, in connection with the use and/or occupancy authorized by this license,

depending on the type of monument destroyed, the Licensee shall reestablish or

reference same in accordance with (1) the procedures outlined in the "Manual of

Instructions for the Survey of the Public Land of the United States," (2) the

specifications of the County Surveyor, or (3) the specifications of the Forest Service.

Further, the Licensee shall ensure that any such official survey records affected are

amended as provided by law.

CONDITION NO. 15 - PESTICIDE-USE RESTRICTIONS ON NATIONAL

FOREST SYSTEM LANDS

Pesticides may not be used on NFS lands or in areas affecting NFS lands to control

undesirable woody and herbaceous vegetation, aquatic plants, insects, rodents, trash

fish, etc., without the prior written approval of the Forest Service. During the Annual

Consultation meeting described in Condition 1, the Licensee shall submit a request for

approval of planned uses of pesticides for the upcoming year. The Licensee shall

provide at a minimum the following information essential for review:

 whether pesticide applications are essential for use on NFS lands;

 specific locations of use;

 specific herbicides proposed for use;

 application rates;

 dose and exposure rates; and

 safety risk and timeframes for application.

Exceptions to this schedule may be allowed only when unexpected outbreaks of pests

require control measures that were not anticipated at the time the report was

submitted. In such an instance, an emergency request and approval may be made.
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

11

Pesticide use will be excluded from NFS lands within 500 feet of known locations of

Shasta Salamanders, Northern Pond Turtles, Foothill Yellow Legged Frog, or known

locations of Forest Service Special Status or culturally significant plant populations.

Application of pesticides must be consistent with Forest Service riparian conservation

objectives.

On NFS lands, the Licensee shall only use those materials registered by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency and consistent with those applied by the ShastaTrinity National Forest and approved through Forest Service review for the specific

purpose planned. The Licensee must strictly follow label instructions in the

preparation and application of pesticides and disposal of excess materials and

containers. The Licensee may also submit Pesticide Use Proposal(s) with

accompanying risk assessment and other Forest Service required documents to use

pesticides on a regular basis for the term of the license as addressed further in

Condition 25: Vegetation and Invasive Weed Management and Monitoring.

Submission of this plan will not relieve the Licensee of the responsibility of annual

notification and review.

CONDITION NO. 16 - MODIFICATIONS OF 4(E) CONDITIONS AFTER

BIOLOGICAL OPINION OR WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION

The Forest Service reserves the right to modify these conditions, if necessary, to

respond to any Final Biological Opinion issued for this Project by the National

Marine Fisheries Service, United States Fish and Wildlife Service; or any

Certification issued for this Project by the State Water Resources Control Board.

CONDITION NO. 17 - SIGNS

The Licensee shall consult with the Forest Service prior to erecting signs related to

safety issues on NFS lands covered by the license. Prior to the Licensee erecting any

other signs or advertising devices on NFS lands covered by the license, the Licensee

must obtain the approval of the Forest Service as to location, design, size, color, and

message. The Licensee shall be responsible for maintaining all Licensee-erected

signs to neat and presentable standards.

CONDITION NO. 18 – GROUND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES

If the Licensee proposes activities that were not specifically addressed in the

Commission’s NEPA processes, the Licensee, in consultation with the Forest Service,
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

12

shall determine the scope of work and potential for Project-related effects, and

whether additional information is required to proceed with the planned activity. Upon

Forest Service request, the Licensee shall enter into an agreement with the Forest

Service under which the Licensee shall fund a reasonable portion of Forest Service’s

staff time and expenses for staff activities related to the proposed activities.
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

13

III. ADDITIONAL FOREST SERVICE PROVISIONS

CONDITION NO. 19- STREAMFLOW

Part 1. Minimum Streamflow Requirements and Measurement

Licensee shall maintain specified minimum streamflows in project reaches in

accordance with provisions described below. Minimum streamflows shall commence

within 90 days of license issuance, unless facility modifications are required. License

Condition 16 (Modification of 4(e) Conditions After Biological Opinion or Water

Quality Certification) provides the opportunity to adjust these minimum streamflow

requirements to comply with the NOAA Biological Opinion and the SWRCB 401

Water Quality Certificate, if needed.

Minimum streamflows for the Lower McCloud River and Iron Canyon Creek shall be

measured in two ways: as the 24-hour average of the flow (mean daily flow), and as

an instantaneous flow. Minimum streamflow measurement at Pit 7 shall be

instantaneous flow. There is no minimum flow at Pit 6. The instantaneous flow is the

flow value used to construct the average daily flow value and shall be measured in

time increments of at least 15-minutes. The 24-hour average flow is the average of

the incremental readings from midnight of one day, to midnight of the following day,

or an alternate 24-hour period as agreed. Licensee shall record instantaneous 15-

minute streamflow as required by US Geological Survey (USGS) standards at all

gages. The minimum instantaneous 15-minute streamflow shall be at least 80 % of

the prescribed mean daily flow for those minimum streamflows less than or equal to

10 cubic feet per second (cfs), and at least 90% of the prescribed mean daily flow for

those minimum streamflows required to be greater than 10 cfs.

Should the mean daily flow as measured be less than the required mean daily flow but

more than the instantaneous flow, Licensee shall begin releasing the equivalent underreleased volume of water within 7 days of discovery of the under-release. Credit for

such additional releases will not exceed 20% of the instantaneous flow amount, when

used to attain the equivalent of the under-released volume.

The Licensee shall schedule the timing of maintenance or other planned outages to

avoid negative ecological effects from the resultant spills. The Licensee shall provide

written notification to the Forest Service at least 90 days prior to any planned or

scheduled maintenance outages that would affect streamflows in the Pit River,

McCloud River or Iron Canyon Creek reaches. Notification shall include a
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

14

description of Project and coordinated measures the Licensee plans to take to

minimize the magnitude and duration of spills into the Project reach. The Licensee

shall not proceed with the planned maintenance outage without the formal written

approval of the Forest Service and notification on Licensee’s public Project website.

The Forest Service will respond in a timely manner.

The Minimum Streamflow requirements are subject to temporary modification if

required by equipment malfunction, as directed by law enforcement authorities, or in

emergencies. An emergency is defined as an event that is reasonably out of the

control of the Licensee and requires Licensee to take immediate action, either

unilaterally or under instruction by law enforcement or other regulatory agency staff,

to prevent imminent loss of human life or substantial property damage. An

emergency may include, but is not limited to, natural events such as landslides, storms

or wildfires, malfunction or failure of Project works, and recreation accidents.

If the Licensee temporarily modifies the requirements of these conditions, then the

Licensee shall make all reasonable efforts to promptly resume performance of such

requirements and shall notify the Forest Service and other interested or affected

governmental agencies within 48 hours of the modification.

Where facility modification is required to implement the efficient release of Minimum

Streamflows, the Licensee shall submit applications for permits within one year after

license issuance, and complete such modifications and initiate minimum streamflows

as soon as reasonably practicable but no later than two years after receipt of all

required permits and approvals. Prior to completion of such required facility

modifications, the Licensee shall make a good faith effort to provide the specified

Minimum Streamflows within the capabilities of the existing facilities.

a) Pit River below Pit 7 Dam

The Licensee shall release instantaneous flow of 150 cfs in the Pit River below Pit 7

Dam as measured at USGS Gage 11365000 year round. Instantaneous flow is defined

as the flow value used to construct the average daily flow value and shall be measured

in time increments of at most 15-minutes.
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

15

b) McCloud River below McCloud Dam

The Licensee shall release mean daily flows of at least 200 175 cfs year round from

the McCloud Dam such that the mean daily flow at USGS Gage 11367800 (MC-1)

at Ah-Di-Na is at least 200 cfs. These flows shall be augmented during the period

February 15 through June 30 according to the prescription shown below. Flows shall

be measured for compliance at both USGS Gage 11367800 (MC-1) and either at

Gage MC-7 or directly at McCloud Dam.

Each month, Licensee shall consult Bulletin 120 published by the California

Department of Water Resources (or its successor) and determine the “Percent of

Average, April through July Forecast” for the McCloud River above Shasta Lake.

That value shall be compared to values in Table 1-1 and the flow shall be modified as

indicated. No ramping is required between semi-monthly increments.

Licensee shall downramp all spill events once controllable by valve operation

(assumed to be at 1000 cfs). Down ramping shall proceed at an increment of 150 cfs

decrease each 48 hour period until the prescribed minimum instream flow value is

reached. Operational controllable spills (e.g. valve testing for dam safety compliance)

also shall be up ramped in increments not to exceed 200 cfs each 24 hour period.
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

16

1-1. Flow Rule for McCloud River Instream Flow

If the February 1

McCloud Runoff % is:

then for the period:

February 15-29

and for the period:

March 1-15

0-75 No Change No Change

76-89 No Change Increase flow by 50 cfs

90-99 Increase flow by 50 75 cfs Increase flow by 50 cfs

100-119 Increase flow by 100 125

cfs

Increase flow by 100 cfs

120+ Increase flow by 150 175

cfs

Increase flow by 150 cfs

If the March 1

McCloud Runoff

percentage is:

then for the period:

March 16-31

and for the period:

April 1-15

0-75 No Change No Change

76-89 No Change No Change

90-99 Increase flow by 50 cfs No Change

100-119 Increase flow by 100 cfs Increase flow by 50 cfs

120+ Increase flow by 150 cfs Increase flow by 50 cfs

If the April McCloud

Runoff percentage is:

then for the period:

April 16- to the last Friday/Saturday in April

0-89 Decrease flow by 50 cfs (but to no less than 200 cfs)

Greater than 90 No Change

Beginning the last Friday/Saturday combination entirely in April,

decrease the flow 50 cfs each Friday until the flow reaches 200 cfs

If the release from McCloud Dam (MC-7) on April 15 is equal to or greater than

200 cfs:

On each Friday after April 15, decrease the flow 50 cfs per week until the flow

reaches 200 cfs, then maintain 200 cfs release at McCloud Dam (MC-7)

through June 30.

Beginning July 1: release 175 cfs at MC-7 but maintain at least 200 cfs at AhDi-Na (MC-1).

If the release from McCloud Dam (MC-7) on April 15 is less than 200 cfs:

Beginning April 16: Release 175 cfs at MC-7; but maintain at least 200

cfs at Ah-Di-Na (MC-1).
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

17

c) Iron Canyon Creek below Iron Canyon Dam

The Licensee shall release mean daily flows in Iron Canyon Creek below Iron Canyon

Dam in accordance with the schedule shown below in Table 1-2 as measured at Gage

MC-10.

Table 1-2. Iron Canyon Creek

**In March and April of Wet Water Year Types, the Flow Control Valve on Iron Canyon Dam

shall be fully opened. Mean Daily flow shall be at least 20 cfs during this period.

No ramping is required between monthly increments. Valve testing for dam safety

compliance shall only occur between March 5 and 15. Up ramping to test flow valve

(assumed 200 cfs maximum) shall occur in 20 cfs increments spaced at least 15-

minutes apart. Down ramping shall occur in 20 cfs increments spaced at least 30-

minutes apart

Month

Mean Daily Flow (cfs)

by Water Year

Below

Normal, Dry,

Critically Dry

Above

Normal Wet

Oct 7 7 10

Nov 7 7 10

Dec 7 10 15

Jan 7 10 15

Feb 7 10 15

Mar 10 15 >20**

Apr 10 15 >20**

May 7 10 15

Jun 7 10 15

Jul 7 7 10

Aug 7 7 10

Sep 7 7 10
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

18

Part 2. Water Year Type.

The Licensee shall determine the water year type based on the forecast of unimpaired

runoff of the Sacramento River near Redding as provided by the California

Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin 120 report of water conditions in

California. In January, February, March, and April the Licensee shall determine the

water year type based on the DWR Bulletin 120 forecast and shall operate for that

month based on that forecast. The May forecast shall be used to establish the water

year type for the remaining months until the next January, when forecasting shall

begin again. Minimum Instream Flows (MIFs) triggered by the water year type will

be implemented within two business days of the actual publication date of DWR

Bulletin 120.

Part 3. Streamflow Measurement.

For the purpose of determining the river stage and minimum streamflow on the Lower

McCloud River below McCloud Dam, Pit River below the Pit 7 Dam, and Iron

Canyon Creek below the Iron Canyon Dam, the Licensee shall operate and maintain

the existing gages, consistent with all requirements of FERC and under the

supervision of the USGS. Any modification of the gage facilities at any of these

gages that may be necessary to measure the new Minimum Streamflow releases shall

be completed within three years of issuance of the new Project license. Licensee shall

install an instream measuring device either within or adjacent to the McCloud Dam to

directly measure instream flow releases from McCloud dam

The Licensee shall measure and document all instream flow releases in publicly

available and readily accessible formats. Flow data at MC-1 shall be real-time data

and posted on the California Data Exchange Center (CDEC) or its successor website.

Flow data collected by Licensee from the stream gages will be reviewed by the

Licensee’s hydrographers as part of its quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC)

protocol. Upon completion of the QA/QC process, the data will be catalogued and

made available to USGS in annual hydrology summary reports. Licensee understands

that the USGS will then complete their QA/QC review of the data and subsequently

publish the data and post it within their electronic database that can be accessed via

the Internet. The flow values (generally 15-minute recordings) used to construct the

24-hour average flows will be available to the resource agencies from the Licensee

upon request.
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

19

CONDITION NO. 20 - WATER QUALITY AND TEMPERATURE

MONITORING

Within one year of license issuance, and in consultation with applicable Federal and

State agencies, the Licensee shall file with the Commission a Water Quality and

Temperature Monitoring Plan that is approved by the Forest Service, as it relates to

aquatic habitats managed by the Forest Service. Upon Commission approval,

Licensee shall implement the Plan. This plan shall include:

 Periodic monitoring of all project reservoirs once every five years for contaminants

(including e. coli, to measure possible sanitation concerns at appropriate key

recreation locations, e.g. boat ramps, day use areas, near campgrounds, etc.);

 Periodic monitoring of dissolved oxygen at McCloud, Pit 6 and Pit 7 reservoirs;

 Annual monitoring during the months of May through September at a minimum, for a

period of ten years, of potential water temperature effects to beneficial uses including

recreation, aquatic habitats, and target species (i.e. Foothill Yellow Legged Frogs,

fish, and benthic macroinvertebrates), as a result of modified in-stream flows and

reservoir operations. Monitoring to be conducted by Project segment (i.e. reservoirs

and Project-affected rivers). If monitoring indicates that high temperatures (above

20o C) are occurring within the project reservoirs or downstream reaches, then

additional monitoring may be required;

 Continuous monitoring of turbidity for the term of the license in the Lower McCloud

River (at MC-7 or MC-1) during the fishing season (approximately April 25 to

November 15) to record elevated turbidity for recreational use. Turbidity levels shall

be available real-time during the fishing season on the Licensee’s public Project

website. Periodic turbidity monitoring during construction, re-construction, or other

soil disturbing activities to identify point source erosion that may require repair or

stabilization;

 Continuous monitoring of turbidity for a minimum of five years after license issuance

in Iron Canyon Creek (at MC-10) to ensure that Licensee’s repairs have reduced

sedimentation into the creek below the dam. If elevated turbidity (above Basin Plan

level) is still occurring after five years, continue monitoring for an additional five

years until additional mitigations reduce turbidity to or below Basin Plan level.

 Implement “Best Management Practices” (BMP’s) within the Project and Projectaffected area that will satisfy the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives within the

Northwest Forest Planning area, and mitigate impacts from:

o Project operation and maintenance activities;

o Developed and dispersed recreation use;

o Road use, routine maintenance, and repair;

o Vegetation manipulation;

o Prescribed fire and wildland fire planning, and fire suppression;

o Watershed practices;
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

20

CONDITION NO. 21 - LARGE WOODY DEBRIS

Within one year of license issuance, Licensee shall, in consultation with the Forest

Service, CDF&G, SWRCB, potentially affected tribes, and other interested parties,

prepare a Large Woody Debris Management Plan approved by the Forest Service.

The plan shall provide an operating procedure to facilitate the placement of woody

debris downstream of McCloud Dam. The Plan will specify: (1) size criteria, (2)

placement and storage sites, (3) volume and frequency of placement, and (4)

monitoring procedures that assess the effectiveness of (Large Woody Debris) LWD

mobilization and dispersal in the Lower McCloud River. Upon Commission

approval, Licensee shall implement the Plan.

CONDITION NO. 22 - EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MANAGEMENT

AND MONITORING

Within one year of license issuance, the Licensee shall file with the Commission an

Erosion and Sediment Control Management and Monitoring Plan developed in

consultation with the Forest Service, SWRCB, CDF&G, and other interested parties,

and approved by the Forest Service that will provide direction for managing erosion

and controlling sediment during the term of the new license. Upon Commission

approval, Licensee shall implement the Plan.

The plan shall include the following elements:

 Methods for inventorying and monitoring Project-related erosion and

sedimentation;

 An inspection schedule for monitoring of Project and Project-related erosion

and sedimentation sites during the term of the license. The schedule will

include various timelines based on the type of erosion process, type of erosion

site, and the activity level of each erosion feature. Effectiveness monitoring of

erosion control measures at high priority sites shall occur for a period of three

years after treatment in order to determine if further erosion control measures

are needed. Periodic monitoring of the entire Project and Project-affected area

shall occur at a minimum of once every ten years to assess the effectiveness of

erosion control measures at existing sites and to identify new erosion sites.

Periodic monitoring should incorporate protocols used in Study GS-S1

(Inventory and assessment of erosion and sediment from Project Construction,

Operation, and Maintenance) in order to provide a consistent framework for

identifying and reporting erosion sites and effectiveness of erosion control

measures;
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

21

 An inventory of erosion sites (e.g., map and database) included in periodic

monitoring. The inventory of Project-related erosion and sedimentation will

include Project roads, facilities, infrastructure, tunnel spoils and borrow pits,

reservoir shorelines, developed and dispersed recreational use areas, and areas

of mass wasting that are Project-related or affected by Project roads and

facilities. New erosion sites will be included in subsequent monitoring and

treatment schedules;

 Criteria for treating erosion sites including a decision tree for determining

when and how specific sites will be treated to control erosion and

sedimentation;

 Schedule for repair of erosion sites including a list of sites requiring immediate

mitigation and schedule for their implementation. Priority will be placed on

the 56 sites ranked as having high erosion potential in study results from

Inventory and Assessment of Erosion and Sediment from Project Construction,

Operation, and Maintenance (TM-67). Remaining moderate and low priority

sites, and any new sites added as a result of periodic monitoring, will be

scheduled in priority order for repair;

 Protocols for emergency erosion and sediment control;

 A process and schedule for reporting survey monitoring results, including

periodic plan review and revision;

 Erosion control measures will follow best management practices (e.g., USFS,

2002) customized to site-specific conditions.1

Sites where erosion can be mitigated by routine maintenance (e.g. plugged culverts

and ditches) should be addressed as soon as feasible and no later than one year

following license issuance, unless the site is incorporated into a larger design change

(e.g. reconstruction of roadway and drainage features to achieve Road Management

Objectives).

Annual monitoring reports will include a GIS database, compatible with Forest

Service standards, of erosion sites and detailed, site-specific, erosion and sediment

control measures where necessary and appropriate.

Erosion Control Guidelines for New Construction or Non-Routine Maintenance

During planning, and before any new construction or non-routine maintenance

projects with the potential for causing erosion and/or stream sedimentation on or

affecting NFS lands (including but not limited to the planned recreation-related

construction), the Licensee shall develop site-specific erosion control plans for each

1 USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2000. Water quality management for Forest System lands in

California.
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

22

project that will be approved by the Forest Service. The plans shall include measures

to control erosion, stream sedimentation, dust, and soil mass movement.

The Plan shall be based on actual on-site geological, soil, and groundwater conditions

and shall include:

 A description of the current actual site conditions;

 Detailed descriptions, design drawings, and specific topographic locations of

all erosion control measures;

 Measures to divert runoff away from disturbed land surfaces;

 Measures to collect and filter runoff over disturbed land surfaces, including

sediment ponds at the diversion and powerhouse sites;

 Revegetating disturbed areas in accordance with current direction on use of

weed-free straw, native plants, and locality of plant and seed sources;

 Measures to dissipate energy and prevent future erosion.

CONDITION NO. 23 - GRAVEL AND COARSE SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT

AND MONITORING

Within one year of license issuance, the Licensee shall develop, in consultation with

the Forest Service, CDF&G, SWRCB, and other interested parties, and file with the

Commission a Gravel and Course Sediment Management Plan that is approved by the

Forest Service. Upon Commission approval, Licensee shall implement the Plan.

The plan shall require the addition of between of 150 to 600 tonnes of gravel and

associated coarse sediment to the Lower McCloud River annually. The gravel and

coarse sediment shall range between 8-128 mm in size. The amount of gravel/coarse

sediment will initially be 150 tonnes. This amount may be increased to a maximum

of 600 tonnes depending on monitoring results. The source of the gravel and coarse

sediment will be the responsibility of the Licensee; however, it is recommended that

Licensee consider using sorted gravel and coarse sediment in the Star City Creek inlet

as the source of material for the plan. If other sources are selected, the selected

gravels shall be clean, rounded and ranging in size from approximately 8-128 mm.

Inputs of gravel and coarse sediment will occur within the reach of the Lower

McCloud River between the spillway and the Hawkins Creek confluence.

At a minimum, the Gravel and Sediment Management Plan shall:

 Identify the source(s) of gravel and coarse sediment;

 Identify the locations for gravel introduction in the Lower McCloud River

below McCloud Dam;
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

23

 Identify facilities or improvements necessary for accessing the Lower

McCloud River for placement of gravel and coarse sediment;

 Identify approved temporary or long-term stock pile sites, if needed;

 Develop a schedule for gravel and coarse sediment placement;

 Include an adaptive management component to allow non-delivery of gravel

and coarse sediment in non-spill years or in years when spill is insufficient to

mobilize the gravel and sediment from the placement site(s) or increased

delivery above the minimum 150 tonnes if monitoring results indicate a need

for greater quantities of the gravel and coarse sediment.

The plan shall also include a monitoring component that is integrated into the

Biological Monitoring Plan (see Condition No. 27; Aquatic Biological Monitoring).

Monitoring shall evaluate the biological population trends of species that are affected

by the gravel and coarse sediment, specifically trout and macroinvertebrates, long

term changes in channel morphology, and the fate of introduced gravels and coarse

sediment over the course of the license term. The monitoring shall be conducted in

the reach of the Lower McCloud River between McCloud Dam and Bald Mountain

Creek confluence.

During the Annual Consultation Meeting required by Condition No. 1, the Forest

Service will review monitoring results and discuss any needed changes to the Gravel

and Coarse Sediment Management Plan. Any proposed changes shall require Forest

Service approval.

CONDITION NO. 24 - RESERVOIR DREDGING

If required for the purposes of increasing gravel and sediment supply or for removing

sediment from reservoirs to accomplish Project management objectives, the Licensee

shall prepare a Reservoir Dredging Plan in consultation with and approved by the

Forest Service. Licensee shall file the approved plan with the Commission not less

than 90 days prior to any proposed or scheduled reservoir dredging operations. Upon

Commission approval, Licensee shall implement the Plan. At a minimum, the Plan

shall include:

 Location, amount, and timing of dredging operation (including map and

photos);

 Extent, approximate amount, composition and size of dredged materials;

 Identify approved temporary or long-term stock pile sites, if needed;

 Equipment, road access, temporary access needs and storage/staging locations

of material;

 Proposed start and end date of dredging;
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

24

 Conditions to minimize ecological impacts related to dredging operations;

 Public notification information regarding the purpose of dredging, timing and

dredging location.

CONDITION NO. 25 - VEGETATION AND INVASIVE WEED MANAGEMENT

AND MONITORING

Within one year of license issuance, the Licensee shall file with the Commission a

Vegetation and Invasive Weed Management Plan approved by the Forest Service and

developed in consultation with the Forest Service, appropriate County Agricultural

Commissioner, California Department of Food and Agriculture, potentially affected

tribes, and other interested parties. Targeted invasive species will be those species

defined by the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) code, the

California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) rating system, or as Forest Service

species of concern. The plan will address Special Status species, both aquatic and

terrestrial invasive species, and culturally significant plants within the Project

boundary and adjacent to Project features directly affecting NFS lands including,

roads, and distribution and transmission lines. Upon Commission approval, Licensee

shall implement the Plan.

The Vegetation Management and Monitoring plan shall include and/or address the

following components:

 Treatment protocols and measures for removing or trimming vegetation within

the Project and Project affected area, including:

o Hazard tree removal and trimming, including slash disposal;

o Powerline/transmission line clearing, including slash disposal;

o Vegetation management for habitat improvement;

o Revegetation of disturbed sites, including standards of success,

monitoring schedule and remediation measures when initial efforts are not

successful;

o Soil protection and erosion control, including use of certified weed-free

straw and other methods that minimize the risk of introducing non-native

invasive species;

o Establishment of and/or revegetation with culturally important plant

populations;

o Use of clean, weed-free seed with guidance on the use of locally collected

native seed. Plan shall include a means for collecting and propagating, or

otherwise acquiring an adequate supply of appropriate native plant

materials for Licensee use in erosion control, revegetation, and

landscaping.
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

25

 Protection of Special Status and Culturally Significant plants and populations;

 Invasive Species Management and Monitoring;

 Pesticide/herbicide use restrictions and prohibitions;

Special Status and Culturally Significant Plants and Habitat Component

Licensee shall develop, in consultation with the Forest Service, a Monitoring

Component for Special Status Plants, and culturally significant plants2approved by

the Forest Service. This Plan Component shall include objectives, monitoring

methods, locations of test plots, and a schedule for implementation. At a minimum

this Plan Component will:

 Identify the current locations (including the boundaries) of special status and

culturally significant plant populations in the Project and Project-affected area, as

delineated by using a GPS instrument;

 Provide for periodic monitoring once every five years of the population boundaries to

assess any expansion or contraction of the existing special status and culturally

significant plant populations;

 Provide for periodic survey of the Project and Project-affected area every ten years to

determine if additional special status plant species have moved into the Project or

Project-affected area, and if so, measures for addressing those species;

 Survey for any new listings of special status plant species potentially occurring within

the Project or Project-affected area, and provide monitoring if located.

In addition, in order to reduce impacts from all operations within the Project and Projectaffected area, the Licensee shall share information on the locations of sensitive, culturally

significant, invasive species, and other rare plant locations with the managers for operation

and maintenance of any power distribution lines that cross portions of the Project area.

Information shall include all protective, monitoring and survey measures from the license.

Special Status Species Survey Element

The Licensee shall begin annual consultation with the Forest Service, concurrent with

the Annual Consultation Meeting noted in Condition 1 above, to review the most

current list of special status plant species (species that are Forest Service Sensitive

(FSS), Management Indicator Species (MIS), Survey and Manage species (S&M), or

2 Ethnobotanical resources (i.e. culturally sensitive plants) at Tribal collection sites identified in the Traditional

Cultural Properties Study (CR-S2) are addressed in the Heritage Properties Management Plan. The reference here

pertains specifically to protection of other culturally significant plant populations that have not been identified in

that study and revegetation with culturally significant plants following construction, restoration or other ground

disturbing activities. This topic could be addressed entirely in the HPMP, but if so, should be referenced in this

License Condition.
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

26

on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest Watch List) that might occur on NFS lands in

the Project area or Project-affected area as a result of Project operations.

When a species is added to one or more of the lists, the Forest Service, in consultation

with the Licensee, shall determine if the species, or un-surveyed suitable habitat for

the species, is likely to occur on such NFS lands. For such newly added species, if the

Forest Service determines that the species is likely to occur on such NFS lands, the

Licensee shall, within one year, develop and implement a study plan in consultation

with the Forest Service to reasonably assess the effects of the Project on the species.

The Licensee shall prepare a report on the study including objectives, methods,

results, recommended resource measures where appropriate, a schedule for

implementation, and shall provide a draft of the final report to the Forest Service for

review and approval. The Licensee shall file the final report, including evidence of

consultation, with the Commission.

Invasive Species Management and Monitoring Component

The Invasive Weed Management and Monitoring Component shall include and/or

address the following elements:

 Monitoring areas with ground disturbing activities associated with the license

annually for three years after disturbance to determine if any invasive weed

populations have been introduced into the Project area (including powerline

alignments) as a result of construction or re-construction activities associated

with the new license conditions (e.g. roads, recreation, micro-hydro

installations, etc.).

 Monitoring known populations of invasive weeds annually for the first three

years after license issuance to determine if invasive weed populations are

expanding into any locations of existing special status or culturally significant

plant populations; or if other adverse impacts to these populations are

occurring, then once every five years for the term of the license to monitor

population size and threat.

 Inventory and mapping of new populations of invasive weeds using a Forest

Service compatible database and GIS software. The invasive weed GIS data

layer shall be updated every five years and shared with resource agencies;

 Protocols and/or strategies to prevent and control spread of known populations

or introductions of new populations, such as:

o Thoroughly clean all construction equipment before entering the Project area,

to reasonably ensure that seeds of invasive weeds are not introduced. Such

cleaning will be required for all construction equipment that leaves the road or

disturbs the soil, but shall not apply to vehicles used for the Licensee’s regular

maintenance and operations activities;
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

27

o Use certified weed-free straw for all construction or restoration needs. If

certified weed-free straw is not available, rice straw may be substituted. Use

gravel and sand from weed-free sources where possible. The Licensee shall

use an approved mix of plant species native to the Shasta-Trinity National

Forest for restoration or erosion control purposes;

1.

 Development of a schedule for control (containment or eradication) of all

known populations of CDFA rated A, B and Q species, Cal-IPC “high” and

“moderate” rated species, and selected other rated invasive weed species,

designated by resource agencies;

 Annual monitoring of known populations of invasive species for the term of

the license in locations tied to Project actions or effects, such as road

maintenance, at Project facilities, O&M activities, new construction sites, etc.

to evaluate the effectiveness of re-vegetation and invasive weed control

measures;

 Provision for an environmental training program for the Licensee’s O&M staff

on the location and identification of invasive weeds that may occur in the area;

 Notification of the Forest Service when the Licensee’s O&M staff observes

any new populations of invasive weeds and coordination with them on the

control of the population;

Licensee shall avoid entering areas with existing populations of invasive species. If

entry is necessary, the Licensee shall, where reasonably feasible, conduct work in

weed-free areas first and then in the areas with invasive species to avoid spreading

them within the Project area.

New infestations of A& B rated or “high” and “moderate” rated species shall be

controlled within one year of detection, or as soon as is practical and feasible. The A,

B, C, & Q ratings refer to the California Department of Food & Agriculture Action

Oriented Pest Rating System. The “high”, “moderate”, and “limited” ratings refer to

the California Invasive Plant Council rating system. At specific sites where other

objectives need to be met, all classes of invasive species may require treatment.

Monitoring shall be done in the appropriate season when plants are identifiable, but

can be done in conjunction with other project maintenance and resource surveys to

minimize separate travel and personnel. Monitoring information, in database and GIS

formats, will be provided to the Forest Service as part of the annual consultation

meeting (see Condition No. 1). To assist with this monitoring requirement, training in

invasive weed identification shall be provided to project employees and contractors by

the Licensee.

Licensee shall restore/revegetate areas where treatment has eliminated invasive weeds

in an effort to prevent the reestablishment or new establishment of invasive weed
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

28

species. Project-induced ground disturbing activities shall be monitored annually for

the first three years after disturbance to detect and map new populations of invasive

species. Spot treatments of new, small infestations may be done at the time of

detection.

Invasive species known to occur in the Project and Project-affected area include:

 Tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima)(Cal-IPC-moderate)

 Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum)(Cal-IPC-high)

 Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus) (Cal-IPC-moderate, CDFA-C)

 Spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) (Cal-IPC-high, CDFA-A)

 Yellow star-thistle (Centaurea solstitialis) (Cal-IPC-high, CDFA-C)

 Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) (Cal-IPC-moderate, CDFA-B)

 Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare)(Cal-IPC-moderate)

 Gypsyflower (Cynoglossum officinale)(Cal-IPC-moderate)

 Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) (Cal-IPC-high, CDFA-C)

 Fuller’s teasel (Dipsacus fullonum)(Cal-IPC-moderate)

 Tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea)(Cal-IPC-moderate)

 English ivy (Hedera helix)(Cal-IPC-high)

 Common St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum) (Cal-IPC-moderate, CDFAC)

 Pale yellow iris (Iris pseudacorus)(Cal-IPC-limited)

 Dyer’s woad (Isatis tinctoria) (Cal-IPC-moderate, CDFA-B)

 Perennial sweet pea (Lathyrus latifolius)(USFS-species of concern)

 Pepperweed (Lepidium campestre)(USFS-species of concern)

 Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia)(Cal-IPC-limited)

 Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor)(Cal-IPC-high)

 Cutleaf blackberry (Rubus laciniatus)(USFS-species of concern)

 Spanish broom (Spartium junceum)(Cal-IPC-high)

 Spreading hedgeparsley (Torilis arvensis)(Cal-IPC-moderate)

 Puncturevine (Tribulus terrestris) (CDFA-C)

 Common mullein (Verbascum Thapsus)(Cal-IPC-limited)

Where populations of CDFA “A” and “B” rated species, and Cal-IPC “high” and

“moderate” rated species are: 1) contiguous and extend outside the Project boundary

or 2) downstream of populations inside the Project boundary and have a reasonable

nexus to the Project, the Licensee shall make reasonable efforts to control the entire

population unit. Populations of CDFA “C” rated, Cal-IPC “Limited” rated, or “USFS

species of concern” shall be evaluated for control options based on total population

size, access, potential for spread and/or re-infestation.
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

29

The plan will include an adaptive management element to implement methods for

prevention of aquatic invasive weeds, as necessary. These actions may include, but

may not be limited to:

 Public education and signing of public boat access;

 Preparation of an Aquatic Plant Management component to the Plan

CONDITION NO. 26 - TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT AND

MONITORING

Within one year of license issuance, the Licensee shall develop, in consultation with

the Forest Service, CDF&G, potentially affected tribes, and other interested parties,

and approved by the Forest Service, a Terrestrial Biological Management Plan,

including Forest Service special status species (i.e. Forest Service sensitive, survey

and manage, and management indicator species) potentially affected by the Project on

NFS lands. Upon Commission approval, Licensee shall implement the plan.

To the extent possible, this plan should be developed consistent with completed

biological implementation plans from the recently relicensed Pit 3, 4, 5 Project to

provide similar data collection protocols for species that span both hydroelectric

Project areas on adjacent NFS lands. The Plan shall include, but may not be limited

to, the following components:

 Occupation and population monitoring at specific intervals for the species

listed below;

 Periodic surveys throughout the term of the license within the Project and

Project-affected area to determine if additional populations develop, as

specified below;

 Reporting of terrestrial survey and monitoring results including suitable

habitat, populations, individuals, pairs, and nest locations every five years (or

at Frequency specified below by species) with a Forest Service GIS compatible

map that includes base data from study plan surveys, and updated data from

periodic monitoring and surveys.

Mitigation measures to be implemented by the Licensee include:

 Licensee shall conduct pre-disturbance/pre-construction surveys for Forest

Service special status species that follow standard protocols as reviewed and

approved by the Forest Service, or protocols collaboratively developed and

approved by the Forest Service if no protocols exist at the time;

 Licensee shall observe Limited Operating Periods (LOP’s) where required

(LOP’s do not apply to emergency situations);
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

30

 Licensee shall utilize post-license monitoring and surveys for Forest Service

special status species to determine if mitigation measures are necessary to

protect Forest Service special status species.

Terrestrial Mollusks

Monitor sensitive terrestrial mollusks once every five years, survey potentially suitable

habitat for new populations every ten years for the term of the license. Species to be

monitored include the Shasta sideband snail (Monadenia troglodytes troglodytes), Wintu

sideband snail (Monadenia troglodytes wintu), Shasta chaparral snail (Trilobopsis roperi),

Tehama chaparral (Trilobopsis tehamana) and Shasta hesperian (Vespericola Shasta) at

known sites along the McCloud Reservoir, Lower McCloud River, Iron Canyon Reservoir

and Creek, and Pit 6 & 7 Reservoirs. Protect or relocate species when located in

development sites.

Elderberry Longhorn Beetle

Monitor known suitable habitat once every 5 years for individuals. Protect if located.

Shasta Salamanders

Monitor for Shasta Salamander (Hydromantes shastae) at known locations once every 5

years along the McCloud Reservoir and Fenders Ferry Flat Afterbay, and survey suitable

habitat once every ten years. Include estimates of population age distribution in terrestrial

reporting.

Foothill Yellow Legged Frog

Survey once every ten years for additional populations of Foothill Yellow Legged

Frogs (Rana boylii) along the 5.4 miles of NFS lands along the Lower McCloud

River, and along the Pit 6 and Pit 7 reservoirs and tributaries. Protect or relocate

species if found in areas proposed for construction or disturbance.

North Western Pond Turtles

Monitor North Western Pond Turtle (Clemys marmorata) at suitable locations once

every five years, and survey suitable habitat once every ten years to identify

additional populations. Include estimates of population age distribution in terrestrial

reporting. Protect or relocate species if located in areas proposed for construction or

disturbance.
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

31

Northern Goshawk

Monitor Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) within 1⁄4 mile of detection site(s) identified

in study results once every five years, and survey suitable habitat once every ten years to

identify any additional individuals or pairs. Conduct surveys in suitable habitat prior to

disturbance activities, or observe annual limited operating period of February 1 – August 15.

Bald Eagles

Monitor Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalys) individuals, pairs and nest

productivity annually at the McCloud Reservoir, Iron Canyon Reservoir, Pit 6 and Pit

7 Reservoirs, and any additional locations identified during surveys or monitoring, as

approved by the Forest Service. Conduct surveys prior to disturbance activities, or

observe annual limited operating period of January 1 – August 1. In addition:

 Identify disturbance factors and appropriate actions needed to minimize

disturbances including recreational use, Project operations, timber harvest,

road maintenance, etc. Consider actions such as:

o Buffer zones around each known nest territory

o Potential water surface zoning of Project reservoirs with respect

to watercraft use.

 Coordinate Licensee and Forest Service land management activities within

bald eagle nest territories in the Project area, such as timber harvest, mining,

woodcutting, etc.;

 Periodically monitor, in conjunction with recreation monitoring, human use

patterns to discern human/bald eagle interaction conflicts. Include monitoring

of watercraft use on areas of McCloud Reservoir and Iron Canyon Reservoir

near nests;

 Develop an interpretive sign at McCloud and Iron Canyon Reservoirs

addressing bald eagles, consistent with specific visual direction in the

Interpretation and Education Sign Plan.

Peregrine Falcon

Monitor Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) individuals, pairs, and nest productivity

within 1⁄4 mile of the known sites on NFS lands annually, and conduct surveys once

every five years in potentially suitable habitat. Conduct surveys prior to disturbance

activities, or observe annual limited operating period of February 1 – August 15. In

addition:

 Identify disturbance factors and appropriate actions needed to minimize

disturbances including recreational use, Project operations, timber harvest,

road maintenance, etc. Consider actions such as buffer zones around each
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

32

known nest territory;

 Coordinate Licensee and Forest Service land management activities within

Peregrine Falcon nest territories, such as timber harvest, mining, woodcutting,

etc.

Northern Spotted Owl

Monitor Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) within 1⁄4 mile of suitable habitat

in the Project area once every five years, and conduct surveys within suitable habitat once

every ten years to identify new individuals, pairs or nest sites. Conduct surveys prior to

disturbance activities, or observe annual limited operating period of February 1 – July 9.

Willow Flycatcher

Survey suitable Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii) habitat (including dispersed

campsites) once every five years, and conduct surveys prior to disturbance activities, or

observe annual limited operating period of April 1 – August 30. Restore and enhance

existing willow habitat within the Project or Project-affected area where Project activities

have impacted vegetation.

Breeding Birds

Conduct surveys for (Neo-tropical) Breeding Birds within suitable habitat prior to

disturbance activities or observe annual limited operating period of April 1- August 30.

Special Status Bats

Monitor Special Status Bats including Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii),

Pallid Bat (Antrozous pallidus), and Western Red Bat (Lasiurus blossevilli) annually at

known locations around McCloud Reservoir, and Pit 7 reservoir, and conduct surveys once

every five years in suitable habitat. Conduct surveys prior to disturbance, or observe annual

limited operating period of March 1 to September 30. In addition:

 Prior to any construction or re-construction within 1 mile of known locations,

develop a strategy/mitigation plan for the land-based population at McCloud

Reservoir;

 Screen all bathroom vents at all existing and proposed recreational sites to

reduce bat mortality. Consult with Forest Service prior to implementing any

bat exclusion techniques on other Project or Project-affected facilities.

Forest Carnivores (Fisher)

Survey for Fisher (Martes pennanti) once every five years in suitable habitat within the

Project and Project affected areas.
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

33

Documentation and Reporting

Results of pre-construction and pre-disturbance surveys shall be provided to the

Forest Service as collected to facilitate review and approval of project activities and

construction. Results of pre-construction and pre-disturbance surveys shall also be

included in five-year data reports and on GIS layer mapping products.

A draft technical report of all Terrestrial Biological Monitoring components shall be

prepared following completion of each survey and monitoring effort for agency

review, input, and concurrence. In addition to describing the results, the report shall

compare results with those of previous surveys. All monitoring component reports

shall discuss implications regarding trends in parameters over time. Additionally, it

shall address any monitoring results that may indicate biological concerns and an

adaptive process to further assess and implement actions that may be necessary to

address identified concerns related to Project effects. A final report incorporating

input (or addressing why it was not incorporated) shall be prepared and filed with the

Forest Service, applicable agencies, and the Commission.

Special Status Species Surveys

Beginning the first full calendar year after license issuance, the Licensee shall, in

consultation with the Forest Service, annually review the current list of special status

wildlife species (species that are Forest Service Sensitive (FSS), Survey and Manage

(S&M), Management Indicator Species (MIS), or on the Shasta-Trinity National

Forest Watch List) that might occur on NFS lands in the Project or Project-affected

area.

When a species is added to one or more of the lists, the Forest Service in consultation

with the Licensee shall determine if the species or un-surveyed suitable habitat for the

species is likely to occur on NFS lands within the Project or Project-affected areas. If

the Forest Service determines that the species is likely to occur, the Licensee shall

develop and implement a study plan in consultation with the Forest Service to

reasonably assess the effects of the Project on the species. The Licensee shall prepare

a report on the study including objectives, methods, results, recommended resource

measures where appropriate, and a schedule of implementation, and shall provide a

draft of the final report to the Forest Service for review and approval. The Licensee

shall file the final report, including evidence of consultation, with the Commission.

Upon approval by the Commission, Licensee shall implement those resource

management measures.
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

34

Avian Collision and Electrocution Hazards

Within one year of license issuance, the Licensee shall file with the Commission, an

Avian Collision and Electrocution Hazards Plan, approved by the Forest Service in

consultation with appropriate Federal and State agencies that minimizes adverse

interactions between Project transmission lines and avian species. All new or rebuilt

power poles shall conform to, guidelines in “Suggested Practices for Raptor

Protection—State of the Art in 1996” (APLIC 1996) or updated guidelines when they

are issued. Any pole involved in a bird fatality shall be immediately repaired/replaced

to meet these guidelines.

CONDITION NO. 27 - AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT AND

MONITORING

Within one year of license issuance, the Licensee shall develop, in consultation with

the Forest Service, CDF&G, potentially affected tribes, and other interested parties,

and approved by the Forest Service, an Aquatic Biological Management Plan,

including Forest Service special status species (i.e. Forest Service sensitive, survey

and manage, and management indicator species) potentially affected by the Project on

NFS lands. Upon Commission approval, Licensee shall implement the plan.

To the extent possible, this plan should be developed consistent with completed

biological implementation plans from the recently relicensed Pit 3, 4, 5 Project to

provide similar data collection protocols for species that span both hydroelectric

Project areas on adjacent NFS lands. The Plan shall include, but may not be limited

to, the following components:

 Population trends, age-class structure, and fish condition factors in the

McCloud Reservoir, Iron Canyon Reservoir, Pit 6 Reservoir, Pit 7 Reservoir,

Lower McCloud River, and the Pit River, and monitoring at specific intervals

for the species listed below;

 List of fish species to be monitored, standardized sampling and data protocols

consistent with pre-licensing studies, to the extent possible, to ensure

comparability of survey results with pre-licensing data;

 Periodic survey once every three years (or as determined by the agencies,

potentially affected tribes and other interested parties) for the first 9 years of

the license period, and then once every five years for the term of the license;

 Report aquatic survey and monitoring results, including suitable habitat by age

class (e.g. fry, juvenile, adult) and populations by age class and species, every

five years (or at frequency specified below by species) with a Forest Service
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

35

GIS compatible map that includes base data from study plan surveys, and

updated data from periodic monitoring and surveys.

Benthic Macroinvertebrates

Monitor benthic macroinvertebrate population robustness and heterogeneity,

composition of functional feeding groups, and pollution tolerance/intolerance trend on

the Lower McCloud River and Iron Canyon Creek. Periodic sampling shall occur

once every three years during the first nine years following license issuance, and

thereafter, once every five years. The number of sites, site locations, and the

frequency of monitoring may be modified with Forest Service approval after

consultation with the Forest Service, potentially affected tribes, and other interested

parties if needed based on initial sampling results. Ten percent of the sites will be

within the first 1.5 miles of the Lower McCloud River below the McCloud Dam.

Special status aquatic mollusks

Monitor special status aquatic mollusks including: the California floater, (Anadonta

californiensis), nugget pebblesnail (Fluminicola seminalis), scalloped juga (Juga

occata), and the montane peaclam (Pisidium ultramontanum). Monitoring will

include population trends and changes in distribution. Periodic monitoring will occur

once every three years (or for a period determined by the Forest Service to be

sufficient that is consistent with other monitoring requirements) during the first nine

years after license issuance and once every five years thereafter. The monitoring

methodology will be approved by the Forest Service prior to implementation.

Documentation and Reporting

A draft technical report of all Aquatic Biological Monitoring components shall be

prepared following completion of each sampling effort for agency review, input and

concurrence. The fish-based sampling report shall discuss implications regarding

trends in fish abundance, changes in age-class structure, as well as any changes in fish

condition factors. The benthic macroinvertebrate sampling report shall discuss any

changes over time regarding the composition of functional feeding groups, overall

population heterogeneity and robustness, and pollution tolerance/intolerance trends.

In addition to describing the results, the report is to compare results with those of

previous surveys. All monitoring component reports shall discuss implications

regarding trends in parameters over time. Additionally, it shall address any

monitoring results that may indicate biological concerns and an adaptive process to

further assess and implement actions that may be necessary to address identified

concerns related to Project effects. A final report incorporating input (or addressing
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

36

why it was not incorporated) shall be prepared and filed with the Forest Service,

applicable agencies, and the Commission.

Special Status Species

In consultation with the Forest Service, the Licensee shall, beginning the first full

calendar year after license issuance, annually review the current list of special status

aquatic wildlife species (species that are Forest Service Sensitive (FSS), Survey and

Manage (S&M), Management Indicator Species (MIS), or on the Shasta-Trinity

National Forest Watch List) that might occur on NFS lands and waters in the Project

and Project-affected area.

When a species is added to one or more of the lists, the Forest Service in consultation

with the Licensee, shall determine if the species or un-surveyed suitable habitat for

the species is likely to occur on such NFS lands and waters. For such newly added

species, if the Forest Service determines that the species is likely to occur on such

NFS lands and waters, the Licensee shall develop and implement a study plan in

consultation with the Forest Service to reasonably assess the effects of the Project on

the species. The Licensee shall prepare a report on the study including objectives,

methods, results, recommended resource measures where appropriate, and a schedule

of implementation, and shall provide a draft of the final report to the Forest Service

for review and approval. The Licensee shall file the final report, including evidence

of consultation with the Commission. Upon Commission approval, Licensee shall

implement those resource management measures.

Invasive Aquatic Species

Consistent with Fish and Game code 2302, assess the threat from invasive mussels

and develop and implement a prevention plan.

Provide fish passage at stream crossings

Within one year of license issuance, the Licensee will develop, in consultation with

the Forest Service, the CDF&G, potentially affected tribes, and other interested

parties, specific management actions and schedule for providing fish passage,

including monitoring, into the following affected reservoir streams: Deadlun, McGill,

Cedar Salt Log, Little Gap and Gap Creeks on Iron Canyon Reservoir, and Tarantula

Gulch and Battle Creek on the McCloud Reservoir. Upon Forest Service and

Commission approval of the actions, the Licensee will construct or correct fish

passage structures on these streams within one year. These structures are to be

maintained on an annual basis, if needed, concurrent with road condition surveys,

such that they are able to pass the entire run of stream spawning fish. All of the

named streams will be monitored every three years to determine fish passage structure
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

37

effectiveness. Monitoring reports are due concurrent with Aquatic Monitoring

Reports, in years conducted.

CONDITION NO. 28 - HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE MANAGEMENT

Within one year of license issuance, and at least 60 days before starting any activities

the Forest Service determines to be of a land-disturbing nature on NFS lands, the

Licensee shall file with the Commission, a plan approved by the Forest Service for oil

and hazardous substances storage and spill prevention and cleanup.

At a minimum, the plan shall require the Licensee to:

 Maintain in the Project area, a cache of spill cleanup equipment suitable to

contain any spill from the Project;

 Periodically inform the Forest Service of the location of the spill cleanup

equipment on NFS lands and of the location, type, and quantity of oil and

hazardous substances stored in the Project area;

 Inform the Forest Service immediately of the nature, time, date, location, and

action taken for any spill on or affecting NFS lands.

CONDITION NO. 29 - ROAD AND TRANSPORTATION FACILITY

MANAGEMENT

Within one year of license issuance, Licensee shall file with the Commission a Road

and Transportation Facility Management Plan, approved by the Forest Service, for

protection and maintenance of Project and Project-affected roads that are on or affect

NFS lands. The Licensee shall consult with the Forest Service and other affected

parties in the development of this Plan. The Licensee shall take appropriate measures

to meet appropriate Forest Service Maintenance Level, Traffic Service Level, and

Road Management Objectives (RMOs). Upon Commission approval, Licensee shall

implement the Plan and actions specified therein. At a minimum, the Road and

Transportation Facilities Management Plan shall include the following components:

1. Planning & Inventory (Project and Project-affected roads):

 A map(s) compatible with Forest Service Travel Management Routes and GIS

database showing all Project and Project-affected roads, culverts, bridges,

drainages, watering sources, borrow and disposal sites for surplus rock and soil

from road maintenance within and adjacent to the Project Boundary;
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

38

 Identification of uses (e.g. recreation, facility access) of the roads and season

of operation;

 An inventory of road and road facility conditions including any construction or

maintenance needs. Identify each Project and Project-affected road and

identify how and when it will be addressed further. At a minimum, this

inventory shall include the roads shown in Table 1-3, below;

 A Traffic Safety component, including an inventory and condition for all

existing and proposed traffic/road signs (excluding recreation and interpretive

signs) and schedule for sign maintenance;

 Any proposed changes to maintenance levels.

2. Operation, Maintenance, and Road-Associated Debris (Project and applicable

Project-affected roads):

 Develop an annual road operation and maintenance (O&M) schedule for

Project roads and applicable Project-affected roads on NFS lands to comply

with Forest Service standards, RMOs, BMPs, and Travel Management

guidelines.

 Complete normal maintenance activities on an annual basis including: road

surface maintenance, repair and replacement of damaged culverts, cleaning

debris and rockfall from drainage channels, vegetation removal to allow

adequate sight distances, vegetation removal to maintain an open traveled way

consistent with Forest Service standards, etc.

 Describe types of road-associated debris (e.g. native materials such as dirt,

rocks, trees, etc.), any acceptable locations on NFS lands where this material

can be stored (identify if temporary only or permanent), and measures to

control erosion, weed infestation, etc. on these piles. Remove all road spoil

piles not currently located at approved sites on NFS lands to a location either

off the Forest, or to a Forest Service approved disposal site.

 Include any required limited operating periods (LOP’s) for wildlife species and

noxious weed prevention provisions in planning and performing maintenance

activities.

 Comply with the following O&M guidelines:

o Slope: Outslope roads where feasible; utilize long, gradual rolling dips

to disperse runoff. For insloped roads, use sufficient drainage structures

to minimize runoff in inside ditches.

o Erosion/Sediment: Disconnect road sediment sources to watercourses

and incorporate erosion control measures by/through the use of rolling

dips, waterbars, filter strips, cross-drains, etc. Treat potential erosion or

mass wasting sites.

o Drainage: Assess cross-drain frequency, waterbars, rolling dips, and

lead outs that minimize flow concentration.
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

39

o Timing: Address timing use restrictions (winter period, wet weather, or

other).

o Design: Address need to upgrade surfacing to comply with RMO’s. For

Bridges: meet current AASHTO Standard specifications for Highway

Bridges (latest edition) including guardrails, and pave 50 feet either side

of approaches. For Gates: comply with Forest Service standards for

construction and signing.

o Decommissioning/closures: Address need and schedule for any road

closures and decommissioning.

o Snowplowing: Conduct plowing according to Forest Service

procedures.

o For road and stream crossings, implement the following:

 Sidecast: Remove or minimize with particular care near streams.

 Realign existing routes that pose risks to water quality.

 Culverts: Replace “shotgunned” cross drains, armor inlets/outlets

with rip-rap, utilize culvert diameters equal to or greater than the

average active channel width, utilize extra cross drains, critical

dips and road aggregate surfacing at connected crossings to

decrease chronic and potential catastrophic delivery of sediment,

upgrade crossings to reduce diversion potential.

 Drainage: Treat roads to minimize erosion and sediment delivery

to the watercourse. Include overflow dips/critical dips or other

feature to minimize watercourse diversion potential at culvert

crossings. Inslope roads at crossings, where feasible and safe, to

prevent road runoff from discharging onto the downstream fill

face. Construct and maintain crossings to prevent diversion of

streamflow out of the channel and down the road in the event of

crossing failure.

 Fish Passage: Provide for fish passage and proper stream

function for all stream crossings that are identified as fish habitat

areas.

 Intermittent and perennial stream crossings shall accommodate a 100-year

storm event and associated bedload and debris unless an exception is allowed

by the Forest Service. Provide hydrologic information to verify calculations

where requested by Forest Service.

3. Construction and Reconstruction (Project and applicable Project-affected

roads):

 Develop a road construction and reconstruction implementation schedule to

bring existing roads and associated facilities (i.e. culverts, gates, bridges,

crossings, crib-walls, etc.) into compliance with Forest Service standards that

achieve Forest Service RMOs and Travel Management Guidelines for
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

40

applicable roads in Table 1-3, below. The schedule shall bring existing roads

into compliance within five years of Plan approval, with health and safety

items as well as water passage/resource objectives within the second year of

implementation, road surfacing items within the third year of implementation,

and all lower priority projects in years four and five after implementation;

 During construction and reconstruction activities, comply with O&M

guidelines provided in Item 2. Operation, Maintenance, and Road-Associated

Debris, above.

Specific Construction & Reconstruction Items:

o Within two years following Plan approval, repair those road sites

identified in Table 1-4 listed below, with greater than 75% erosion

hazard.

o Implement any remaining or new Forest Service approved

reconstruction mitigations resulting from McCloud Dam spillway flows

undercutting Forest Service road 38N11 that were not completed under

the existing license.

o Identify and close, after Forest Service review and approval, those user

created roads accessing Iron Canyon Reservoir that generate water

quality impacts or impacts to other resources. Closure methods may

include: natural materials (i.e. boulders & fallen trees), barriers, gates,

or signing.

4. Monitoring (Project and Project-affected roads):

 Conduct traffic use surveys scheduled on a six-year basis (coinciding with the

Commission’s recreation Form 80 schedule) at Forest Service specified locations, to

determine the number and type of vehicles per day, describe study periods and

reporting requirements, and determine use trends. Conduct a minimum of 60 survey

days during survey years;

 Conduct a road capacity and use review every six years following completion of use

surveys, to determine if the roads continue to meet current road management

objectives. If the Forest Service determines roads no longer comply, define actions

and timelines to correct deficiencies;

 Following annual or periodic monitoring, any roads or bridges found to not

meet Forest Service standards and guidelines requiring work beyond normal

O&M shall be identified. This list, along with proposed measures to bring the

roads or bridges into compliance, shall be submitted to the Forest Service at

least 30 days prior to the Annual Consultation Meeting required under License

Condition 1, or as needed.
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

41

5. Licensee Road Memorandum of Understanding (Project-affected roads):

For applicable Project-affected roads (see Table 1-3) develop a Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) with the Forest Service and other affected parties to

address shared road management responsibilities. The goal of the MOU shall be

to define proportionate road share costs, address specific public safety needs,

resource protection, and erosion control mitigations to be performed by the

Licensee. Implement plan when agreement is reached between parties and upon

Forest Service and Commission approval.

6. Road Use by Government

The United States shall have unrestricted use of any road over which the Licensee

has control within the Project area for all purposes deemed necessary and desirable

in connection with the protection, administration, management, and utilization of

NFS lands or resources. When needed for the protection, administration, and

management of NFS lands or resources the United States shall have the right to

extend rights and privileges for use of the right of way and road thereon to States

and local subdivisions thereof, as well as to other users. The United States shall

control such use so as not to unreasonably interfere with the safety or security

uses, or cause the Licensee to bear a share of the costs disproportionate to the

Licensee's use in comparison to the use of the road by others.

7. Road Use

The Licensee shall confine all vehicles being used for Project purposes, including

but not limited to administrative and transportation vehicles and construction and

inspection equipment, to roads or specifically designed access routes, as identified

in the Road and Transportation Facility Management Plan. The Forest Service

reserves the right to close any and all such routes where damage is occurring to the

soil or vegetation, or, if requested by Licensee, to require

reconstruction/construction by the Licensee to the extent needed to accommodate

the Licensee's use. The Forest Service agrees to provide notice to the Licensee

and the Commission prior to road closures, except in an emergency, in which case

notice will be provided as soon as practicable.
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

Page 42

Table 1-3. Project and Project-Affected Roads

Road # Name Project Rd.

or

MOU

Start End Length Other

R/W

Current

RMO

McCloud Reservoir Area Roads

38N11 Hawkins

Creek FA11

(Segment 1)

Project Siskiyou

MC1N01

Tunnel

Spoil Pile

14.25 Hearst 4/3

38N81 Brown Trout Project 38N11 Ramp 0.3 Hearst 4

38N53 Ah-Di-Na See License

Condition

#30a

38N11 T37N, R2W,

Sec 5, NE 1⁄4,

MDM

7.27 Hearst 3

38N04Y Star City Project 38N11 Bridge 5 Hearst 3

U38N11X Dam Rd Project 38N11 Base of

McCloud

Dam

N/A

U38N11Y Ash Camp MOU 38N11 Ash Camp 0.25 3

Iron Canyon Area Roads

38N11 Hawkins Creek

FA11

(Segment 2)

MOU Shasta 7M01 North 37N78 6.6 SPI 3

37N78 Iron

Canyon loop

Project 38N11 (Oak Mtn Rd)

37N34

8.54 SPI

Co-op

3.36 mi

3

37N27Y

(to be

relocated)

Deadlun

Campground

Project 37N78 Campground 0.34 3

37N66Y Hawkins

Landing

Project 38N11 Ramp 0.56 3
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

Page 43

Table 1-3. Project and Project-Affected Roads (continued)

Road # Name Project

Rd.

or

MOU

Start End Lengt

h

Other

R/W

Current

RMO

37N78A MC-10 gage Rd Project 37N78 NEW

Sec. 28

0.28 2

37N34 Oak Mtn.

12kV line

Project 38N11 Pit 5 Bridge 7.71 SPI 3

37N93 Ridge Iron

Canyon

Project 37N93A

37N93C

Oak Mtn

Road

0.3 2

37N93A Ridge Project 37N93 0.6 2

37N33C Willow Project 37N93 0.5 2

Pit 6, Pit 7 and Afterbay Area Roads

Pit 6

Power-house

Pit 6

Powerhouse

Project Cove

Road

Pit 6

Powerhouse

N/A

34N17 Fenders Ferry

FA27

MOU County

Road

6L005

Hogback

Turnoff

6.19 SPI

Co-op

3

35N23 Pit 7 Road Project 34N17 Pit 7 Dam &

Powerhouse

1.79 3

35N66 Fenders Flat Project 35N23 Afterbay

Dam

0.57 3

35N46 Reynolds Basin

(Fenders Ferry to

Hogback)

MOU 34N17 35N93 11.93 3

35N93 Hog Back Mtn Special

Use

Permit

35N46 Communication Site5 SPI

Co-op

2
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

Page 44

Table 1-4. Roads with Currently Active High Erosion Potential Sites Requiring Repair

Site I.D.

(T.M. 67)

Project

Region

Road Erosion

Risk %

Description

McCloud Reservoir

T7-A MC Res. 38N81

(Segment 1)

79% Rilling caused by concentrated runoff near parking lot area at McCloud

Boat Ramp

T7-B MC Res 38N81 93% Gullying caused by concentrated runoff near parking lot area

MT-7A MC Res 38N11 83% Gullying caused by concentrated runoff

MT-7B MC Res 38N11 85% Shallow landslide caused by concentrated runoff

MT-7C MC Res 38N11 79% Gully caused by concentrated runoff

MT-4 MC Res 38N11 76% Rilling caused by culvert design or condition

MT-3 MC Res 38N11 79% Gully caused by culvert design or condition

MT-1 MC Res 38N11 85% Surface erosion caused by concentrated runoff

MR-1B MC Res 38N11 83% Rock slide caused by road design or condition

MR-2 MC Res 38N11 90% Rock fall caused by Project management

MR-3 MC Res 38N11 79% Channel bank erosion caused by Project management

MR-7 MC Res 38N11 95% Surface erosion caused by culvert design or condition

DRU-6 MC Res 38N04Y

(Star City)

79% Debris slide caused by road design or condition

Iron Canyon

ICP-9 IC Res 37N78

(Loop Road)

85% Gully caused by culvert design or condition

ICP-11 IC Res 37N78 89% Debris flow torrent track caused by mass wasting

ICD-1 IC Res 37N78 85% Gully caused by concentrated runoff

OM-1 IC Res 37N34 76% Gully caused by concentrated runoff

MC-10A IC Res 37N78A

(Road to MC-10)

85% Rilling caused by concentrated runoff

MC-10B IC Res 37N78A 85% Gully caused by concentrated runoff

ICD-3 IC Res 37N78A 95% Shallow landslide caused by road design or condition

ICD-4 IC Res 37N78A 89% Gully caused by concentrated runoff

Oak Mountain

WCN-5 Oak Mtn 37N93 99% Shallow landslide caused by road design or condition

WCN-1 Oak Mtn. 37N93 95% Deep-seated landslide caused by road design or condition

WCN-4 Oak Mtn 37N93A

(Road to 12kV)

97% Shallow landslide caused by road design or condition

WCN-3 Oak Mtn. 37N93A 100% Shallow landslide caused by road design or condition
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

Page 45

Table 1-4. Roads with Currently Active High Erosion Potential Sites Requiring Repair (continued)

Site I.D.

(T.M.

67)

Project

Region

Road Erosion

Risk %

Description

Oak Mountain (continued)

WCN-2 Oak Mtn. 37N93A 93% Shallow landslide caused by road design or condition

WCS-3A Oak Mtn. 37N93C

(Road to siphon)

90% Rilling caused by concentrated runoff

WCS-3B Oak Mtn. 37N93C 85% Rilling caused by concentrated runoff

WCS-3C Oak Mtn. 37N93C 83% Surface erosion caused by road design or condition

WCS-3D Oak Mtn. 37N93C 97% Gully caused by concentrated runoff

OM-6 Oak Mtn. 37N34

(Oak Mountain)

79% Surface erosion caused by concentrated runoff

OM-10 Oak Mtn 37N34 79% Shallow landslide caused by road design or condition

OM-11 Oak Mtn 37N34 83% Gully caused by concentrated runoff

OM-12 Oak Mtn 37N34 83% Gully caused by concentrated runoff

OM-14 Oak Mtn. 37N34 97% Gully caused by concentrated runoff

OMS3-2 Oak Mtn spur rd (Penstock) 100% Shallow landslide caused by concentrated runoff

OMS3-4 Oak Mtn spur trail (Penstock) 85% Shallow landslide caused by concentrated runoff

DRU-16 Oak Mtn. 37N34 93% Gully caused by concentrated runoff

JBB-PH1 Oak Mtn. 37N34 93% Channel bank erosion caused by concentrated runoff

Pit 6

P6-1 Pit 6 Pit 6 Rd 76% Gully caused by culvert design or condition

P6-8 Pit 6 Pit 6 Rd 95% Gully caused by concentrated runoff

P6-16 Pit 6 Pit 6 Rd 90% Surface erosion caused by concentrated runoff

P6-17 Pit 6 Pit 6 Rd 99% Debris side slope caused by mass wasting

Pit 7

P7-10 Pit 7 35N23 (Pit 7 Road) 76% Gully caused by culvert design or condition

“Total index score is derived by summing points from the erosion potential, sediment delivery, and Project infrastructure components provides

a relative measure of erosion severity. High index values represent erosion sites with a greater potential to cause future effects to Project

infrastructure or water resources of concern by direct sediment delivery.” (McCloud-Pit Project, FERC No. 2106, Technical Memorandum;

Erosion and Sediment Inventory (TM-67) Page 8.
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

Page 46

CONDITION NO. 30 - RECREATION DEVELOPMENT, MANAGEMENT AND

MONITORING

Within two years of license issuance, Licensee shall prepare a Recreation

Development and Management Plan developed in consultation with the Forest

Service, CDF&G, SWRCB, and other interested parties, and approved by the Forest

Service, to address recreation resource needs associated with the Project. All new and

reconstructed Project recreation facilities located on Licensee's lands will be designed

to meet applicable Americans with Disability Act (ADA) and Architectural Barrier

Act (ABA) Standards as currently written at the time of project design. New and

reconstructed recreation facilities located on NFS lands will meet ADA/ABA

Standards, Forest Service Outdoor Recreation Accessibility Guidelines (FSORAG)

and Forest Service Trail Accessibility Guidelines (FSTAG), where applicable as

currently written at the time of design. New and reconstructed recreation facilities on

NFS lands will be approved by the Forest Service and meet all Forest Service laws,

standards and policy, such as protecting sensitive resources (e.g. cultural, wildlife,

etc.) and meet Forest Service recreation design guidelines. Where design or site

analysis constraints preclude specific developments stipulated in this License

Condition, the Forest Service will review and approve modifications that meet the

intent of this Condition. All Project facilities will be designed to be consistent with

the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) class and Visual Quality Objective

(VQO) where they are located. Upon Commission approval, Licensee shall

implement the Plan. At a minimum, the Plan shall address the following components

and additionally specify location, design, structures, and schedules for completion, as

appropriate:

1. Project-Wide Measures

a. Operation and Maintenance:

Develop and implement an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) component (including

fee collection) for all Project and Project-associated recreation facilities (i.e. all

facilities identified in this License Condition). Operation and maintenance includes

all annual, operational, and heavy maintenance, as well as any minor reconstruction or

retrofits at existing facilities. These may be necessitated by exhaustion of usable life

of facility, wear and tear, ecological/facility/social capacity needs, or others as

determined through monitoring or compliance with laws, regulations, codes, and other

legal direction (such as ADA/ABA compliance). Discussions of any needed actions

shall be conducted at the annual consultation meeting following recognition of the

need or following monitoring as addressed under the Recreation Survey and

Monitoring component, below, as appropriate. Items to be addressed in this O&M

component include: all existing Project recreation facilities, existing Forest Service-
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

Page 47

owned Project-affected recreation facilities, as identified under the heading of

“Construction and Reconstruction” below, and new Project recreation facilities. This

component shall include but is not limited to:

 Annual schedule and standard protocols for opening and closing recreation

facilities, including primary season and shoulder seasons;

 Water testing protocols for potable water sources;

 List of routine maintenance items (e.g. campground road clearing, brush

clearing, painting, debris removal, maintenance schedule, signing, etc.);

 Annual review and meeting;

 A percentage of fee retention by Forest Service if used on–site (e.g.

interpretation, campfire programs, etc.);

 Maintenance of shaded fuel breaks around Project recreation facilities (to be

addressed in the Fire and Fuels Management Plan).

b. Recreation Survey and Monitoring:

Develop and implement a Recreation Survey and Monitoring component with Report

that is implemented on a six-year interval (concurrent with the Commission’s

Recreation Form 80). A copy of the Report shall be provided to the Forest Service

and filed with the Commission after Forest Service approval. The Forest Service

reserves the right, after notice and opportunity for comment and administrative

review, to require changes in the Project and its operation through revision of the

Section 4(e) conditions that require measures necessary to accomplish protection and

utilization of National Forest resources identified as a result of the Report findings.

The Survey and Monitoring component shall address the following:

 At facilities where fees or passes are issued or required, Licensee shall

annually collect use data that includes use numbers by location, dates,

occupancy, party size (if collected) and zip codes (if collected). Annual data

will be included in the 6-year Report;

 Licensee shall conduct a Recreational Resource Survey once every 6 years

(concurrent with the Commission’s Recreation Form 80) starting from license

issuance. Survey methods shall be reviewed and approved by the Forest

Service. The Recreation Survey shall include but not be limited to:

o Occupancy of Project facilities over the entire recreation season,

including (and breaking out) shoulder seasons;

o Use and use patterns both on water surfaces and land;

o Quality of recreational opportunities, including fishing success;

o Kinds and sizes of vehicles (including boats);

o Preferences of users, including day use vs. overnight;
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

Page 48

o Summary of any facility closures (campgrounds, roads, ramps, etc.).

 Licensee will conduct Recreation Monitoring once every six years (coinciding

with the Commission’s recreation Form 80 schedule), which will include

evaluation of resource impacts from developed and dispersed use;

 Licensee shall summarize the most current regional and statewide trends in

recreation based on available surveys and reports;

 Licensee shall draft the Recreation Monitoring and Survey Report, that

incorporates data from the Recreation Survey (see above), and addresses any

changes in trends since previous reports (or initially from relicensing studies);

 Licensee shall, every six years (coinciding with the Commission’s recreation

Form 80), consult with the Forest Service, appropriate agencies, and interested

parties to review and adjust Project-wide recreation management objectives, if

needed. Forest Service reserves the right, after consultation with Licensee, to

extend the review of management objectives interval to every 8, 10 or 12 years

depending on survey results. This review shall be based on findings in the

periodic Recreation Monitoring and Survey Report, traffic counters, biological

resource monitoring results, law enforcement input, Project Patrol reports, and

other applicable study and monitoring results. The review shall address, at a

minimum, the following factors:

o Use, including volume, changes in use type, season, and duration of

stay;

o Capacity; including developed and dispersed sites, roads, trails, water

bodies, and river reaches;

o Condition of facilities, including roads, trails parking areas,

directional/informational and interpretive signing;

o Kinds, quality, quantity, and range of opportunities;

o Health and safety;

o User and resource conflicts;

o Any mandated updated guidelines, such as ADA, etc.;

o New or modified management actions (increased patrols, additional

sanitation facilities, closure orders, etc.) as needed to address concerns

identified in report;

o Schedule to implement actions; and

o All recreation facilities will be analyzed, redesigned and reconstructed,

if necessary, utilizing the Recreation Monitoring and Survey Report

information.
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

Page 49

c. Project Patrol

Develop and implement a Project Patrol component for Project and Project-affected

NFS land. Annually, the Licensee shall coordinate with the agencies and interested

parties to review information from the prior season and plan any adjustments for the

next high use season (April through November). This position may be either a

Licensee employee or equivalent funding provided to an appropriate Federal, State, or

local agency. This component shall outline duties of a seasonal (April – November)

part time Project Patrol to implement, at a minimum, the following duties:

 Monitor and encourage compliance with fire safety regulations, closures,

clearance, etc.;

 Monitor and encourage compliance with rules associated with camping,

parking, and trail use;

 Install signs and adjust as seasonally needed;

 Disperse Project-related information to the public including appropriate OHV

use, campfire safety, leave no trace, and other resource messages;

 Patrol dispersed public use areas within 1⁄4 mile of all Project and Projectaffected waterways (e.g. Hawkins Creek crossing, Lower McCloud River,

etc.);

 Watch for and report looting/vandalism of cultural sites or other resource

damage;

 Report illegal activities and cooperate with law enforcement agencies, as

needed;

 Perform minor maintenance of Project recreation facilities and report larger

maintenance needs to appropriate Licensee staff;

 Perform other duties that provide for the safety of the public and protection of

Project-affected resources;

 Maintain a log of activities, key resource issues and public concerns to

summarize in an annual report provided at least 30 days prior to the annual

consultation meeting (License Condition No. 1).

d. Reservoir Water Surface Management

Develop and implement a Reservoir Water Surface Management component that

addresses monitoring and management of recreation user safety, trespass on private

lands by Project users, and County code compliance by Project users on each

Reservoir surface (i.e. McCloud, Iron Canyon, Pit 6 & Pit 7). The component shall

include, but may not be limited to the following:
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

Page 50

 Surface Management: develop protocols for preventing/removing unapproved

buoy courses, approved use of docks, and measures to prevent trespass on

private lands;

 Speed Restriction Ordinance Request: In cooperation with the Forest Service,

Licensee shall submit request to the Shasta County Boating Unit of the

Sheriff’s office for the establishment of a 5-mph restriction on McCloud

Reservoir upstream from (and beginning at) the McCloud Bridge. Licensee

will evaluate the need for a speed restriction on remaining reservoirs based on

user conflicts or safety concerns on a six-year interval when monitoring other

Project-affected recreation use;

 No Boating Buoy Line Request: Licensee shall, in cooperation with the

CDF&G and private landowner, submit a request to the Shasta County Boating

Unit of the Sheriff’s office for establishment of a buoy line to be installed near

Huckleberry Creek on McCloud Reservoir to prevent fishing boats from

traveling upstream during the period from November 15 to the last Saturday in

April each year to separate the year-round fishing access on the reservoir from

the seasonally restricted stream fishing season on the stream above this point;

 Surface Debris Removal: Annual surface sweep of McCloud and Iron Canyon

reservoirs and boat ramps to collect logs and other debris from the lake surface.

Surface sweep shall be conducted a minimum of once prior to the start of the

recreation season (April 27) and additionally during the season if late season

storms create additional surface debris. Debris shall be removed and

stockpiled. Large woody debris may be re-introduced to the Lower McCloud

River as directed in the LWD Plan, smaller debris and trash shall be removed

off of NFS lands;

 Every six years (coinciding with the Commission’s recreation Form 80)

monitor boat use numbers, type, season, and activity type during the recreation

season on the McCloud and Iron Canyon reservoir surfaces. Incorporate this

information with monitoring from Recreation Monitoring and Survey Report

and road traffic use from the Road and Transportation Facility Management

Plan;

 Reassess any needed water surface management mitigations every six years

(concurrent with the “Recreation Survey and Monitoring” component, above).

2. Construction and Reconstruction

Use Forest Service design standards (including applicable standards for providing

access to users with all abilities, signage, etc) for facilities constructed on NFS lands.

All new and reconstructed Project recreation facilities located on Licensee's lands will

be designed to meet applicable Americans with Disability Act (ADA) and

Architectural Barrier Act (ABA) Standards as currently written at the time of project
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

Page 51

design. New and reconstructed recreation facilities located on NFS lands will meet

ADA/ABA Standards, Forest Service Outdoor Recreation Accessibility Guidelines

(FSORAG) and Forest Service Trail Accessibility Guidelines (FSTAG), where

applicable as currently written at the time of design. The following site capacities are

general estimates only and will be refined during site design based on ROS class,

laws, standards and policy for resource protection and recreation facility design. All

Project and Project-related recreation facilities and infrastructure will be replaced inkind or with an appropriate upgraded facility within 25 years of License issuance or

the mid-point of the License term, whichever is greater. All replaced facilities will be

constructed to the standards and regulations in place at the time of replacement.

McCloud Reservoir Facilities

a. McCloud Reservoir Boat Ramp (Tarantula Gulch) – within three years of license

issuance, Licensee shall, in consultation with the Forest Service:

 Reconstruct the existing boat ramp to Cal Boating standards to provide for a 2-

lane ramp with boarding dock and sidewalk. Ramp shall provide a minimum

of 4-feet draft clearance below minimum pool;

 Maintain in the current location, or relocate as necessary and maintain, a vault

restroom to be open and serviceable when the ramp is operational;

 Redesign the existing parking lot and day use area to maximize parking

capacity (estimate 30 – 40 spaces). Develop a paved parking area and

turnaround at the top of the ramp. Designate parking spaces for vehicles (both

with and without trailers) using signs and/or asphalt markings;

 Develop a day use site with up to 2 picnic tables and shade structure adjacent

to the parking lot that overlooks the reservoir, and a short trail that connects the

day use site to the shoreline for lake access;

 Develop a potable water source that can be accessed by recreationists at all

times during the recreation season;

 Provide security/safety lighting in the parking area that is visible from the

courtesy dock;

 Provide snow removal on the access road (from junction with 38N11) and

parking area between April 1 and December 1, when access to the junction is

available.

b. Star City Campground – Within five years of license issuance, in order to provide

overnight use on McCloud Reservoir, Licensee shall acquire rights, by any means

necessary, but not including by condemnation pursuant to Section 21 of the Federal

Power Act or any other law, for the purpose of overnight public recreational use, of a

portion of the Star City Creek parcel located in the SE 1⁄4 of Section 15, Township 38
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

Page 52

North, Range 2 West, M.D.B.M. (included as a portion of APN’s 015-040-035, 015-

190-002) and shall re-develop the existing dispersed use area as follows:

 Develop an overnight camping area with up to 10 campsites at Development

Level 3. Each campsite shall include: site post with number, picnic table,

animal resistant food locker, and campfire ring. Campground shall include a 2-

vault accessible restroom facility, and potable water source for campground

users that can be accessed at all times when campground is open to the public;

 Develop a Day Use area near the shoreline with up to 5 sites, each with table

and pedestal grill. The Day Use area shall also have animal resistant trash

container with sufficient capacity to meet the needs of the visitors;

 Develop a potable water source for Day Use area that can be accessed by

recreationists at all times when the facility is open to the public. The water

hydrants may be shared with the campground;

 Develop water surface lake access with dock at the Day Use area where boaters

may beach or moor vessels. Develop car-top boat access to the lake that is

available to Campground and Day use visitors;

 Develop a single-vault accessible restroom for the Day Use area and reservoir

users;

 Develop a surfaced parking area with striping that serves both the campground

and day use area;

 Designate swim/beach area to separate swimming and wading, from boat

beaching and mooring;

 Provide a Camp Host on site when campground is open to the public;

 Licensee shall manage and maintain Star City campground to meet the

Recreation Plan objectives of overnight use on McCloud Reservoir during the

recreation season.

c. New Day-Use Facilities - Within five years of license issuance, the Licensee shall

construct new Day-Use areas at: Tarantula Gulch Boat Ramp (see Boat Ramp

description in “a.” directly above), Tarantula Gulch inlet, Red Banks, and Star City

Creek (see above). The Day use sites shall include paved parking for a minimum of 5

vehicles, up to 3 picnic tables with pedestal grills, vault toilet, animal resistant trash

receptacles, and a pedestrian access trail to the high water line. Licensee shall ensure

legal access from roadway to reservoir day use areas. Parking and vault toilet for

Tarantula Gulch Boat ramp is included with Boat Ramp capacity. Develop at one of

these locations, or another designated recreation day use location around the reservoir,

a fishing/swimming platform to accommodate a fluctuating water level.

d. Reservoir Access Points – Within three years of license issuance, the Licensee shall

construct reservoir access points at Battle Creek and on each side of the McCloud

Dam. Access points shall include paved parking for 3 vehicles, and access trail to the
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

Page 53

shoreline. Picnic tables may be installed where space allows. Licensee shall ensure

legal access from roadway to reservoir access areas.

Lower McCloud River

a. McCloud Dam: Within five years of license issuance:

 Construct and maintain a day use recreation site that includes access road

(minimum Maintenance Level 3), paved parking for a minimum of 3 vehicles,

vault toilet, animal resistant trash receptacle, signing, and trail from the base of

McCloud Dam to a point past the in-stream flow valve release to the splash

pool below the spillway. Trail shall be designed to accommodate both fishing

and boating access. Access could be by road, if road is developed for other

condition requirements.

b. Upgrade, relocate where needed, and improve tread and drainage of existing usercreated streamside river access trail along opposite side of river from Ash Camp

Campground. Trail to begin at Ash Camp Bridge/PCT junction and travel

downstream along the river’s edge to Ah-Di-Na. Maintain to a standard approved by

Forest Service.

Iron Canyon Reservoir

a. General: Within three years of License issuance:

 Allow use of at least one campground year-round when accessible (potable

water not required during the winter months) with weekly servicing (as

accessible) by Licensee;

 Provide a minimum of 3 day-use parking areas around reservoir with paved

parking for up to 3 vehicles each, and pedestrian-only access to shoreline;

 Consistent with Shasta-Trinity Travel Management Plan and the Historic

Properties Management Plan, evaluate road closures, trail closures and

dispersed use closure around reservoir;

b. Iron Canyon Dam Boat Ramp: Within five years of license issuance:

 Construct a new single lane boat ramp to Cal Boating standards with boarding

dock functional at 90% of operational lake levels (ramp design and placement

should include option for 2-lanes if needed at mid-license facility review).

Parking for a minimum of 15 vehicles shall be striped and include parking for

5 single vehicles and 10 vehicles with trailers. Parking area shall include

single-vault toilet;
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

Page 54

 Provide potable water, picnic tables, and trash receptacles, available during

normal recreation season (April – November) and security lighting visible from

the dock;

 Provide snow removal during shoulder seasons (March/April and December) at

parking area when Oak Mountain access road and Iron Canyon boat ramp

surface is passable;

c. Hawkins Landing Recreation Sites: Within three years of license issuance:

 Reconstruct Hawkins Campground to provide for a minimum of 11 campsites

(10 plus host site) that meet Forest Service Recreation Level 3. Campground

shall include entrance gate with signing, surfaced loop road, parking spurs, site

posts, picnic tables, animal resistant food boxes, and fire rings. Campground

will have vault restrooms, animal resistant trash receptacles, potable water

available at all times when the campground is open to the public, camp host,

and developed trail from the campground to the adjacent boat ramp and

shoreline for pedestrian fishing access. Views of reservoir will be maximized

by thinning and/or limbing trees and vegetation at campsites. Reconstruction

to include a combination of single (5 PAOTs) and double sites (10 PAOT’s);

 Reconstruct the Hawkins Landing Boat Ramp surface (length and width, but

not grade) to meet Cal Boating standard for single lane. If possible under

reservoir operations, ramp should be operable a minimum of 155 days during

the recreation season (April 27 – November 15). Ramp shall include a

surfaced parking lot above high water level for a minimum of 10 vehicles

(minimum 5 with trailers). Parking lot shall be surfaced, striped, include a

single-vault toilet, animal resistant trash receptacle, and informational sign

board;

d. Deadlun Campground: Within five years of license issuance:

 Licensee shall re-locate the Deadlun campground to 1 or 2 Forest Service

approved location(s) along the Iron Canyon shoreline. The new

campground(s) will meet Forest Service Recreation Level 3 and have a mix of

single (5 PAOT’s) and group (10 or 15 PAOT’s) campsites with no less than

200 PAOT’s total. (More specific information should be available after the

Forest Service/Licensee field review in 2010, and will be contained in the Final

Section 4(e) document). Campground(s) shall have a host, entrance gate,

surfaced loop road, parking spurs, site posts, picnic tables, animal resistant

food lockers, and fire rings. Campground(s) will include two 2-vault

restrooms, animal resistant trash receptacle, and potable water available at all

times during the recreation season;
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

Page 55

 Licensee will develop a trail from the campground(s) to the high water line of

the reservoir shoreline for pedestrian-only access;

Pit 6 Reservoir

 Develop a shoreline trail if capacity or demand (based on six-year recreation

use monitoring) indicates increased use of the reservoir for fishing or boating.

Pit 7 Reservoir

Within three years of license issuance Licensee shall:

 Construct one trailhead, with parking for a minimum of 3 vehicles, and

develop a river access trail along one side of the reservoir for pedestrian

fishing, and hand-launch boating access. Access point and trailheads should be

located at the upper (Pit 6 dam access road) end of reservoir;

 Conduct feasibility assessment for providing a hand-launch boat put-in where

Montgomery Creek enters the reservoir, with paved parking, vault restroom,

tables, animal resistant trash receptacles and pedestrian access trail on public

lands. If constructed, boating would be restricted from Project infrastructure

for public safety reasons by installing buoy lines or other safety devices, at the

upper and lower ends of the reservoir;

 If Montgomery Creek is not feasible, construct a second trailhead, with parking

for a minimum of 3 vehicles, and develop a river access trail along one side of

the reservoir for pedestrian fishing, and hand-launch boat access from the

lower end of Pit 7 reservoir.

Pit 7 Afterbay (Fenders Flat)

Within three years of license issuance, Licensee shall:

 Re-construct boat launch and day-use site below the Pit 7 afterbay at Fenders

Flat with single-vault toilet, animal resistant trash receptacles, picnic tables,

pedestal grills (not campfire rings), and designated surfaced parking area for a

minimum of 5 vehicles without trailers;

 Reconstruct the car-top boat launch with improved grooved concrete surfacing

and minimum one-lane width. (Will not meet all of Cal Boating standards).

Provide re-vegetation, in consultation with the Forest Service, and prevent

vehicle access beyond the access road and parking area;

 If additional generation is developed at this location, construct surfaced

parking area, single-vault toilet, trash receptacles, and river access trail on the

opposite river bank from Fenders Flat day use area.
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

Page 56

CONDITION NO. 30A – SPECIFIC RECREATION AND ROAD AGREEMENT

Until and unless the Forest Service and Licensee reach mutual, signed agreement outside

of relicensing, under which Licensee will assume responsibilities described below for the

three listed facilities (one road and two campgrounds), they will be incorporated into the

road (#29) and recreation (#30) conditions in the Final 4(e) license filing.

1. Ah-Di-Na Road (FS road #38N53):

Currently, there is concurrence that road reconstruction, maintenance, and

operation should be shared between the Forest Service, Licensee, and other

affected parties. The Licensee has indicated they would prefer this agreement be

outside of the license. This is acceptable in concept with the Forest Service as

long as agreement on the terms can be reached. Should agreement not be reached,

it will be included within the MOU discussed as a license term in Condition #29,

Part 5, above.

2. Ash Camp:

The concept of the Licensee providing full reconstruction, operation and

maintenance of this facility outside of the license is acceptable in concept with the

Forest Service as long as agreement on the terms can be reached. Should

agreement not be reached, this mitigation will be included in the Final 4(e) license

filing as a component of, and with specificity similar to, other mitigations in

Recreation Condition #30 above.

3. Ah-Di-Na Campground:

The concept of the Licensee providing full reconstruction, operation and

maintenance of this facility outside of the license is acceptable in concept with the

Forest Service as long as agreement on the terms can be reached. Should

agreement not be reached, this mitigation will be included in the Final 4(e) license

filing as a component of, and with specificity similar to, other mitigations in

Recreation Condition #30 above.

CONDITION NO. 31 – INFORMATIONAL SIGN PLAN

Develop and implement a Project Sign Plan which includes road and trail safety,

directional and traffic signs and an Interpretive and Educational component. Sign

locations will be identified as well as design elements such as size, layout, content and

materials. Signage and locations are to be collaboratively developed.
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

Page 57

Interpretive and Education Component:

Develop and implement an Interpretive and Education component, specific to Projectaffected resources, to include, at a minimum, the following:

 Themes, design, audience, delivery methods, colors, locations, and schedule

for implementation;

 Specific projects include:

o Website with public information on:

 Where to get information about recreation facilities (including size,

season, fees, driving directions);

 current and scheduled river flows (hourly average) measured at MC-1

or MC-7, and turbidity;

 Where to get more information about fishing, boating, trails,

trailheads, access points, put ins & take outs, maps;

 Seasonal lake levels, fish stocking;

 Scheduled repairs, outages, valve tests, or road work that would

change flows or reservoir levels, close access, or close facilities (i.e.

boat ramps);

 Other information as needed to assist the public in finding and using

the recreation opportunities.

o Informational kiosks at all developed recreation facilities, including: McCloud

Boat Ramp and Day Use, Star City Campground, Iron Canyon Dam Boat

Ramp, Hawkins Creek Campground and Boat ramp, relocated Deadlun

Campground(s), Pit 7 Afterbay, or other locations, as agreed. Informational

kiosks will include at a minimum:

 Locations of developed recreation sites;

 Maps of the Project area;

 Fee and regulation information, if appropriate;

 Seasonal and safety information.

CONDITION NO. 32 - VISUAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT

Within one year of license issuance, Licensee shall develop, for Forest Service

approval and filing with the Commission, procedures and/or a timeline, to assure

implementation of the following specific mitigation measures to provide for visual

quality of Project and Project-affected NFS lands:
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

Page 58

1. General:

 Identify the existing visual condition areas within 1⁄4 to 1⁄2 mile from project

lakes, rivers, developed recreation sites, Ah-Di-Na Road (38N53), the Pacific

Crest Trail and any other socially sensitive viewpoints;

 Analyze and identify mitigations for existing facilities including buildings,

fences, signs and gates, debris piles, miscellaneous related debris,

transportation related features and utility lines within the above sensitive visual

areas;

 Consult with Forest Service (within view of NFS lands-see above) for

repairs/improvements that will blend with the environment;

 All proposed facilities will be approved by the Forest Service for compliance

with scenery direction.

2. Mitigations:

 Paint or reconstruct facilities with natural looking materials and colors to help

the facilities to visually blend with the surrounding natural environment;

 Vegetate, re-vegetate, or screen facilities, where appropriate;

 Re-contour spoil piles to blend with natural topography;

 Complete facility deferred maintenance, such as replacing window panes,

weed removal, etc.;

 Transportation mitigations may include using colored gunnite, ‘black’ MSE

wire walls, simulated rock, ‘corten’ traffic barriers, using rip rap that matches

existing natural rock outcroppings or ‘staining’ rock to look aged, and colored,

or stamped concrete;

 Where Project facilities cannot be modified to meet VQO’s, consider providing

interpretive information and incorporate into the I&E Plan ;

 Maintain reservoir capacities at agreed upon elevation during peak recreation

season;

 Assess Project and Project-affected NFS lands to develop ways to blend

Project modifications with the natural surroundings; e.g. colored gunnite, plant

screening, vegetation, natural landscaping, use natural materials (rock, wood,

etc.) to achieve objectives;

 Evaluate Project-associated signs for visual appeal.

3. Project disposal piles (e.g. material from trash racks, reservoir build-up, etc.):

 Remove, burn, chip, or dispose of debris piles on NFS lands in a timely

manner;

 Remove this material, as a minimum annually, prior to recreation season.
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

Page 59

CONDITION NO. 33 - FIRE AND FUELS MANAGEMENT

Within one year of license issuance, the Licensee shall file with the Commission a

Fire and Fuels Plan that is approved by the Forest Service, and developed in

consultation with appropriate State and local fire agencies. The plan shall set forth in

detail the Licensee’s responsibility for the prevention, reporting, and emergency

response to fires in the vicinity of the Project resulting from Project operations. At a

minimum, the plan shall address the following categories.

Fuels Treatment

 Consistent with Visual Quality Objectives for recreation sites, reduce fuels in and

around developed and dispersed recreation sites identified in the Recreation

Management Plan. Treatment may include shaded fuel breaks, limbing, brush

trimming, and selective clearing around the perimeter of the site. Select vegetation

treatments within recreation sites to maintain screening between sites where possible.

Size fuel treatment according to the size and capacity of the facility. The Licensee

shall implement and maintain fuel treatments;

 Maintain vegetation clearing around all Project infrastructure (dams, gages, valve

houses, etc.) to comply with CalFire requirements;

 Fuel treatment disposal methods may include chipping, off-site disposal, or lopping

and scattering (only with Forest Service approval, in limited amounts and locations).

These fuels treatment methods are applicable to the Licensee’s annual, routine

vegetation management within the Project area. Larger fuel treatment projects that

include merchantable Forest Service timber shall be handled separately under Timber

Sale Contract with specific provisions for fire and fuels;

 During annual coordination meetings with the Forest Service, provide the proposed

annual vegetation treatment schedule (with a map) for all areas where fuel treatment

is planned (including Project powerlines). Include known Limited Operating Periods

or survey data for any areas with known sensitive resources;

 Standard protocols for Licensee compliance with the Forest Service Project Activity

Level (PAL) during Project construction, reconstruction or maintenance.

Prevention and Response

 Access and Safety:

o Identify Project sites potentially available for equipment staging,

helispots, water drafting, Incident Command, safe zones, or other fire

suppression strategies;

o Include status of access roads, community road escape routes, helispots

to allow aerial firefighting assistance, and water drafting sites;

o Address fire danger and public safety associated with Project induced

recreation, including fire danger associated with dispersed camping,
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

Page 60

existing and proposed developed recreation sites, trails, and vehicle

access.

 Emergency Response Preparedness:

o Include emergency contact list (updated annually) for Licensee Project

operations, including operations personnel for power and dam

operation, road maintenance contacts, transmission and distribution line

staff, timber operations, and public affairs/website management.

 Reporting and Response:

o Licensee shall report any Project related fires on National Forest System

lands to Forest Service dispatch immediately but no later than 24 hours.

Report shall include location, approximate size, fire activity, and nearest

vehicle access routes;

o Licensee shall, where possible, make equipment (including

communications) and personnel available on-site during initial

emergency response until relieved by State or Federal resources and

shall take action as appropriate to suppress fires within or adjacent to

Project, when possible.

Investigation of Project Related Fires

The Licensee agrees to fully cooperate with the Forest Service on all fire

investigations. The Licensee shall produce upon request all materials and witnesses

not subject to the attorney-client or attorney work product privileges, over which the

Licensee has control, related to the fire and its investigation including:

 All investigation reports;

 All witness statements;

 All photographs;

 All drawings;

 All analysis of cause and origin;

 All other similar materials and documents regardless of how collected or

maintained.

The Licensee shall preserve all physical evidence, and give custody to the Forest

Service of all physical evidence requested. The Forest Service shall provide the

Licensee with reasonable access to the physical evidence and documents the Licensee

requires in order to defend any and all claims, which may arise from a fire resulting

from Project operations, to the extent such access is not precluded by ongoing

criminal or civil litigation.
Enclosure 1 – 4(e) Preliminary License Conditions

Page 61

CONDITION NO. 34 - HERITAGE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AND

MONITORING

Within one year of license issuance, Licensee shall file with the Commission a

Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) that is approved by the Forest Service.

The HPMP is tiered to a Programmatic Agreement, to which the Forest Service will

be a signatory, as defined by 36 CFR 800, and implements regulations of the National

Historic Preservation Act. The Licensee shall consult with the State Historic

Preservation Officer, applicable Native American Tribes, Forest Service, and other

applicable agencies during the preparation of the Plan. Collaborative meetings for the

development of the Final HPMP with the Licensee, Forest Service and potentially

affected Tribes shall be facilitated.

The final HPMP shall include, but is not limited to, a complete integration of the CRS1 and CR-S2 study results (including the currently incomplete CR-S2 ethnographic

Winnemem Wintu study or equivalent data), detailed site monitoring and schedule,

National Register determinations of eligibility for sites periodically inundated by

reservoir fluctuations in Iron Canyon Reservoir, and expected and potential effects of

current or proposed Project operation effects on historic properties including specific

detailed mitigations for those effects. Additionally, the Final HPMP is to include a

study/evaluation of whether there is compelling evidence for a Historic archaeological

and ethnographic District on the Lower McCloud River within the project expanded

APE.

If, prior to, or during ground-disturbing activities, or as a result of Project operations,

items of potential cultural, historical, archeological, or paleontological value are

reported or discovered, or a known deposit of such items is disturbed on NFS lands or

on Licensee’s adjoining fee title property when heritage properties extend onto NFS

lands, the Licensee shall immediately cease work in the area so affected. The

Licensee shall then notify the Forest Service and shall not resume work on grounddisturbing activity until it receives written approval from the Forest Service. If it

deems it necessary, the Forest Service may require the Licensee to perform recovery,

excavation, and preservation of the site and its artifacts at the Licensee's expense

through provisions of an Archaeological Resources Protection Act permit issued by

the Forest Service. The Licensee shall implement the Plan upon approval by the

Commission.
This page intentionally left blank.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 1

ENCLOSURE 2:

FOREST SERVICE RATIONALE

FOR

PRELIMINARY LICENSE TERMS AND CONDITIONS

GENERAL COMMENTS:

This enclosure provides a detailed explanation of the Forest Service’s reasoning for the

preliminary Section 4(e) license terms and conditions (Enclosure 1), which are necessary

for the adequate protection and utilization of the affected NFS lands. This rationale

supplements the Licensee’s Application For New License (July 2009) for consideration in

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) staff’s NEPA analysis.

Many of the preliminary conditions are consistent with those identified in the Final

License Application (FLA or PG&E, 2009), and reflect detailed collaborative

meetings between the Licensee and Relicensing Participants to develop new

conditions that are protective of Forest Service resources.

While the Forest Service provides detailed supporting rationale below, general

comments on the FLA are as follows:

The Executive Summary (ES, p. 2) notes that four study plans remain incomplete

including CR-S2, Traditional Cultural Properties, for each of the represented tribes.

While the Forest Service agrees that this study is incomplete, it should be noted that

many of the sites identified in study CR-S1, Archeological and Historic-Era

Properties, were given preliminary integrity ratings pending completion of CR-S2

which could show that current traditional cultural use will change these integrity

ratings. For this reason, the Forest Service does not agree that study CR-S1 is

complete, until results from study CR-S2 can be compared and incorporated into the

final results.

The Executive Summary (ES, p. 5) also identifies several locations where the

Licensee anticipates additions to the Project Boundary. In addition to those listed,

the Forest Service believes that additions may be necessary in the additional

locations:

 Area at Star City Creek where recreation facilities will be expanded and

improved;

 Forest Service road 38N11 Segment 1, and the area between the road and the

McCloud Reservoir water surface to include all new Project recreation sites

and the parking areas and access roads that serve them;
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 2

 Forest Service road 37N78 and the area between the access road and any

recreation sites along the Iron Canyon reservoir shoreline developed for the

Project;

 Tunnel Spoil Pile at Hawkins Creek Crossing to accommodate the proposed

Large Woody Debris and Gravel and Sediment stockpile sites proposed in the

FLA and Preliminary Section 4(e) conditions.

Exhibit A, Project Description, includes a Project Description of Road Operations

and Maintenance for Project Infrastructure. It does not appear that all current

license maintenance responsibilities are included (e.g. road to MC-10 gage, road to

McCloud Dam). These are current responsibilities that should be reflected, and will

be carried into the new license.

The Licensee has proposed draft Resource Management Plans in Volume 1 of the

FLA that propose monitoring and protection measures for Forest Service resources.

The Forest Service concurs with many of these proposals with the following general

comments:

Final License Application, Volume VI

Water Quality Monitoring Plan

The Forest Service has expanded water quality monitoring to all of the Project

reservoirs (including Pit 6 and Pit 7) to monitor for possible Project effects over the

term of the license.

Annual temperature monitoring is increased to a ten-year period to ensure that

measurements are taken during all water-year types where temperatures may be

affected by new Project flows and operations.

Turbidity concerns in the Lower McCloud River were raised throughout the study

plan period both by the agencies and concerned anglers. The FLA notes that most

of these events in the Lower McCloud are not Project induced, but do affect fishing

quality along the Lower River. To address these concerns, the Forest Service has

added a measurement location at MC-7 (just below the dam), and required that this

information be posted on-line, real-time with flow information for the license term,

to provide more useful information about turbidity events to the public.

Bacteriological testing requirements have been modified to also include dissolved

oxygen testing in the Project reservoirs where impacts to aquatic biota are a

concern. Best Management Practices (BMP’s) should also be followed wherever

impacts to Project waters is a concern.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 3

Erosion and Sediment Monitoring and Control Plan

In addition to provisions for existing Project erosion sites, the Forest Service has

added a requirement for site specific erosion control plans associated with any new

construction or ground disturbing work as a result of the new license. These will

include the appropriate BMP’s for the work proposed, with follow-up monitoring

and measures to control erosion.

In addition to the Erosion and Sediment Plan, the Forest Service has included a

Gravel and Sediment Management Plan to reintroduce a portion of the historic

gravel and sediment component that is currently blocked by McCloud Dam in order

to meet the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives.

Wildlife Management Plan

The Forest Service has proposed some changes to the periodicity and term for

wildlife surveys, and aquatic surveys have been included for fish, benthic

macroinvertebrates (BMI’s), and aquatic mollusks. Fish passage concerns are

addressed in the Road and Aquatic Biological Management Plan.

Road and Transportation Facility Management Plan

The Forest Service has completed and signed the Road Management Objectives

(RMO’s) for the Project and Project-affected roads within the McCloud-Pit Project.

These objectives will govern the road maintenance standards for those roads within

the new license. Road Management Objectives have been designed to match the

expected use of each road system (e.g. public recreation, Licensee facility

maintenance, etc.).

Recreation Development and Management Plan

The Forest Service has included Visual Quality mitigations to ensure that project

facilities meet the appropriate Visual Quality Objectives (VQO’s) identified for

each area of the Project.

As the FLA notes, both McCloud Reservoir and Iron Canyon Reservoir experience

dispersed camping use around the shoreline. A decision to issue a Forest Order

closing these areas to dispersed camping will be made pending the development of

improved overnight camping facilities around each reservoir that can accommodate

Project-induced demand for this type of use.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 4

Additional car-top boat launch opportunities have been designated around McCloud

and Pit 7 Reservoirs.

For the Lower McCloud River, the Forest Service provides substantial evidence of a

Project nexus to the Lower River by way of several documents written at the time

the Project was in development, and which point clearly to the need for additional

recreation support facilities to accommodate the increased use along the Lower

River corridor induced by Project changes to instream flows, etc.. As a result, the

Forest Service has included recreation facilities, and the road system that serves it,

to the license conditions as a part of the Project recreation need. While most of

these facilities are oriented towards fishing use, they also include camping, hiking

and boating. These additional sites include Ash Camp, Ah-Di-Na, trails, roads, and

the dispersed areas along the Lower McCloud River on NFS lands. When Cultural

studies are complete, additional sites or specific developments may be appropriate.

The Forest Service disagrees with the Licensee conclusion that Deadlun

Campground on Iron Canyon Reservoir should remain at the existing location.

Study evidence points to the need to relocate this facility to one or two sites that are

closer to the water at all reservoir elevations, and the Forest Service will work with

the Licensee to find alternative and improved locations prior to the Final 4(e)

conditions.

The Forest Service proposes the addition of a pedestrian trail and car-top boat access

from the Pit 7 Dam along the Pit 7 Reservoir in the event that the proposed

Montgomery Creek site is not feasible.

Fire Response Plan

It is not clear that the Equipment and Preparedness portions of the Fire Plan have

been useful in past Licenses. For fire emergencies, the Forest Service uses the

Incident Command System (ICS) and federal contracting regulations to provide

personnel and equipment to the fireline. A recent example is the 2009 Chalk Fire on

the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. While the fire occurred within portions of the

newly relicensed Pit 3, 4, 5 Project, the plan did not prove useful or effective during

the initial emergency response. Thus, the Forest Service Fire and Fuels

Management Plan condition does not include some of the previously standard

language regarding emergency response preparedness (i.e. Part 2.3 in Licensee’s

Fire Response Plan Element). Reporting, investigation and documentation

requirements were helpful and should remain in the license.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 5

Fisheries and Aquatics

The most significant variation between the Final License Application and the

preliminary 4(e) conditions is the absence in the FLA of any proposed monitoring of

aquatic resources in the Project Reservoirs, or the Lower McCloud River as a result

of the new license conditions. Roughly 1/3 of all the Study Plans, and a substantial

amount of Project time and money, were devoted to measuring flow effects on the

existing fishery, BMI, aquatic biota, and riparian habitat within these water bodies.

Studies conducted included the Unimpaired Hydrology Model, Habitat Criteria

Mapping (HCM), Individual Base Modeling (IBM), BMI and crayfish surveys,

snorkel surveys, and the 1-D modeling effort, in addition to riparian habitat and

species surveys. Most of the public comments, and nearly all of the public

controversy, have been devoted to concerns about flow effects on the Lower

McCloud River fishery and fishing conditions.

As a result, the Forest Service has proposed a license condition to monitor,

periodically survey, and report on impacts to aquatic species and riparian habitat

over the term of the new license. This will provide data on any actual changes to

these conditions as a result of the license changes. It will also provide factual data

for any adaptive management changes needed during the license term, and provide

new baseline in order to address public concerns regarding potential instream flow

affects on the aquatic biota.

Historic Properties Management Plan

As discussed in more detail under the rationale for Forest Service Condition No. 33

below, the Forest Service still considers the Historic Properties Management Plan a

draft. Until both CR-S1, CR-S2 and consultation is complete, the HPMP cannot be

completed. The Forest Service, Tribes, and other interested parties will continue to

collaborate on options for interpretation, avoidance, and the development of specific

mitigations in support of a Final HPMP.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 6

STANDARD CONDITIONS 1-18

The preliminary Section 4(e) standard conditions include requirements that serve to

address the statutory, resource protection, and administrative responsibilities of the

Shasta-Trinity National Forest. While broad in nature, they provide the framework

for the Project-specific conditions.

License condition No. 1 provides for consultation between the applicant and the

Forest Service. During Annual Consultation Meetings, operational and planning

information (e.g. planned valve testing, maintenance activities, monitoring,

construction, vegetation treatments) can be discussed. The Forest uses this

information to minimize user conflicts, particularly for recreation, and to schedule

Forest personnel time to administer the ongoing Project.

Most of the standard conditions (No. 2-5, 12-14, 17) address the Forest Service's

concerns for operation and maintenance of the Licensee's improvements as they may

affect NFS lands. These address approval of changes, maintenance of

improvements, review of existing valid claims and rights to the land occupied by the

Project, compliance with Federal, State, county and municipal laws and regulations,

access, crossings, signs, and landline surveys. The Forest Service is the federal

agency responsible for assuring that management of these Project-affected NFS

lands is in compliance with the Shasta-Trinity National Forests Land and Resource

Management Plan (LRMP), as well as the numerous laws, regulations and agency

policies. Including these standard conditions insures that Project operations are

consistent with these mandates.

The Surrender of License condition (No. 6) would require the Licensee to restore

NFS lands in the event that the license is ever surrendered. This condition

minimizes the risk of the Project improvements being abandoned on NFS lands.

While unlikely, there is a possibility that Project features (transmission lines, dams,

powerhouses, penstocks, and other appurtenant facilities) could be responsible for

damage, injury, death or fires. Since these features are the property of the Licensee

and not the Forest Service, license conditions that require the Licensee to indemnify

the Forest Service and protect against damage, injury, death, risks and hazards

associated with the use and/or occupation of NFS lands authorized by the Project

license are appropriate. Project facilities or activities may pose a threat of fires

and/or other destruction of habitat with resultant losses of resource values.

Therefore, it is prudent that the Licensee is required to take measures to minimize

this fire risk to federal land and human life. These standard conditions (i.e. No. 7-10

and Project-specific Condition No. 33 (Fire and Fuels Management Plan) provide an
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 7

incentive to the Licensee to seek out and eliminate, or minimize risks associated

with their structures and activities and thus protect the public interests.

The remaining standard license conditions (No. 11, 15-16, 18) provide protection

for forest resources on NFS land by requiring consideration and limits to pesticide

application, modifications if other agencies biological or water requirements change,

protection of Special Status Species, and provisions for unanticipated ground

disturbing activities. These conditions assist the Forest Service in managing the

Federal lands occupied by the Project.

PROJECT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS 19-34

Project-specific license condition rationale (#19-34) consists of two parts:

a. Guidance by resource area from Forest Service comprehensive land use

planning and other documents;

b. Specific Section 4(e) rationale by license condition (or grouping of

similar conditions) applicable to this Project.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 8

HYDROLOGY/STREAMFLOW MANAGEMENT, WATER QUALITY,

EROSION, LWD, DREDGING, GRAVEL, AND AQUATIC BIOLOGY

Conditions No. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 27

Implementing the flow management and water resource conditions would achieve

standards, goals, objectives, and direction for the Shasta-Trinity National Forest as

provided for in the Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), which

incorporates the Standards and Guidelines (including the Aquatic Conservation

Strategy) from the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Final Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statement on Management of Habitat for Late-Successional

and Old-Growth Forest Related Species within the Range of the Northern Spotted

Owl (FEIS).

a. Guidance:

Shasta-Trinity Land and Resource Management Plan

Forest Goals

 Provide for continued use and new development of hydroelectric facilities

(4-4.18).

 Provide for the protection, maintenance, and improvement of wild trout

and salmon habitat (4-4.14).

 Maintain or improve riparian habitat (4-5.25).

Standards and Guidelines:

 Maintain riparian area values, particularly when locating and constructing new

roads and trails (4-25.17b).

 Identify and treat riparian areas that are in a degraded condition (4-25.17c).

Management Prescriptions

Riparian Reserves: For fish-bearing Streams, Riparian Reserves consist of the

stream and the area on each side of the stream extending from the edges of the

active stream channel to the top of the inner gorge, or to the outer edges of the 100-

year floodplain, or to the outer edges of riparian vegetation, or to a distance equal to

the height of two site-potential trees, or 300 feet slope distance (600 feet total,

including both sides of the stream channel), whichever is greatest (4-53.1).
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 9

Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives:

 Maintain and restore the distribution, diversity, and complexity of

watershed and landscape-scale features to ensure protection of the aquatic

systems to which species, populations and communities are uniquely

adapted (4-53.1).

 Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity within and between

watersheds. Lateral, longitudinal, and drainage network connections include

floodplains, wetlands, upslope areas, headwater tributaries, and intact refugia.

These network connections must provide chemically and physically

unobstructed routes to areas critical for fulfilling life history requirements of

aquatic and riparian-dependent species (4-53.2)

 Maintain and restore the physical integrity of the aquatic system, including

shorelines, banks and bottom configurations (4-53.3).

 Maintain and restore water quality necessary to support healthy riparian,

aquatic, and wet-land ecosystems. Water quality must remain within the

range that maintains the biological, physical, and chemical integrity of the

system and benefits survival, growth, reproduction, and migration of

individuals composing aquatic and riparian communities (4-53.4).

 Maintain and restore the sediment regime under which aquatic

ecosystems evolved. Elements of the sediment regime include the timing,

volume, rate, and character of sediment input, storage, and transport (4-

53.5).

 Maintain and restore in-stream flows sufficient to create and sustain

riparian, aquatic, and wetland habitats and to retain patterns of sediment,

nutrient, and wood routing. The timing, magnitude, duration, and spatial

distribution of peak, high, and low flows must be protected (4-53.6).

 Maintain and restore the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain

inundation and water table elevation in meadows and wetlands (4-53.7).

 Maintain and restore the species composition and structural diversity of plant

communities in riparian areas and wetlands to provide adequate summer and

winter thermal regulation, nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion,

bank erosion, and channel migration and to supply amounts and distributions of

coarse woody debris sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability (4-

53.8).

 Maintain and restore habitat to support well-distributed populations of native

plant, invertebrates, and vertebrate riparian dependent species (4-53.9).
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 10

Lands

 For hydroelectric and other surface water development proposals, give priority

emphasis to instream flows and habitat conditions that maintain or restore

resources, favorable channel conditions, and fish passage. Coordinate this

process with the appropriate state agencies. During re-licensing of hydroelectric

projects, provide written and timely license conditions to FERC that emphasize

in-stream flows and habitat conditions that maintain or restore riparian

resources and channel integrity (4-57.7b).

McCloud River/Pit Management Area Supplemental Management Direction:

 Continue to develop trail access to and along Squaw Valley Creek and the

McCloud River (4-123.8).

 Evaluate whitewater boating opportunities (4-123.9).

 In cooperation with private landowners, Licensee and the DFG manage

the Upper and Lower McCloud River and Squaw Valley Creek under a

CRMP (4-123.11).

 Maintain or improve selected habitats for coldwater and warmwater

resident fisheries (4-127.3).

 Manage the Pit River for dispersed, water-oriented recreation

opportunities (4-127.5).

Water Quality Management for Forest System Lands in California (USDA Forest

Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2000) Best Management Practices (BMP’s):

 Stabilization of Road Slope Surfaces and Spoil Disposal Areas (#2-4)

 Dispersion of Subsurface Drainage From Cut and Fill Slopes (#2-6)

 Control of Road Drainage (#2-7)

 Control of Sidecast Material During Construction and Maintenance (#2-

11)

 Bridge and Culvert Installation (#2-17)

 Regulation of Streamside Gravel Borrow Areas (#2-18)

 Disposal of Right-of-Way and Roadside Debris (#2-19)

 Specifying Riprap Composition (#2-20)

 Maintenance of Roads (#2-22)

 Snow Removal Controls to Avoid Resource Damage (#2-25)

 Restoration of Borrow Pits and Quarries (#2-27)

 Surface Erosion Control at Facility Sites (#2-28)

 Water Quality Monitoring of Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) Use (#4-7)

 Watershed Restoration (#7-1)

 Protection of Wetlands (#7-3)

 Control of Activities Under Special Use Permit (#7-5)
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 11

 Water Quality Monitoring (#7-6)

b. Rationale to support license condition(s):

Minimum Instream Flow Analysis – Lower McCloud River

The preliminary flow prescription was developed to meet the aquatic and terrestrial

ecosystem Goals and Objectives of the Forest Service’s Shasta-Trinity Land and

Resource Management Plan. The Forest Service flow prescription integrates the

findings of relicensing studies, collaborative input, compliance with applicable

federal law, and staff recommendations while attempting to meet Forest Service

objectives in balancing power production, ecosystem values, and the interests of

Relicensing Participants in the development of the Lower McCloud River Section

4(e) Flow Proposal.

The Forest Service Section 4(e) Proposal can be divided into two predominant

components: a stable summer/winter base flow of 200 cfs, and a variable base flow

period that adjusts to rainfall and snowmelt runoff in the winter/spring to more

closely mimic natural hydrologic conditions. The proposal also includes a ramping

protocol to down-ramp spill events. The Forest Service flow schedule was

predicated on the Shasta-Trinity Land and Resource Management Plan aquatic and

terrestrial ecosystem objectives. Besides broad terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem

goals to maintain healthy ecosystems, specific Riparian Reserve, Aquatic

Conservation Strategy and McCloud River/Pit Management Area Supplemental

Management Directions (described above) were also used to determine the Forest

Service’s preliminary flow prescription.

Specific objectives used to craft the flow proposal include:

Continuity of flow from McCloud Dam to Shasta Reservoir: Currently the

compliance point for the instream flow requirement for the Lower McCloud River is

3.6 miles downstream of McCloud dam at USGS gage 11367800 at Ah-Di-Na

Campground commonly referred to as MC-1 by Licensee. This point is downstream

of the confluence of the McCloud River with Hawkins Creek, Squirrel Creek, and

Fitzhugh Creek. Hence flow from these tributaries is currently counted towards

meeting the instream flow requirement. This allows Licensee to release flows as

low as 40 to 50 cfs from the dam in some time periods since the accretion from

Hawkins Creek alone can exceed 150 cfs. As a result, the 1.2 mile section above

Hawkins Creek experiences a wider fluctuation of flows than the reaches below the

gage. This also diminishes the “natural” variability of flow in the Lower McCloud

by utilizing the variable flow of Hawkins Creek (and other tributaries) to meet the

instream flow release requirement from McCloud Dam. The Forest Service

proposal requires instream flow to be measured as the release from McCloud Dam.

This will ensure more natural flow continuity for the entire reach below McCloud
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 12

Dam and also allow the flows contributed by Hawkins Creek to contribute to the

variability in flow rather than make up the difference in base flow.

Improve the duration, magnitude, and spatial distribution of flows: A review of

the current flow patterns below McCloud Dam versus the inflow to McCloud Dam

shows that not only has the magnitude of base flow been diminished, as would be

expected, but the magnitude and duration of high flow events has been modified.

Specifically the duration of flood events has been significantly shortened, and the

declining limb of the hydrograph for high flow events has been steepened. As

discussed below in the section on Late Winter/Spring Snowmelt Period, these flows

are a key component for most aquatic related biological processes. The flow regime

generated by the “Flow Rule” was developed to address these concerns.

Flow Rule background:

The primary purpose of the flow rule is to introduce variability to the instream

releases in the Lower McCloud River by keying late winter and spring releases to

inflow to McCloud Reservoir. In many relicensing efforts, flow variability is

managed via a concept of “Water Year Types” based on precipitation/runoff

patterns. The McCloud River is strongly groundwater dominated (has a steady

baseflow regardless of long term precipitation patterns) but also exhibits a snowmelt

runoff characteristic.

In California, the Department of Water Resources (DWR) measures and predicts

runoff on a monthly basis through the winter and spring, and has developed a

“Water Year Indices” measure for the Sacramento Valley watershed which includes

the McCloud River. However, closer inspection of the relationship between the

“Indices” and actual McCloud runoff shows that in many years there is no sound

correlation during the winter/spring runoff period. For example, in some years,

intense precipitation in December and January leads to a classification of a “Wet”

water year type, but the actual runoff in February through May is very low.

Therefore, a flow rule based solely on the indices would require higher instream

flows in the late winter and spring months than would be required if the flow was

based on the actual runoff.

To circumvent this problem, the Forest Service developed a flow rule based on “real

time” information to more accurately approximate actual runoff patterns. DWR

publishes a monthly “Bulletin 120” from February through June each year that

includes current snowpack, water content, and precipitation information and an

April through July forecast of runoff. This bulletin includes a specific listing for the

McCloud River at Lake Shasta. The Forest Service flow rule uses this monthly

information to modify flow semi-monthly from February through April. This

allows flows to more closely match actual runoff.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 13

Table A-1 (Appendix 1) provides the historic data from Bulletin 120, and Table A-2

(Appendix 1) shows the resulting base flows from this data and application of the

rule. Table A-2 provides the median monthly flows for the Forest Service flow

proposal over the time frame of Water Years 1974 through 2009. The data for

1974-2006 was developed through the use of a spreadsheet model modifying data

generated from the ResSim Model developed by Licensee (Develop Project

Operations Model, TM-47). For comparison purposes, Table 2-1, below, also

includes the monthly median flow for Licensee’s flow proposal from the FLA as

produced by the ResSim Model, the monthly median flow from the USGS gage data

from MC-1 for the period 1967 through 2006 (post dam), and the monthly median

flow from the USGS gage data at the Upper McCloud (MC-3 above McCloud

Reservoir) for the period of record, 1932 through 2006.

The Forest Service flow proposal generates higher median monthly flows in March

and April and slightly higher flows in May and June than either Licensee’s FLA

proposal or the existing releases. These higher base flows in concert with the slower

down ramping of spill events act to buffer high flow events and improve the

duration and spatial distribution of flow events.

A review of the Graphs (Appendix 1, Pages 4-36) for water years 1974 through

2006 generated by the Forest Service flow rule, shows that the driest years and very

high spill events are nearly identical in results to Licensee’s proposed constant flow

regime. It is the more moderate flow events when the effects of the Forest Service

flow rule are apparent. The chart for WYs 1978 and 1998 shows the Forest Service

flow provides both a higher base flow before and after spill events, and a flatter

declining flow limb after the event as compared to either the existing flow regime or

the FLA proposal. Similar results can be seen in the charts for Water Year (WYs)

1982, 1986, 1989, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1999 and 2000. The greatest difference in

flow is seen in the charts for WYs 1980 and 1999 when moderate spills were

encountered. Notably in 1999, the Forest Service flow rule provides a much more

stable regime with less peaking than the other two (i.e. Licensee’s current and FLA

proposed) regimes.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 14

Further discussion of this data is provided in the Hydrologic Analysis section below.

Table 2-1. Median Monthly Flows as measured at MC-1 (Ah-Di-Na, 3.6 miles

below McCloud Dam) for Forest Service and FLA proposals, compared to

actual flows at MC-1 and MC-3 (Above McCloud Reservoir)

Month FS

Proposal

FLA

Proposal

Actual

MC-1

Gage

Actual

MC-3 Gage

October 215 165 214 758

November 220 170 219 767

December 238 248 196 785

January 286 296 178 819

February 334 312 199 850

March 501 352 214 963

April 427 281 190 1065

May 265 191 209 1080

June 229 179 210 909

July 218 168 207 836

August 214 164 205 803

September 214 164 215 782

Fishery Considerations for Summer/fall/winter Base Flow:

The Forest Service summer/winter base flow schedule (July 1 to February 14) has

been set at a release of 200 cfs from the McCloud Dam. Three main flow studies

(Habitat Criteria Mapping (TM-56), Individual Base Modeling (TM-54), PHABSIM

(TM-74) as well as the macroinvertebrate, fisheries, and riparian vegetation studies

were considered to determine appropriate flows for aquatic and terrestrial biota.

Examination of the results of the Habitat Criteria Mapping on Lower McCloud

River (TM-56) indicates that total available juvenile trout habitat for the Lower

McCloud River upstream of the confluence with Squaw Valley Creek (Upper

Reach) is maximized in the range of 190 to 250 cfs, while total available adult

habitat is maximized at flows between 190 cfs and 280 cfs as measured at gage MC1 (Ah-Di-Na).

The total estimated available juvenile habitat at 190 cfs ranges from 3067 x 103ft2

to 4527 x 103ft2(90% Confidence Interval (CI) range), while the total available

juvenile habitat at 308 cfs ranges from 2436 x 103ft2to 3036 x 103ft2(90% CI

range). The results of t-tests for juvenile trout habitat show a significant difference

(α=0.10) between flows of 190 and 308 cfs for juveniles.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 15

The total estimated available adult trout habitat in the Upper Reach at 190 cfs ranges

from 3958 x 103ft2to 4676 x 103ft2(90% CI range), and at 308 cfs, 3195 x 103ft2to

3885 x 103ft2(90% CI range). The results of t-tests for available adult trout habitat

show a significant difference (α=0.10) between flows of 190 and 308 cfs.

Total available juvenile trout habitat for the Lower McCloud River downstream of

the confluence with Squaw Valley Creek (Lower Reach) is maximized in the range

of 215 to 330 cfs, while total available adult habitat is maximized in the range of

300 cfs to 420 cfs.

The total estimated available juvenile habitat at 273 cfs ranges from 1983 x 103ft2

to 3299 x 103ft2(90% CI range), while total available juvenile habitat at 358 cfs

ranges from 1892 x 103ft2to 2984 x 103ft2(90% CI range). The results of t-tests do

not show a significant difference (α=0.10) for juvenile trout habitat between flows

of 273 and 358 cfs. Variance in the total available habitat area estimates was

relatively large at 273 and 358 cfs compared with the other test flows.

The total estimated available adult trout habitat for the Lower Reach at 273 cfs

ranges from 2281 x 103ft2to 3483 x 103ft2(90% CI range) and at 358 cfs 2448 x

103ft2to 3930 x 103ft2(90% CI range). Both the juvenile and adult predicted

available habitat values overlap between measured flows of 273 and 358 cfs. Again,

the results of t-tests do not show a significant difference (α=0.10) between flows of

273 and 358 cfs (TM-56, p. 23).

Repeated habitat criteria mapping surveys associated with the McCloud River

Instream Flow Study indicates further precision error of ±9.3% for the mean percent

difference of suitable habitat areas between measurements by different sampling

crews for adult and juvenile life stages (TM-56, p. 29).

Due to the lack of precision in these results, it is impossible to determine the precise

flow value that would maximize trout habitat based solely on the HCM study

results. This study would seem to indicate maximal trout habitat somewhere

between 190 and 250 cfs in the Upper Reach, and between 250 and 450 cfs in the

Lower Reach, but a precise estimate of flows that would provide maximal habitat

cannot be accurately determined from this study.

Examining the Individual-Based Model (IBM) Instream Flow Evaluation Technical

Memorandum (TM-54), the results are considered uncertain at best. The Forest

Service asked that the IBM modeling be performed to corroborate the proposed

HCM and 1-D habitat models. The IBM model is still considered experimental but

was considered ripe for use for development in understanding the relationship
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 16

between habitat and bioenergetics, something that has not been possible with the use

of purely habitat based models.

The results of the historic flow record (post-project) and synthesized unimpaired

hydrology (pre-project, for years 1990 through 2007) “flow experiment” for IBM-01

and IBM-02 predict significantly lower numbers of both rainbow and brown trout

under unimpaired than under the historic flow record “where unimpaired flows were

predicted (at IBM-02) to produce near-extinction of trout.” A possible hypothesis

for this apparent discrepancy, presented in the IBM study results, is the fact that

inSTREAM did not include two kinds of movement that could allow adult trout to

persist in a higher flow regime: “migration of adult trout up into the river from

Shasta Lake, and spawning and rearing of juveniles in tributaries where hydraulics

are more favorable.”

Information contained in the Stage 2, Multiple Use Impact Report on the McCloudPit Project (Pacific Gas & Electric Company), Shasta-Trinity National Forest,

Region 5, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA, 1963a) seems to

indicate that fish populations were extremely healthy before the project was built.

The report states “The population density of rainbow trout at the time (pre-project)

was so high that even by the primitive method of set line capture sufficient brood

stock was obtained to supply the heavy demands of the early fish culturists.” It also

indicates “The estimated total run of kokanee salmon into the McCloud and

tributaries is 130,000 fish... The catchable trout fishery that has been developed in

the upper section of the McCloud River is of major importance in Northern

California ... At the present time, fish populations in the lower section of the

McCloud River are entirely self-maintained and provide excellent fishing.”

Fishing pre-project was also known to be excellent in the Upper McCloud River

(Campbell in 1882 claims to have caught one hundred rainbow trout in less than

two hours at Big Springs on the McCloud River (Ballinger, 1998). While this

information is qualitative and not quantitative, it suggests that the IBM study results

that predict near-extinction of trout at higher historical flows are inaccurate and do

not reflect the status of fish populations that were actually present during the preproject unimpaired flow period.

The IBM study also contained several simulations (summer target flow, year-round

target flow, winter flow experiment) which indicate age 1 and older rainbow and

brown trout numbers were generally variable between 100 and 250 cfs as measured

at the MC-1 gage. Even given the uncertainties described above, the IBM study

does not allow for a precise determination of flow in the McCloud River that would

maximize fish populations.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 17

The conclusion the Forest Service draws from the IBM study results is that the IBM

simulations did not incorporate processes that were probably important to preMcCloud, post-Shasta fish population dynamics, specifically stream-network-scale

movements of fish between Shasta Reservoir, the mainstem McCloud, and its

tributaries. Because of this fact, this study and its results are unreliable for use.

We also considered the Lower McCloud River 1-D PHABSIM Analysis (TM-74) in

determining summer/winter base flow recommendations. We have questions

concerning the validity of the conversion of the three dimensional data collected

with the Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) since 1-D models do not use

vertical velocity data. This question makes the model as configured questionable as

compared to a 1-D model which would have collected data in a two dimensional

plane. There were further issues with large negative (upstream) flow velocities at

margin habitats in many transects which normally are not seen in the usual 1-D

study results. Even with these caveats, we examined the Lower McCloud River 1-D

PHABSIM Analysis (TM-74) to see if it would further clarify the uncertainty

associated with the Lower McCloud River Instream Flow Study Technical

Memorandum (TM-56).

This study (PHABSIM Analysis), also included habitat suitability curves (HSC)

requested by the resource agencies that were used and approved by the resource

agencies for use in the PG&E/NIDs Yuba Bear/Drum Spaulding Hydropower

Relicensing Project (YBDS) as a comparison to the binary HCM criteria.

Results from this study show that adult trout habitat in the Upper Reach is

maximized at approximately 225 to 250 cfs for HCM binary HSC, and between 175

to 200 cfs for YBDS HSC (TM-74, p. 27). Adult trout habitat in the Lower Reach is

maximized at 275 cfs for HCM binary HSC (TM-74, p. 27).

Percent of total WUA varies from 79.95 to 79.28 percent at simulated discharges

between 200 cfs and 300 cfs for HCM HSC. At historical base flows of 700 cfs, the

total habitat equals 44.78% (TM-74, p. A6-3) using the HCM HSC. Adult trout

habitat in the Lower Reach is maximized at 200 cfs for YBDS HSC (TM-74, p. 28).

These results from the 1-D study using the binary HCM HSC and the YBDS HSC

show variability between the two data sets. They are also usually within the 90% CI

of the HCM study results. Given the variability exhibited, the Forest Service

concludes that the study results do not provide a more precise definition for optimal

flow values in support of the LRMP objectives for aquatic and terrestrial resources.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 18

The study results from Fish Populations in Project-Affected Stream Reaches

Technical Memorandum (TM-18) describe fish population sampling data (using

night snorkeling methods) gathered in the fall for study years 2007 and 2009. Fish

sampling was conducted at 8 sites during 2007 and 9 sites in 2009 on the mainstem

Lower McCloud River. One fish sampling site was added during 2009 to assess

trout recruitment levels between Hawkins Creek and the McCloud Dam.

Trout densities and biomass increased at all but one sampling site (F-McR-19.7, AdDi-Na) on the Lower McCloud River mainstem from 2007 to 2009, and trout

abundance and biomass was highest at the uppermost site below McCloud Dam (FMcR-23.4). Trout abundance at this site was estimated at 1043.3 fish and 57.6

kg/ac. The two most downstream sites (F-McR-6.0, Tuna Falls and F-McR-1.9,

Shasta Lake) had the lowest trout densities and biomass of all nine sites during both

years of sampling.

On September 19, 2008 the James B. Black Powerhouse was shut down for

emergency penstock repairs. As a result, spill flows were released into the Lower

McCloud River between September 22nd and November 5th, 2008, averaging 913 cfs

(measured at MC-5) during this period. Peak flows of 1411 cfs were measured on

November 2nd, 2008. While no direct correlation can be made between the higher

flow releases into the Lower McCloud River from McCloud Dam and higher trout

densities and biomass that were found in 2009, circumstantial evidence would seem

to indicate that higher flows did not depress fish populations as predicted by the

models developed for the relicensing, but instead may have had a positive effect on

trout recruitment (especially brown trout in the 75 to 149 mm range (Young Of Year

(YOY) length range)) and trout survival during the 2009 water year.

Because of the lack of specificity of the HCM and 1-D PHABSIM model results, the

lack of confidence in the IBM for trout, and the possibility/likelihood that higher

flows produced greater trout abundance and biomass, no “optimal” set of base flows

for the Lower McCloud River could be determined. Consideration instead was

given to the “optimal” ranges of flows provided by the models along with changes

in power generation relative to current operations. Based on the models one could

determine that flows in the range of 175 to 280 cfs in the Upper Reach are adequate.

However, the historic record shows that base flows greater than 700 cfs also

produced substantial trout biomass. The Forest Service chose to set the base flow

for the project at 200 cfs as measured at McCloud Dam, although higher flows may

be more protective of aquatic biota. These flows are being set to provide for growth

and maintenance of trout abundance and biomass during the summer growth period,

to maintain the Lower McCloud River ecosystem, while balancing power

production with ecosystem values.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 19

Late winter/spring Snowmelt Runoff Period Considerations:

The Natural Flow-Regime Paradigm” (Richter et al., 1996; Poff et al., 1997; Lytle

and Poff, 2004 Poff et al., 2006a) has generally been considered appropriate for

California streams (Brown and Bauer, 2009). There is also wide consensus among

aquatic ecologists that alteration of natural flow regimes often results in negative

effects on native biota (e.g. Williams et al., 1993; Webb et al., 1999; Pringle et al.,

2000; Moyle and Mount, 2007). Richter and Thomas (2007) suggest that substantial

ecological benefits can be derived by modifying dam operations to mimic key

aspects of the natural flow regime in situations where the full natural flow regime

cannot be restored.

The McCloud River had mean average base flows of approximately 800 cfs preproject due to the region’s geology, which is characterized by high groundwater

storage. Late-fall, winter and spring flows are characterized by large rainfall runoff

events as well as a well-defined spring snowmelt recession. During this snowmelt

recession period, predictable flow conditions coincide with high resource

availability, resulting in high reproductive success, growth rates, and survivorship

for species adapted to seasonal flow regimes (Gasith and Resh, 1999).

An important component of the February through June flow release schedule is the

principle that the spring snowmelt pulse and recession has important effects on

stream biota. For species adapted to the strong seasonality typical of California

streams, “the spring snowmelt pulse and recession creates a predictable disturbance

that not only resets riparian succession through scour, but provides timing cues for

reproduction and growth” (Naiman et al., 2008). As a result, aquatic and semiaquatic vertebrates often coincide their reproductive activities with the spring

recession so that suitable habitat conditions, temperature regimes and abundant

resources allow for optimal reproduction and growth (Freeman et al., 2001). These

riparian and aquatic successional processes, coupled with elevated food resources,

create conditions conducive to higher level trophism and niche space for species,

such as spring spawning fish and river breeding amphibians (Yarnell, in Press).

These cues are primary drivers in population dynamics such that shifts in the timing

of the spring recession can alter aquatic community composition and diversity

(Jager et al., 1999; Jowett et al., 2005; Marcheti and Moyle, 2001).

In addition to affecting the stream itself, flow alterations from dams affect adjacent

riparian habitats, which are necessary for energy flow, nutrient cycling, water

cycling, hydrologic function, and associated biotic communities. “The timing of

flooding is important to the life cycle of many aquatics and some terrestrial species.

A naturally occurring flood pulse enhances survivability of organisms within the

riparian zone and promotes species diversity and biological productivity.”

Additionally, riparian habitat composition, structure, and productivity are
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 20

determined by these elements (timing, magnitude, duration) of flows (USDA NRCS,

1996).

While riparian habitats in general, as well as Project waterways (i.e. Lower

McCloud River and Iron Canyon Creek) in particular, are limited in both lateral

depth and aerial extent, they are extremely productive, and provide the most diverse

habitat for wildlife. “This is demonstrated most visibly in the western United States,

where riparian habitat comprises less than 1 percent of the total land area at some

times of the year but supports most of the terrestrial wildlife” (USDA NRCS,

1996). Because the benefits of riparian habitat are so vital and yet so limited in

quantity, the need to restore elements that have been degraded by Project operations

becomes even more essential. Disturbing these critical areas has long-term adverse

effects. “Building dams across channels, constructing levees, and the channelization

of the streams may have the most adverse impact. These modifications significantly

alter the movement and storage of water that is so important to the riparian system”

(USDA NRCS, 1996).

This resetting of riparian succession, caused by the natural snowmelt pulse, no

longer occurs downstream of McCloud Dam, according to study results from Assess

Potential Ongoing Project Effects on Riparian Vegetation Community Types in the

Project Area (BR-S4) (TM-65), which documents ongoing project effects on

riparian vegetation community types in the Project area. Findings from this study

show that white alder and blackfruit dogwood woody riparian vegetation, which

formerly grew along the steeper canyon slopes, has encroached onto the gentler

benches that were once under water as part of the McCloud River.

“Migration of species and/or vegetation types from steeper slopes to wider lower slopes in

response to project related hydrologic changes have resulted in increases in cover of these

species, which include white alder and blackfruit dogwood” (TM-65, p. 58, PG&E, 2009).

The river channel, as a result, is narrower and the former shallow-water edge

habitats have been colonized by woody vegetation that is no longer scoured away by

seasonal flooding.

Among the species encroaching into McCloud River shallows are two very

undesirable and aggressive woody species – black locust and Himalayan blackberry.

TM-65 documents that black locust was found in 7 plots and 3 transects; Himalayan

blackberry was found in 30 plots and 11 cross sections. This makes Himalayan

blackberry more common in the study area than one of the dominant woody plants

used in the analysis, blackfruit dogwood, which was found in 26 plots and 8 cross

sections.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 21

There is no analysis per se in TM-65 of changes in abundance or distribution of

black locust or Himalayan blackberry; however the study findings do indicate that

the greatest post-project increases are in wetland indicator species in the Facultative

Wetland (FACW) and Facultative (FAC) categories:

The model indicates 5 to 10 ft2 per linear foot of river increases of FACW and FAC

species based on inundation frequency and much smaller increases based on postProject changes in the flood recurrence interval. Thus, the overall analysis indicates

expansion of FAC and FACW wetland indicator group species under post-Project

conditions. (TM-65, p. 24-25, PG&E, 2009)

Black locust is categorized as a FAC species, and Himalayan blackberry as a FACW

species, so these invasives are the kinds of plants whose habitats are documented in

TM-65 to have increased under Project operation conditions.

Forest Service concerns associated with significant Project effects to the riparian

community are additionally demonstrated by Attachment 3 (TM-65, PG&E, 2009),

which shows large reductions in the average number of days flooded per year, as a

direct result of constructing McCloud Dam. For example, the number of days of

flooding/year for a white alder/mixed herbaceous plant plot (i.e. Plot 4A5) was

reduced from 269 days to 27, following Project implementation. Most plant

associations showed similar reductions, as summarized (averaged by plant

association) in Figure 9 (TM-65).

The Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy, as incorporated into the

Shasta-Trinity Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), provides the

direction to restore natural processes adversely affected by the Project. One of the

objectives states:

Maintain and restore in-stream flows sufficient to create and sustain riparian,

aquatic, and wetland habitats and to retain patterns of sediment, nutrient, and

wood routing. The timing, magnitude, duration, and spatial distribution of peak,

high, and low flows must be protected (LRMP 4-53.6).

These Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) objectives provide the framework to

develop necessary mitigations that address concerns identified in literature, and

borne out by relicensing study results. Thus, flow values for the months of February

through June were developed to satisfy this direction in the Aquatic Conservation

Strategy, and support the ecological principles noted above.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 22

Hydrologic Analysis

Hydroelectric relicensing provides a limited opportunity to restore functionality to these

affected systems. The Shasta-Trinity LRMP recognizes the presence of hydroelectric

facilities through inclusion of the following direction:

 For hydroelectric and other surface water development proposals, give priority

emphasis to instream flows and habitat conditions that maintain or restore

resources, favorable channel conditions, and fish passage. Coordinate this

process with the appropriate state agencies. During re-licensing of hydroelectric

projects, provide written and timely license conditions to FERC that emphasize

in-stream flows and habitat conditions that maintain or restore riparian

resources and channel integrity (4-57.7b).

To determine the type of flow impacts that have occurred in the Lower McCloud

River reaches due to construction of the Project requires a review of the historic

magnitude, timing, duration, and spatial distribution of pre-Project flows. Several

tools were used to assist in this examination: the “inflow to McCloud Reservoir”

data set created for the ResSim Model for Water (PG&E, 2009) Years 1974 through

2006; an unimpaired, synthetic hydrology data set for McCloud River flow at AhDi-Na (USGS gage 11367800 or MC-1) for the same time period; the long term

(WYs 1932 though 2009) data set for the Upper McCloud River above the Reservoir

(USGS gage 11367500 or MC-3) which was used to construct the other two data

sets; and the actual “impaired” data set from MC-1 after the dam was constructed

(WY’s 1967 through 2006). The “Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration” Version 7

Software package (The Nature Conservancy, 2005) was used to generate

comparable statistics for each flow regime. Table 2-2 provides some of the results.

Table 2-2. Hydrologic Statistics for McCloud River (reported as mean daily cfs)

Flow values represent the percentile value of flow for the entire record analyzed.

That is, the “10%tile” value represents the flow value in the entire data record that

is exceeded 90 percent of the time.

Upper

McCloud

USGS

Gage:

McCloud

Res

Model

Inflow

Ah-Di-Na

Unimpaired

Synthetic

data

Ah-Di-Na

USGS

gage post

dam

FS Flow

Proposal

FLA

Proposal

2-year flood event 2,130 3,434 4,664 1,560 3,555 3,599

10-year flood event 5,290 8,153 9,745 8,865 8,954 8,499

Minimum flow 524 585 589 41 202 158

10%tile flow 626 699 714 170 209 159

25%tile flow 734 779 801 185 215 166

median flow 844 929 968 210 230 202

Average flow 920 1,078 1,161 296 369 321

75%tile flow 1,010 1,184 1,267 228 337 300

max flow 11,900 16,540 19,780 25,200 17,380 17,370
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 23

The McCloud Reservoir Inflow data includes the synthesis of accretion flows

between the Upper McCloud gage (MC-3) and McCloud Dam. This accretion is

generally small except with respect to the large flood events. Similarly, the Ah-DiNa unimpaired synthetic data represents the synthesis of accretion flows between

McCloud Dam and the Ah-Di-Na gage, (primarily the impact of Hawkins Creek),

and this accretion is also generally low except for large events.

As would be expected, the mean and median or lower flows at Ah-Di-Na are

reduced approximately 75 to 80 percent by diversion of the Lower McCloud River

(LMR) into McCloud Reservoir and then to Iron Canyon Reservoir, for flows less

than or equal to the average value. Similarly, the 10-year flood event and maximum

flow are approximately the same for the unimpaired and impaired flows at Ah-DiNa. The minimum flow value reflects a change in flow requirements over the term

of the last license; minimum instream flow at the Ah-Di-Na gage was increased

from requiring 40 cfs at the Ah-Di-Na gage initially to the current level.

There is a greater difference between the 2-year flood events and the 75%tile flow

values from the USGS data at the Ah-Di-Na gage and the two flow proposals than

any of the other flow statistics. This reflects the ability of the project to transfer

approximately 1400 cfs of inflow from the McCloud Reservoir to Iron Canyon

Reservoir. Thus, the effect of the project has been to not only lessen daily instream

flows, but to radically change the “moderate” flood events experienced in the Lower

McCloud River. Historically a mean daily flow event of 4,600 cfs occurred every

two years on average; now a flow of only 1,560 cfs occurs at that frequency. This

change means that the riparian corridor and floodplain margins are much less

frequently inundated. The 2-year flood value for the USGS data at Ah-Di-Na is a

more than 6 times greater than the 75%tile value. While the two flow proposals

tend to restore the 2-year flood, the 2-year flood event is now ten times greater than

75 percent of the flows. The unimpaired Ah-Di-Na data shows the 2-year flood is

only 4 times greater and at Upper McCloud, the 2- year flood is just over 2 times

greater. Another indicator is that the 75%tile flow for the existing flow and the two

proposals is actually less than the average flow for the period of record. This

implies that the existing flows are dominated by low flows which would not be

expected if flows were not diverted.

Two-year flood events are generally considered “bankfull” events where the flow

fills and may overtop the channel. The ecological benefit of these flows is generally

associated with supplying organic material and nutrients from river margins to the

channel. They can also provide access to shallow margin areas for aquatic biota,

important as reproductive habitats. As noted above, the relicensing studies

documented changes to the riparian habitat with respect to species composition

(more invasive species) and a concomitant narrowing of the channel as riparian

woody species now occupy channel margins.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 24

To determine the extent of the change, the IHA statistical package can be used to

look at the frequency, timing, magnitude, and duration of “small and large flood”

events (flood events that occur at least every two to ten years for small events and

events that occur at most every 10-years or more for large events). Since the Upper

McCloud gage (MC-3) reflects the approximate inflow to the project and has a very

long period of record, it was used to assess the historic statistics for flood events.

Table 2-3 presents these results. The table presents the flood events that occurred

during the period February 1 through June 30 to represent the most “biologically

active” time period. Floods that occurred prior to this period and did not occur

during this period are not included.

The analysis selected events that had a peak value of at least 2130 cfs, the two year

flood event. Duration of the event is established by determining the first day prior

to the event that the flow exceeded the 75% tile flow value (1010 cfs) and the event

lasts until the flow drops below the 75%tile flow value. Over the 75 year record

analyzed, small or large flood events occurred during the time frame of interest

(February 1 through June 30) in 34 years. The majority of events were “small

floods” (had a recurrence interval of less than 10 years). Large floods with a

recurrence interval greater than 10-years occurred in only 5 years of the record. The

minimum duration of any event was 5 days, 75 percent of the events lasted longer

than 73 days, 50 percent of the events lasted longer than 110 days (average duration

was 118 days), 25 percent of the events lasted longer than 164 days, and one event

lasted more than a year (from January 24, 1983 through June 28, 1984).

The final column in the table shows the “rate of change” for the event, defined as

the difference in flow from the flood base of 1010 cfs to the peak divided by the

time span of the event. For example, this shows that the 1936 flood event rose and

fell at an average rate of 264 cfs per day. This is a very “gross” statistic since the

rising limb of the hydrograph is often much steeper than the descending limb, but it

gives one an idea of the magnitude of rise and fall of these events. The median and

mean values are not similar: the median value is 18 cfs per day, the mean value is 51

cfs per day. This implies that the data is “skewed” towards a slower daily change

and is not distributed evenly around the mean value.

This data illustrates that the aquatic environment of the Lower McCloud River

experienced much longer periods of consistently high flow than occur today from

February 1 through June 30. The flood events were “buffered” by originating at a

higher base flow and returning to a higher base flow. The current flow regime rises

to peak values exceeding 1560 cfs every two years on average, but returns more

quickly to base flows of 200 cfs.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 25

Tables 2-4 through 2-6 show the flood events that currently occur as measured at the

Ah-Di-Na gage, the flood events that would have occurred if the Licensee’s Flow

Proposal in the FLA was in place, and the flood events that would have occurred if

the Forest Service flow proposal was in place during the period starting February 1

(that is floods prior to February 1 are not included). To provide consistency of

analysis, a minimum flow value of 1550 (the current 2 year event at the Ah-Di-Na

gage) was used as the minimum peak flood flow, and the flood “base” value was set

at 740 cfs which provides a flow range comparable to the Upper McCloud flood

flows. Thus, the rate of change for these flows was calculated by determining the

difference between the peak flow and 740 and then dividing by the time span of the

event.

The summary statistics in Tables 2-4 through 2-6 show that none of these flow

regimes retain the “persistence” characteristics of flood events exhibited by the

Upper McCloud flows shown in Table 2-3. The duration of flow events is much

shorter and the flow change per day is much greater. The Forest Service flow

proposal tends to provide slightly longer durations and “lower flow changes” per

day than the either the existing flow regime or FLA proposal. The FLA flows

which are generated by a constant release from the McCloud dam, still exhibit

“pulsing”; peaks separated by a return to a lower flow while the Forest Service

proposal dampens some of that by both downramping spills and setting a higher

base flow which results in a longer duration event.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 26

Table 2-3. Upper McCloud Gage (MC-3) “Flood” Events above 1010 cfs (from

IHA)

WY Beginning

Date End Date Type* Duration (Days)

Peak

Flow

Flow

change

cfs/day

36 2/21/1936 2/25/1936 S 5 2330 264

38 4/4/1938 7/30/1938 S 118 2890 16

40 2/25/1940 5/16/1940 L 82 7540 80

41 2/8/1941 8/5/1941 S 179 3050 11

42 1/23/1942 7/29/1942 S 188 2670 9

53 3/28/1953 7/9/1953 S 104 2130 11

54 3/5/1954 6/27/1954 S 115 3530 22

56 2/201956 7/28/1956 S 160 2750 11

57 2/23/1957 3/26/1957 S 32 3650 83

58 1/29/1958 10/8/1958 S 253 4980 16

59 1/8/1959 6/23/1959 S 167 3830 17

63 3/28/1963 6/30/1963 S 95 2690 18

65 4/5/1965 6/13/1965 S 70 2250 18

67 3/16/1967 7/23/1967 S 130 2150 9

69 3/27/1969 7/14/1969 S 110 2250 11

70 1/13/1970 6/8/1970 L 147 10000 61

71 3/23/1971 7/10/1971 S 110 2130 10

74 1/13/1974 9/2/1974 L 253 10100 36

78 2/5/1978 2/16/1978 S 12 2,350 112

78 3/3/1978 6/9/1978 S 99 2390 14

80 2/17/1980 3/9/1980 S 22 3760 125

82 2/15/1982 7/3/1982 S 139 2910 14

83 1/24/1983 9/30/3983 S 250 4180 13

84 10/1/1983 6/28/1984 S 272 2130 4

86 2/14/1986 4/30/1986 L 76 6490 72

89 3/8/1989 3/20/1989 S 13 2920 147

93 3/16/1993 6/12/1993 S 89 3840 32

95 3/9/1995 4/15/1995 S 38 5050 106

96 2/17/1996 6/3/1996 S 108 3480 23

97 12/28/1996 3/13/1997 L 76 11900 143

98 1/12/1998 9/18/1998 S 250 4420 14

00 2/10/2000 5/31/2000 S 112 2150 10

03 3/14/2003 4/6/2003 S 24 3010 83

04 2/17/2004 3/5/2004 S 18 4070 170

06 2/27/2006 9/30/2006 S 216 2220 6

min 5 4

25%tile 73 11

median 110 18

mean 118 51

75%tile 164 81

max 272 264

*L = Large Flood Event, S = Small Flood Event
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 27

Table 2-4. Flood Events above 740 cfs at Ah-Di-Na (MC-1) gage from actual USGS

data

WY Beginning

Date End Date Type* Duration(Days)

Peak

Flow

Flow

change

cfs/day

69 5/7/1969 5/20/1969 S 14 1550 58

74 3/26/1974 4/15/1974 L 21 11800 527

78 2/6/1978 2/16/1978 S 11 4320 325

78 3/2/1978 3/23/1978 S 22 4090 152

80 2/17/1980 2/23/1980 S 7 4190 493

82 3/1/1982 3/4/1982 S 4 1940 300

82 4/12/1982 4/19/1982 S 8 3910 396

83 2/9/1983 4/11/1983 S 62 5920 84

86 2/14/1986 2/26/1986 L 13 9110 644

86 3/8/1986 3/14/1986 S 7 2000 180

89 3/9/1989 3/13/1989 S 5 3410 534

93 3/17/1993 3/27/1993 S 11 3940 291

95 3/9/1995 3/24/1995 S 16 6978 390

95 4/6/1995 4/14/1995 S 9 5690 550

96 2/17/1996 2/23/1996 S 7 5280 649

96 5/17/1996 5/21/1996 S 5 3620 576

98 1/29/1998 2/10/1998 S 13 2650 147

98 3/22/1998 3/31/1998 S 10 6580 584

00 2/14/2000 2/17/2000 S 4 2720 495

00 2/24/2000 3/1/2000 S 7 1930 170

04 2/17/2004 2/21/2004 S 5 3890 630

06 2/28/2006 3/7/2006 S 8 1860 140

06 3/25/2006 6/1/2006 S 69 3030 33

min 4 33

25%tile 7 161

median 9 390

mean 15 363

75%tile 14 542

max 69 649

*L = Large Flood Event, S = Small Flood Event
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 28

Table 2-5. Flood Events above 740 cfs at MC-1 gage using Licensee’s FLA Proposed

Flow

WY Beginning

Date End Date Type* Duration(Days)

Peak

Flow

Flow

change

cfs/day

74 3/26/1974 4/3/1974 L 9 11950 1246

74 4/6/1974 4/24/1974 S 19 1710 51

78 2/6/1978 2/11/1978 S 6 3774 506

78 3/5/1978 3/13/1978 S 9 2658 213

80 2/17/1980 2/24/1980 S 8 6375 704

82 3/1/1982 3/4/1982 S 4 2062 331

82 4/11/1982 4/26/1982 S 16 4018 205

83 2/9/1983 4/12/1983 S 63 5734 79

84 3/16/1984 3/19/1984 S 4 1771 258

86 2/14/1986 2/26/1986 L 13 8751 616

86 3/8/1986 3/15/1986 S 8 1796 132

89 3/9/1989 3/14/1989 S 6 3816 513

93 3/17/1993 3/26/1993 S 10 4457 372

95 3/9/1995 3/24/1995 S 16 7005 392

95 4/6/1995 4/13/1995 S 8 5057 540

96 2/18/1996 2/24/1996 S 7 4735 571

96 5/17/1996 5/22/1996 S 6 3404 444

98 1/28/1998 2/16/1998 S 20 3658 146

98 3/23/1998 4/3/1998 S 12 5418 390

98 5/25/1998 6/16/1998 S 23 1557 36

00 2/14/2000 2/17/2000 S 4 3559 705

00 2/26/2000 3/2/2000 S 6 2713 329

04 2/14/2004 2/21/2004 S 5 5967 1045

04 2/22/2004 2/28/2004 S 4 2454 429

06 4/2/2006 5/28/2006 S 57 2633 33

min 4 33

25%tile 6 205

median 8 390

mean 14 411

75%tile 16 540

max 63 1246

L = Large Flood Event, S = Small Flood Event
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 29

Table 2-6. Flood Events above 740 cfs at MC-1 gage using Forest Service

Proposed Flow

WY Beginning

Date End Date Type* Duration(Days)

Peak

Flow

Flow

change

cfs/day

74 3/11/1974 5/2/1974 L 53 12140 215

78 2/6/1978 2/17/1978 S 12 3524 232

78 3/4/1978 3/16/1978 S 13 2651 147

80 2/17/1980 3/1/1980 S 14 6069 381

82 3/1/1982 3/10/1982 S 10 2041 130

82 4/11/1982 4/25/1982 S 15 2935 146

83 1/26/1983 2/4/1983 S 10 6367 563

83 2/9/1983 6/12/1983 S 124 5737 40

86 2/14/1986 3/1/1986 L 16 8754 501

89 3/9/1989 3/20/1989 S 12 3821 257

93 3/17/1993 4/2/1993 S 17 3804 180

93 5/31/1993 6/8/1993 S 9 1884 127

95 3/9/1995 3/31/1995 S 23 6660 257

95 4/7/1995 4/17/1995 S 11 3575 258

96 2/18/1996 2/29/1996 S 12 4733 333

96 5/17/1996 5/25/1996 S 9 2682 216

98 2/1/1998 2/17/1998 S 17 3495 162

98 3/16/1998 5/20/1998 S 66 3986 49

98 5/25/1998 6/16/1998 S 23 1553 35

00 2/14/2000 2/24/2000 S 11 3555 256

00 2/26/2000 3/8/2000 S 12 2708 164

04 2/16/2004 2/28/2004 S 13 5717 383

06 3/28/2006 5/28/2006 S 62 2296 25

min 9 25

25%tile 12 138

median 13 215

mean 25 220

75%tile 20 258

max 124 563

L = Large Flood Event, S = Small Flood Event
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 30

Fishability/Boatability

Comparison of Forest Service Outfitter/Guide SUP Commercial Angling Data:

The data in the tables below compares actual (current) flows and FLA flows (both

from PG&E FLA data) and the Forest Service Preliminary 4(e) flow proposal for

dates actually fished during 2002 through 2006 by commercial outfitter and guides

under Forest Service special use permits (SUPs). Data from Forest Service records

are self-declared by Special Use Permit Holders. Since all commercial anglers are

required to have a permit for their use of NFS lands, the SUP data below reflects

when and where commercial operators fished the Lower McCloud River for the

years indicated. (Non-commercial anglers are not required to have a permit, thus

that use is not reflected in the data below). Special Use Permit Holders must supply

the location of their angling, but some do so with greater specificity than others.

When the specific location of the angling was provided (i.e. Ash Camp = AC, or

Ah-Di-Na = ADN) it is indicated below. Otherwise the general Lower McCloud

River (LMR) between McCloud Dam and The Nature Conservancy is assumed.

Most permitted fishing typically occurs in the vicinity of Ash Camp and/or Ah-DiNa, although some could have occurred on isolated Forest Service parcels within

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) ownership. All of the flow data is provided from,

or modeled from, the Ah-Di-Na Gage (MC-1). Further explanation and discussion

of this data follows the tables.

Table 2-7. 2002 Fishing Season Data (Dry water year, flows shown in cfs):

Date Location

(per SUP)

Actual

Flow

(Current)

cfs

FLA

Flow

Proposal

cfs

FS Flow

Proposal

cfs

Fishability Rating by

Flow Type

Actual FLA

FS

May 21 ADN 200 189 239 BO -1 BA -2

July 12 ADN 200 163 200 BO -1 BA -2

October 12 ADN 221 161 211 BA -2

October 21 ADN 222 162 212 BA -2

October 31 ADN 222 162 212 BA -2

November 1 ADN 222 162 212 BA -2

November 2 ADN 222 162 212 BA -2

November 3 ADN 222 162 222 BA -2

TOTAL -2 -16 0

Note: no SUP data available for 2003
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 31

Table 2-8. 2004 Fishing Season Data (Below normal water year):

Date Location

(per SUP)

Actual

Flow

(Current)

cfs

FLA

Flow

Proposa

l

cfs

FS Flow

Proposa

l

cfs

Fishability Rating by

Flow Type

Actual FLA

FS

April 28 LMR 170 288 578 BA -2 AA -2

May 2 LMR 170 213 513 BA -2 AA -2

May 19 Above ADN 200 194 394 BO -1 BA -2 AO -1

May 20 LMR 200 192 392 BO -1 BA -2 AO -1

May 29 LMR 200 186 286 BO -1 BA -2

June 1 LMR 200 184 284 BO -1 BA -2

June 4 ADN 200 183 233 BO -1 BA -2

June 9 LMR 200 182 232 BO -1 BA -2

June 25 LMR 200 176 225 BO -1 BA -2

June 27 LMR 200 175 225 BO -1 BA -2

July 13 LMR 200 170 219 BO -1 BA -2

July 17 LMR 200 168 218 BO -1 BA -2

July 22 ADN 200 166 216 BO -1 BA -2

August 4 LMR 200 164 214 BO -1 BA -2

August 11 LMR 200 162 212 BO -1 BA -2

August 15 LMR 200 162 212 BO -1 BA -2

August 27 ADN 227 167 217 BA -2

Sept 17 LMR 225 165 215 BA -2

Sept 18 LMR 225 165 215 BA -2

Sept 24 ADN 225 165 215 BA -2

Sept 25 LMR 224 164 215 BA -2

October 2 LMR 225 165 215 BA -2

October 3 AC 224 164 215 BA -2

October 6 LMR 224 164 214 BA -2

October 8 LMR 224 164 214 BA -2

October 11 LMR 225 165 215 BA -2

October 12 LMR 224 164 215 BA -2

October 15 LMR 224 164 215 BA -2

October 29 LMR 238 178 228 BA -2

November 4 LMR 210 174 224 BA -2

TOTAL -18 -56 -6
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 32

Table 2-9. 2005 Fishing Season Data (above normal water year):

Date Location

(per SUP)

Actual

Flow

(Current)

cfs

FLA

Flow

Proposa

l

cfs

FS Flow

Proposa

l

cfs

Fishability Rating by

Flow Type

Actual FLA FS

April 30 LMR 170 288 378 BA -2 AA -2

May 2 ADN 170 221 371 BA -2

May 13 LMR 552 532 823 AA -2 AA -2 AA -2

May 20 LMR 1,114 1,116 1,159 AA -2 AA -2 AA -2

June 6 ADN 200 229 279 BO -1

June 13 ADN 200 213 263 BO -1

June 18 LMR 200 273 323 BO -1

June 19 AC 200 256 306 BO -1

June 24 LMR 200 215 265 BO -1

June 25 LMR 200 214 264 BO -1

July 1 LMR 200 204 254 BO -1 BO -1

July 2 LMR 200 204 254 BO -1 BO -1

July 8 LMR 200 200 249 BO -1 BO -1

July 19 AC 200 192 242 BO -1 BA -2

July 28 LMR 200 185 235 BO -1 BA -2

July 29 AC 200 184 234 BO -1 BA -2

August 12 LMR 200 177 227 BO -1 BA -2

August 19 LMR 235 175 225 BA -2

August 22 AC 235 175 225 BA -2

Sept 7 LMR 233 173 223 BA -2

Sept 8 LMR 234 174 224 BA -2

Sept 11 LMR 235 175 225 BA -2

Sept 12 LMR 235 175 225 BA -2

Sept 30 LMR 232 172 222 BA -2

October 6 LMR 234 174 224 BA -2

October 7 AC 234 174 224 BA -2

October 9 LMR 233 173 223 BA -2

November 7 LMR 442 382 432 AO -1 AO -1 AO -1

November

15

AC 210 183 233 BA -2

TOTAL -22 -38 -7
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 33

Table 2-10. 2006 Fishing Season Data (Wet water year):

Date Location

(per SUP)

Actual

Flow

(Current)

cfs

FLA

Flow

Proposal

cfs

FS Flow

Proposal

cfs

Fishability Rating by

Flow Type

Actual FLA FS

June 9 AC 583 585 589 AA -2 AA -2 AA -2

June 27 AC 267 270 262

July 13 LMR 200 199 249 BO -1 BA -2

July 28 LMR 200 185 235 BO -1 BA -2

July 29 LMR 200 185 235 BO -1 BA -2

July 30 LMR 200 186 235 BO -1 BA -2

August 9 AC 200 179 229 BO -1 BA -2

August 12 AC 200 178 227 BO -1 BA -2

August 15 AC 200 176 226 BO -1 BA -2

August 16 AC 200 176 226 BO -1 BA -2

August 26 LMR 200 174 223 BO -1 BA -2

August 27 LMR 200 173 223 BO -1 BA -2

August 29 LMR 200 173 223 BO -1 BA -2

Sept 8 LMR 210 171 221 BA -2

Sept13 LMR 210 170 220 BA -2

October 5 LMR No data No data No data

October 6 LMR No data No data No data

October 24 LMR No data No data No data

October 25 LMR No data No data No data

October 26 LMR No data No data No data

TOTAL -13 -28 -2

Discussion and Summary:

Technical Memo 58 (PG&E, 2009, p. 5) defines fishability (the overall quality of

fishing conditions as they relate to flows), based upon information from a 3-person

focus group, an off-site survey of 12 experienced anglers, angler registration

information from TNC, and reference materials. “Fishability” in this report is

partially based on the ability of anglers and their clients to wade the LMR. Fly

fishing by wading is the predominant angling technique on the LMR (TM-58, P.

15). Sections 5.4 and 5.5 of TM-58 discuss flow evaluations and flow ranges

related to fishability. While this limited group of interviewees had differing

opinions on the range of fishable flows, the median responses stated that flows

between 200 and 475 cfs were “Acceptable” and flows between 210 and 375 cfs

were “Optimal” in terms of fishability (Figure 7). These flow ranges were then used
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 34

to rate the fishability of flows shown in the above tables. Values shown in the right

hand columns of the tables are defined:

 A blank cell indicates that the flows are within the “optimum” flow range of

210-375 cfs

 -1 indicates the flows are either below the optimum (BO) flow of 210 cfs or

above the optimum (AO) flow of 375 cfs, but still within the acceptable

range of flows.. (This subjective ranking is based on the fact that not

achieving “optimum” is less of a negative effect than not meeting the less

stringent “acceptable” fishability flows.)

 -2 indicates the flows are either below the acceptable (BA) flow of 200 cfs or

above the acceptable (AA) of 475 cfs. (This subjective ranking is based on

the fact that not achieving the less stringent “acceptable” parameter is even

further from the fishability goals).

Table 2-11. Summary of Fishability Ratings for three flow proposals (and days

affected):

Rating Actual Flows FLA Flows FS Proposed Flows

Below Acceptable -8 (4 days) -128 (64 days) 0

Below Optimum -40 (40 days) -3 (3 days) 0

Above Optimum -1 (1 day) -1 (1 day) -3 (3 days)

Above Acceptable -6 (3 days) -6 (3 days) -12 (6 days)

Total Score (&

days)

-55 (48 days) -138 (71 days) -15 (9 days)

Forest Service Interpretation:

 The angling dates reviewed are understandably skewed. For example,

anglers did not fish during the early season of wet years such as 2006

when flows were high. The first day commercially fished on NFS lands

in 2006 was June 9th. This is supported in TM-58, P. 18, which states:

“High flows in May and early June 2006 (ranging from 1,000 to 2,500 cfs

as measured at Ah-Di-Na) substantially reduced the number of anglers

and hours fished on the McCloud River Preserve (about one-third of the

use level in 2005). This information suggests many anglers avoid high

flows, but it does not help specify angler preferred flow levels.” (PG&E,

2009). This angler preference does not totally account for why in a dry

year (i.e. 2002) the first guided angling trip was not until May 21st, when

optimum fishability (flows between 210 and 375 cfs) was available from

the opening day of angling season that year, almost a month earlier.

Obviously factors other than spring flows are considerations in
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 35

commercial guiding. Although skewed away from higher flows, this data

is valuable in that it represents actual dates angled in the recent past by

commercial guides; thus providing an ideal template for comparison of

how both the FLA and Forest Service flow scenarios would have actually

impacted commercial angling use had they been in place.

 If the Forest Service flows had been in place during the above years, it

appears they may have affected the fishability by a rating of -15 (or 9

days) by being either above optimum or above acceptable. However, by

looking at the data above (as well as data in TM-58 from Babcock and

Fowler at TNC), it is also clear that both commercial and TNC anglers do

fish flows that are both above optimum and acceptable. From the Forest

Service data, in 2005 these flows and dates included: 552 cfs (May 13),

1,114 cfs (May 20), and 442 cfs (November 7), and for 2006 – 583 cfs

(June 9). These four days are part of the nine days that do not meet either

the Above Optimum or Above Acceptable criteria in the Forest Service

flow proposal. Thus, only five days could have potentially affected

fishability over four seasons of actual commercial angling days, had the

Forest Service flow proposal been in place. Since each fishing season is

175 days long (TM-58), or 700 days for the four years of data, the five

days would have amounted to less than a 1% impact (0.007) to

commercial guiding fishability. Since some outfitter/guiders have chosen

to fish on days that exceed both optimum and acceptable fishability, the

actual impact may be even less.

 On the opposite end of the scenario spectrum, the FLA proposed flows

impact the fishability of the LMR with a rating of -138 (71 days). The

vast majority of these days (64) are below acceptable. TM-58 (Section

5.7) includes a discussion of anglers concern with low base flows in the

summer under the actual (current) scenario where only 4 days are below

acceptable, compared to 64 days in the FLA proposal: “There was some

discussion about whether higher base flows would increase feeding

activity (via lower temperatures or more dissolved oxygen). For ethical

and conservation reasons, some anglers stop fishing the McCloud in late

July or early August as temperatures rise. Some anglers noted that

temperature or oxygen-stressed fish are listless and less fun to catch.”

Additionally, other text (at 5.6.2) states: “Some interviewees and

Ballinger (1998) suggested that lower dam releases may have biological

effects (especially warmer temperatures), or diminish the amount of

fishable water (due to rocks in drifts).” Although temperature and

dissolved oxygen levels were not cited as Project-induced concerns by

relicensing participants on the LMR, some anglers have modified summer

fishing patterns and expressed concerns based on their observations while

angling.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 36

 The actual (current) flow scenario falls between the above two for

impacts to fishability with an overall rating of -55 and 48 days being

adversely affected. The greatest area of affect is 40 days of below

optimum flows.

 It is difficult to assign a specific flow at which the McCloud River is no

longer wadeable by anglers because it is dependent upon many factors

including: flow velocity, river stage height, anglers height (above midthigh wading becomes more difficult), fitness, experience, etc. TM-58

makes no attempt to state a specific wadeable flow, but instead

incorporates that factor (i.e. wadeability) into a broader discussion of

fishability. For the same reasons, the Forest Service has not attempted to

define “wadeable” flow.

 While the current preference for angling technique is wading based flyfishing, it can, and has been different. Under pre-project conditions with

base flows of approximately 800 cfs, the river contained more trout

biomass than currently is present, and was also a world-renowned fishery

(USDA, 1963a), as it still is today. However, angling techniques and

technology pre-Project differ from today. There are ways to fish a river

other than by wading, such as shore fishing, which could be utilized

during higher spring flows. Additionally, many anglers today utilize

small rafts and sophisticated float tubes to access portions of rivers that

aren’t easily accessible by foot. This is recognized in TM-58, where it

addresses that higher flows may increase access-based boating use by

anglers. There was also agreement among anglers that new fishing “hot

spots” would emerge in response to new higher base flows, and that these

might evolve over time (PG&E, 2009, TM-58).

 TM-58 appropriately recognizes and discusses that fishability (fishing

conditions) and fish habitat (health) are not the same thing (Section 5.8).

Only 25% of the respondents were willing to support improving fishing

habitat over fishable flows. However, the majority (58%) agreed with a

modified support that stated: “It depends on the flow increase – but I

generally support balancing habitat improvement and good fishing

conditions.” In response to more detailed trade-off questions between

higher base flows and habitat/fish population improvements, some

conclusions were drawn:

o Anglers did not support increased base flows if there was a

decrease in fish habitat.

o If higher flows produced fishery benefits, anglers generally

supported them for flows that were slightly higher (e.g. flows of

250-300 cfs), but substantially higher base flows (e.g. 400-450 cfs)

were less acceptable regardless if there was a 50% or 100%

increase in habitat benefits.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 37

o There was very little difference in evaluation results between 50%

and 100% benefits.

 Finally, it became clear during relicensing that since gage data has not been

publicly available at MC-1 (Ah-Di-Na) until recently, many anglers do not

know the actual flows which they have fished for years. TM-58 Section 5.3

discusses if anglers use the stream gages, and if so, which ones. However, it

assumes that anglers know the correlation between the gage reading and the

actual instream flow. Since this information was not available until past

year or so, some anglers are now saying they had assumed that the flows

they were fishing were what was released at the dam. However dam

releases do not include tributary accretion, most significantly Hawkins

Creek, which can exceed 100 cfs in the spring. Other anglers understand the

correlation between dam releases and flows at Ah-Di-Na, while others just

estimate flows based on personal knowledge. Therefore, angler survey data

in TM-58 was provided from a variety of understandings and perspectives.

This may account for the wide range of what mainly commercial anglers

said provided the best flows for fishability in TM-58.

One commercial angler who sent the Forest Service several electronic messages

concerning an early Forest Service flow proposal provided this comment about the

flows at Ah-Di-Na:

“Without getting into too much analysis it is safe to say that the mean

suggested flows for June through November (February if you wish to

consider after the fishing season closes November 15th) are clearly much too

low for optimum angling and habitat. Flows should be about 50% higher,

somewhere between 300 & 400 cfs as I mentioned in my previous e-mail. I

have fished it extensively this season at recent flows of 260 and 280 cfs at the

Ah Di Na gage and it has made this crystal clear, as it is possible to cross at

all the usual places but some pocket water that fishes well at higher flows no

longer holds fish so we are losing habitat and angler carrying capacity. I

would REALLY enjoy fishing flows at and around 400 cfs (and know what

they were at the gage) to better refine the optimum flows for angling carrying

capacity and habitat. Chris at the Nature Conservancy tells me that the

difference between 200 & 400 cfs at their gage is only about 2”.

Previous McCloud recreational test flows were best suited for studying whitewater

use and as a result were much too high to get meaningful data on fishing which is

clearly the most important and popular recreational use on the McCloud” (Forest

Service Project files).

One other concern of anglers is that the implementation of the Forest Service flow

proposal would reduce the opportunity to fish on opening day since flows would be
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 38

too high. The following table shows the differences in opportunity to fish assuming

that flows at MC-1 need to be below 350 cfs to be fishable. The “Days Lost”

column lists the number of days that fishing opportunities would have been

foregone if the Forest Service proposed flows had been in place. The other two

columns either report that flows were below 350 cfs at MC-1, hence fishing was

available, or report the flow condition from opening day until flows drop to 350 cfs

and fishing becomes available. The value of 350 cfs is arbitrary but appears to be

near the upper limit of optimal fishing conditions in the vicinity of MC-1.

Table 2-12 below, shows that the Forest Service Flow Proposal would have affected

the opportunity to fish by wading between 25 and 30 days in 3 years (1978, 1984,

and 2004), between 10 and 20 days in four years (1980, 1986, 2000, and 2005),

between 4 and 9 days in four years (1993, 1995, 1996, and 1997). In 22 years there

would have been no loss of opportunity. It should be noted that all of the days

shown as lost had flows less than 625 cfs, and most were less 450 cfs, which may

actually be fishable according to the commercial guide reports. The other consistent

factor is that the Forest Service proposed flows dropped to 350 cfs or less by

Memorial Day weekend in all years when existing flows allowed fishing on

Opening day of fishing season.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 39

Table 2-12. Changes in Fishing Opportunities Relative to Opening Day based on

350 cfs at MC-1

WY

Type

Year Days

Lost

Fishing Condition for

Existing flow at MC-1

Fishing Condition if FS proposed

flows had been in place at MC-1

W 1974 0 Flow high until June 20 Same conditions

W 1975 0 Flow high until June 11 Same conditions

C 1976 0 Fishing available opening day Same conditions

C 1977 0 Fishing available opening day Same conditions

AN 1978 30 Fishing available opening day

Flow high until May 25 (just before

Memorial Day); Flow is 625 cfs on

Opening day dropping down to 350 cfs

on May 25

BN 1979 0 Fishing available opening day Same conditions

AN 1980 16 Fishing available opening day

Flow high until May 10: Flow is 460

cfs on Opening day dropping down to

350 cfs on May 11

D 1981 0 Fishing available opening day Same conditions

W 1982 0 Flow high until May 29 Same conditions

W 1983 0 Flow high until July 3 Same conditions

W 1984 27 Fishing available opening day

Flow high until May 24 (just before

Memorial Day); Flow is 550 cfs on

Opening day dropping down to 350 cfs

on May 25

D 1985 0 Fishing available opening day Same conditions

W 1986 12 Fishing available opening day

Flow high until May 7; Flow is 400 cfs

on Opening day dropping down to 350

cfs on May 8

D 1987 0 Fishing available opening day Same conditions

C 1988 0 Fishing available opening day Same conditions

D 1989 0 Fishing available opening day Same conditions

C 1990 0 Fishing available opening day Same conditions

C 1991 0 Fishing available opening day Same conditions

C 1992 0 Fishing available opening day Same conditions

AN 1993 7 Fishing available opening day

Flow high until Apr 30; Flow is 430

cfs on Opening day dropping down to

350 cfs on May 1

C 1994 0 Fishing available opening day Same conditions

W 1995 5 Flow high until May 13 Flow high until May 18

W 1996 4

Fishing available opening day;

spill event occurs May 17 - 26

Same conditions but spill lasts until

May 30 due to ramping

W 1997 6 Fishing available opening day

Flow high until May 1; Flow is 420 cfs

on Opening day dropping down to 350

cfs on May 2

W 1998 0 Flow high until July 3 Same conditions
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 40

WY

Type

Year Days

Lost

Fishing Condition for

Existing flow at MC-1

Fishing Condition if FS proposed

flows had been in place at MC-1

W 1999 0

Flow bounce but are generally

high (400-500) until June 3

(10 days are fishable)

Flow consistently high until May 27;

Flow is 663 cfs on Opening day

dropping down to 350 cfs on May 28

AN 2000 19 Fishing available opening day

Flow high until May 17 - Flow is 500

cfs on Opening day dropping down to

350 cfs on May 18

D 2001 0 Fishing available opening day Same conditions

D 2002 0 Fishing available opening day Same conditions

AN 2003 0 Flow high until May 8 Same conditions

BN 2004 27 Fishing available opening day

Flow high until May 20 - Flow is 600

cfs on Opening day dropping down to

350 cfs on May 21

AN 2005 14 Fishing available opening day;

spill event May 9 - 27

Flow is 380 cfs on Opening day; then

same spill but lasts until May 30

W 2006 0 Flow high until June 20 Same conditions
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 41

In addition to fishability, there have been many opinions expressed about

whitewater boating flows. According to TM-58, there are three primary

opportunities for boating in the Lower McCloud River: Access Boating primarily

for fishing access, technical whitewater boating, and big flow whitewater boating.

The TM notes that access boating is difficult at flows less than 200 cfs and becomes

difficult at flows above 500 cfs. Technical whitewater boating occurs at flows

above 700 cfs but below 1000 cfs. Flows between 1000 cfs and 3000 cfs provide

big whitewater flows. Flows above 3000 cfs are unsuitable and dangerous for

boating. (Flows measured at MC-1). A consensus of boaters picked 800 cfs as the

“optimum’ flow. Table 2-13 below, compares the number of days available for

access boating and whitewater boating under the current flow regime and the Forest

Service proposed flows for the period April 1 through July 31. These flows are

opportunistic; that is they are not “prescribed” in the Forest Service proposal but are

generated as a consequence of the flow regime.

In terms of access boating, since the current regime (and the FLA) allows flows to

drop below 200 cfs in some months, those days were scored as not available. The

Forest Service proposal always has flows greater than 200 cfs at MC-1. Thus, if the

value in the Forest Service access boating column is less than 122 (the number of

days in the period reviewed), it implies flows are greater than 500 cfs and not

suitable (too difficult) for access boating. The Forest Service proposed flow regime

provides many more access boating days than currently exists, especially in drier

years. In terms of whitewater boating, the Forest Service proposed flow regime is

not significantly different than the current flow regime, however, it does provide a

few more days in wetter years. In TM-24, (an earlier version of TM-58) (p. 25) it

was noted that whitewater boating for kayaks begins around 500 cfs with optimal

flows at 800 cfs. If flows in the range of 500 cfs to 700 cfs were included, there

would be more whitewater boating days available in the moderate water years.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 42

Table 2-13. Available Boating days between April 1 and July 31 as measured at

MC-1

Year WY

Type

Number of Whitewater Boating

days at flows between 700 cfs to

3000 cfs

Number of Access Boating Days

at flows between 200 to 500 cfs

Forest Service

Proposal

Existing Flows

at MC-1

Forest Service

Proposal

Existing Flows

at MC-1

1974 W 32 27 59 62

1975 W 16 16 89 61

1976 C 0 0 122 0

1977 C 0 0 122 0

1978 AN 19 2 81 89

1979 BN 0 0 122 78

1980 AN 0 0 98 78

1981 D 0 0 122 76

1982 W 21 15 81 75

1983 W 73 67 42 42

1984 W 0 0 85 78

1985 D 0 0 122 76

1986 W 0 0 121 77

1987 D 0 0 122 76

1988 C 0 0 122 0

1989 D 0 0 122 79

1990 C 0 3 120 4

1991 C 0 0 122 76

1992 C 0 0 122 77

1993 AN 11 5 95 90

1994 C 0 0 122 0

1995 W 9 13 85 98

1996 W 8 5 109 73

1997 W 0 0 120 76

1998 W 70 54 36 41

1999 W 22 0 79 105

2000 AN 2 4 93 84

2001 D 0 0 122 76

2002 D 0 0 122 76

2003 AN 0 2 119 99

2004 BN 3 0 86 79

2005 AN 13 9 91 76

2006 W 59 58 49 50
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 43

A concern was expressed by some relicensing participants that the Forest Service

flow proposal gave preference to the boating advocacy group over angling. Both

angling and whitewater boating are appropriate uses of NFS lands and are allowed

in the LRMP (USDA, 1995). (Commercial whitewater boating is not currently

permitted on the LMR following a Forest Service review and decision to deny an

application for that use some years ago. This prohibition of commercial whitewater

boating was also adopted as a policy by the McCloud River Coordinated Resource

Management Group).

As presented at the beginning of this section, the LRMP provides guidance that

focuses the Forest Service’s development of aquatic measures for the Lower

McCloud River on the achievement of resource objectives outlined in the Aquatic

Conservation Strategy. This has been the Forest Service objective throughout this

relicensing. While the Forest Service flow proposal will provide for a limited

number of whitewater boating opportunity days on the naturally descending spring

limb of the hydrograph (slightly increased over current flows), it is by no means a

whitewater boating flow proposal. Likewise, while the flow proposal should

achieve improved fishability objectives, this is a consequence of the Forest Service

goal to achieve improved resource conditions for the aquatic and aquatic-dependent

biota. Thus, while this section of the rationale on fishability and boatability

provides insight into the Forest Service perspective and considerations in

developing the Preliminary 4(e) flow proposal, neither were used as a determining

factor for setting the instream flow releases.

Minimum Instream Flow Analysis – Iron Canyon Creek

Iron Canyon Reservoir was constructed primarily to serve as the forebay for the JB

Black powerhouse by storing water transferred from the McCloud River. The

capture of local instream flow was not a primary purpose of Iron Canyon Reservoir.

One could therefore argue that the flows below Iron Canyon Reservoir should be

equal to the inflow to the reservoir. Table 2-14 compares the synthesized

unimpaired mean monthly flows for Iron Canyon Creek constructed from local

creek flow data that was provided in the FLA, with area corrected flow generated

from data collected at the Iron Canyon Gage (PH 46) (located above the confluence

of Iron Canyon Creek with the Pit River). There is a great discrepancy in this

comparison in the winter and spring runoff values, but the low flow months of June

through November are relatively similar. These values also show that prior to the

construction of Iron Canyon Dam, winter flows were relatively high in Iron Canyon

Creek. Anecdotal information from anglers indicate that the fishery was excellent

prior to the construction of the dam, hence the flows required by the Forest Service

flow proposal should have no deleterious effects on the fishery in the lower reaches

where accretion from tributaries will substantially increase the minimum flow

release.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 44

Table 2-14. Licensee’s Gage PH 46 Mean Monthly Flows vs. Synthetic unimpaired

flow for Iron Canyon Creek

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

PH46

11 13 62 96 153 94 81 39 20 11 7 7

Synthetic

6 21 42 67 78 79 46 26 14 8 6 5

The FLA documents that the upper reaches of Iron Canyon Creek are severely

encroached by vegetation and also store large amounts of sediment. Much of this

sediment is from a Project road (37N78A) eroding into the creek. The Licensee has

worked with the Forest Service to implement erosion control measures to remedy

the sediment introduction. However, the lack of high flows to move this sediment

and the presence of Project-induced vegetation encroachment limits the ability of

the creek to move the sediment.

Spill does not occur at Iron Canyon Dam. Flow out of Iron Canyon Reservoir is

currently limited by the capacity of the instream flow control release valve, which

according to the FLA may be able to release as much as 30 cfs when the reservoir is

full. The only other mechanism to increase flows to mobilize sediment is during

annual dam safety valve testing operations. The Forest Service flow proposal

incorporates both mechanisms to assist with sediment mobilization and some

vegetation removal by high flows. The Forest Service instream flow proposal

requires the Licensee to fully open the instream flow release valve during March

and April in Wet water years, which should release flows of at least 20 cfs up to

flows of 30 cfs. The Forest Service instream flow proposal further requires that dam

safety valve testing should only occur between March 5th and 15th when the highest

instream flows are released to minimize impacts to reproductive success of spring

breeding aquatic organisms. These flows should also be kept to the minimum level

allowable (possibly in the range of 150 cfs) to minimize channel damage. Ramping

rates are prescribed to minimize impacts to mobile aquatic biota.

Two other sources of information assisted in determining the minimum instream

flow releases for Iron Canyon Creek: the “effective” habitat analysis of values

generated by the PHABSIM model and the channel cross sections collected for the

PHABSIM analysis.

The WUA Tables A-3 through A-5 (Appendix 1) show that when considering

“effective” habitat (cells with a value of 0.4 or greater) that adult habitat is

optimized at any flow greater than 45 cfs, spawning habitat is best at flows between

8 and 38 cfs, and juvenile habitat is optimized at 8 to 80 cfs (as highlighted in green
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 45

on the tables). The other consideration is that there is no “most effective” adult

habitat in the 0.8 to 1.0 range until flows exceed 6 cfs.

Figure A-1 (Appendix 1) shows channel cross-section 10, a low-gradient riffle

generated from the Physical Habitat Simulation Model (PHABSIM) results. Review

of all of the cross-sections show that flows need to exceed 8 cfs before the entire

channel and its margins are filled to some extent. Flows in the range of 16 to 20 cfs

provide some depth of flow in side channel areas.

There is a wide range of possibilities for an Iron Canyon flow regime. Base flow in

the range of 7 to 10 cfs would be suitable for juveniles in the summer/fall period of

July through October, and a spawning period flow in the range of 20 to 40 cfs is

appropriate for March and April.

Minimum Instream Flow Analysis – Pit River

After completion of Shasta Dam, but prior to the completion of the facilities for

the Pit 6 and Pit 7 Powerhouses, white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus)

utilized these reaches of the Pit River for spawning. The construction of the Pit

7 Dam blocked this run, thereby preventing the recruitment of new individuals to

the land locked sturgeon population residing in Shasta Lake. As the population

can no longer spawn, augmenting this population with young fish, as discussed

in Recommendation No. 2 (Enclosure 3, P. 2) would provide a continuing supply

of sturgeon to the lake, and would improve this sport fishery over time.

For other fish species, the Pit River below the Pit 7 and afterbay dams are a

highly modified environment that have altered the native fish assemblage.

Allowing for the interbasin transfer of water from McCloud River to the Pit

River for hydropower production limits options for restoring the pre-project

aquatic environment through instream flow mitigations. Therefore, we support

the Licensee’s proposal to maintain the current 150 cfs minimum flows below

the Pit 7 Dam.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 46

Erosion Control and Monitoring

Inventory and Assessment of Erosion and Sediment from Project Construction,

Operation, and Maintenance TM-67 included a comprehensive database of erosion

sites and an associated index of erosion severity (i.e., erosion potential, sediment

delivery potential, and potential to affect Project infrastructure) at each site. Fiftysix sites were ranked as having high erosion potential. These erosion sites, as well

as erosion associated with natural processes and/or Project operation and

maintenance, could affect water quality, aquatic habitat, and public health and safety

within the Project Boundary. The primary purpose of this measure is to manage

existing erosion and minimize future erosion and sediment delivery to stream

channels.

The Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended, establishes goals, policies and

procedures for the maintenance and improvement of the Nation’s waters. The act

addresses both point and nonpoint sources of pollution and establishes or requires

programs for the control of both sources of pollution.3

The Forest Service must be responsive to the environmental intent, goals and

objectives provided by the Clean Water Act, as amended.4The Forest Service is

directed to correct water quality problems on the National Forests and perpetually

implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) for all management activities on

NFS lands. Best Management Practices have been developed for water quality

protection associated with all management activities. Practices particularly relevant

to management of the McCloud-Pit Project include the following:

 All 28 BMPs for Road and Building Site Construction Practices. In

addition to addressing all road/facility maintenance and construction

activities this category also contains BMPs that address restoration of

borrow pits and quarries;

 BMPs for Recreation Practices.

3 USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2000. Water quality management for Forest System lands

in California, p. 2.

4 USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2000. Water quality management for Forest System lands

in California, p. 3.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 47

Turbidity Monitoring:

As noted in the FLA: “Project operations influence the volume, rate, and timing of

downstream discharges of suspended sediments from McCloud Reservoir,

including... (3) alteration of sediment transport characteristics through the reservoir

and into the Lower McCloud River...” (PG&E, 2009, p. 3-109). The Licensee has

indicated that existing turbidity monitoring at MC-5 fulfills the need for turbidity

monitoring on the Lower McCloud River as identified in the Water Quality

Monitoring Plan. The Forest Service feels that data from MC-5 could be improved

upon by providing real-time turbidity data at or above Gage MC-7 in order to

address concerns raised during studies that fishing quality was strongly affected by

turbidity. While use of the multi-level gates and valves to manage turbidity from

McCloud Reservoir may not be practical, adequate notification of turbidity events

could help inform anglers. Adding a turbidity monitor just below the dam would

provide real time turbidity information for the portion of the river most actively

fished.

Using the October 2007 turbidity event as an example:

Turbidity travel time is 14 hours (20 hours to peak) from Gage MC-7 to MR4A

(Claiborne Creek Confluence). Travel time is 32 hours (38 hours to peak) from

MR4A to MC-5 (current gage location). Therefore total non-peak turbidity travel

time from Gage MC-7 to MC-5 is 46 hours (14 + 32) indicating that an event could

be moving through the McCloud River for 46 hours or almost 2 full days before the

turbidity monitoring station at MC-5 alerts anglers that an event is occurring. Realtime turbidity data at MC-7 would provide an indication of maximum turbidity

levels in the first reach of the River (MC-5 turbidity levels are diluted), and provide

an alert of the start of an event (as opposed to 1.5 – 2 days after the event starts)

allowing anglers to change their plans and improving the ability of the Forest

Service to alert anglers as to the status, duration and intensity of turbidity events in

the Lower McCloud River.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 48

Figure 2-1. Lower McCloud River.

Photo taken on August 18, 2008 from the road above Gage MC-7 station looking

upstream towards the dam. Turbidity: 271 NTU. (FLA Figure A2-21)

Gravel:

The rationale for gravel and coarse sediment augmentation in the Lower McCloud

River below McCloud Dam is derived from Forest Service management direction,

the Final License Application, and information from Assessment of Channel

Morphology and Fluvial Geomorphic Processes in the Lower McCloud River (GSS2) TM-68. The rationale is also supported by a practical approach to introducing

gravel and coarse sediment to the river (see below).

This license condition is consistent with the Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and

Resource Management Plan (LRMP) and the Record of Decision (ROD) for the

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Management of Habitat for

Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species within the Range of the

Northern Spotted Owl (FEIS). The LRMP provides management direction as well

as Standards and Guidelines for Riparian Reserve Management that supports

replenishing gravel in the Lower McCloud River below McCloud Dam.

Additionally, this condition would achieve Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS)

Objective #5 from the LRMP, which directs the Forest Service to ‘Maintain and

restore the sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems evolved. Elements of

the sediment regime include the timing, volume, rate, and character of sediment

input, storage, and transport’ (LRMP, 4-53).
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 49

Forest Standards and Guidelines for the Lands Program contain direction that

applies to relicensing hydroelectric projects in non-Key watersheds (i.e. Lower

McCloud River Watershed). ‘During re-licensing of hydroelectric projects, provide

written and timely license conditions to FERC that emphasize in-stream flows and

habitat conditions that maintain or restore riparian resources and channel integrity’

(LRMP, 4-57).

The rationale for the Forest Service to adhere to the aforementioned management

direction is strengthened by the location of NFS lands along the Lower McCloud

River. The majority of the lower river flows through private lands, however the

largest river reach located on NFS lands extends downstream from approximately

0.2 miles above Hawkins Creek confluence to the Nature Conservancy property

located less than 0.1 miles above Lady Bug Creek confluence for a total distance of

approximately 4 1⁄2 miles. Gravel and coarse sediment augmentation below the dam

would have the greatest benefits to this reach of the McCloud River.

Volume II of the Final Application for New License for the McCloud-Pit

Hydroelectric Project (PG&E, 2009) provides information that supports the

rationale for augmentation of gravel and coarse sediment in the Lower McCloud

River below McCloud Reservoir. The FLA provides the following information that

characterizes the sediments that have accumulated in McCloud Reservoir. The FLA

notes that ‘Debris flows originating from the unconsolidated inner gorge slopes of

Mud Creek Canyon high on the southeast flank of Mt. Shasta... historically

delivered large quantities of fine sediment (sand and finer) to the Upper McCloud

River during summer months, and sediment delivery from debris flows in Mud

Creek constitutes a large fraction of the sediment currently stored in McCloud

Reservoir’ (PG&E, 2009, Vol. II, p. 3-3). The FLA also states that ‘Tributaries

draining steep topography in the Eastern Klamath Terrane and Western Cascades

Terrane surrounding McCloud Reservoir (e.g., Angel, Lick, and Star City Creeks)

historically delivered the majority of the coarse sediment to McCloud River

upstream of McCloud Dam, and sediment delivery from these tributaries constitutes

the majority of the coarse sediment (>2 millimeters) stored in McCloud Reservoir’

(PG&E, 2009, Vol. II, p. 3-4). These statements indicate that tributaries to the

McCloud Reservoir and not the remainder of the watershed area supplied the bulk of

the coarse sediments to the lower river. The fact that the Mud Creek contribution

constitutes the majority of the material (sand and finer) stored in the reservoir

highlights the importance of Star City Creek and the other reservoir tributaries as

being the dominant suppliers of coarse sediment to the river in the first 7 to 8

kilometers (4.3 – 5 miles) below McCloud Dam, prior to the Project’s inception. If

the Star City Creek inlet was chosen as the gravel/sediment source, one of the

largest sediment producing tributaries would again be contributing gravel and coarse

sediment to the Lower McCloud River.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 50

The FLA also notes that ‘Similarity in the size of coarse sediment supplied by major

tributaries and the size of mobile deposits in the mainstem Lower McCloud River

emphasizes the importance of coarse sediment inputs from major tributaries in

supplying the mobile sediment fraction (including spawning gravel size classes) to

the McCloud River downstream of McCloud Dam. Bulk sampling results suggested

that major tributary sediment inputs fine the bed, and that the mainstem channel bed

coarsens with increasing distance from major tributaries’ (PG&E, 2009, Vol. II, p.

3-6). Gravel and coarse sediment augmentation below McCloud Dam would likely

have a similar effect on the channel bed below the dam and mimic patterns of

sediment deposition created below downstream tributary confluences in the Lower

McCloud River. Gravel introduction below McCloud Dam would have the effect of

adding one more tributary (i.e. Star City Creek) to the Lower McCloud River as a

gravel and sediment supplier to the most supply limited reach of the river.

The FLA notes that ‘Under unimpaired conditions, the Lower McCloud River was

likely supply- limited (i.e., annual bedload transport capacity exceeded annual

coarse sediment supply) from McCloud Dam to at least Bald Mountain Creek.

However, reaches with relatively low stream power and sediment transport capacity

currently store mobile sediment in patches associated with large roughness elements

(e.g., boulders and bedrock outcrops), local backwater effects from channel or

valley width contraction, local flow expansion from channel or valley widening, and

high local sediment supply relative to local bedload transport capacity. Mobile

coarse sediment is also commonly distributed in thin, discontinuous, and transitory

sheets within a bed of immobile framework grains’ (PG&E, 2009, Vol. II, pgs. 3-10

and 3-15). These excerpts from the FLA suggest that, while the McCloud River is

supply-limited, there are storage areas that could trap or temporarily hold a

proportion of the introduced gravels and sediment.

While the Lower McCloud River would remain supply-limited, the reduced flow

regime would likely result in longer retention times for introduced gravel and coarse

sediment in the first several miles of the Lower McCloud River below the dam

between spill events. Project operations have resulted in a reduction in sediment

transport capacities below the McCloud Dam. The reduction in transport capacities

is highest at sites near the dam (70% reduction above Hawkins Creek) (PG&E,

2009, Vol. II, p. 3-27). The project has also resulted in a 69% reduction in the 2-

year flow immediately upstream of Hawkins Creek (PG&E, 2009, Vol. II, p. 3-27).
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 51

The FLA notes that while storage is lowest in the first 5.2 km (3.25 miles)

downstream of McCloud Dam, where coarse sediment has been most reduced by

impoundment in the McCloud Reservoir, the storage potential in this responsive

reach is minimal and the relatively small quantity of coarse sediment supplied by

larger tributaries (i.e., Hawkins Creek, Squirrel Creek, Fitzhugh Creek) is efficiently

routed downstream (PG&E, 2009, Vol. II, p. 3-31). While it is true that the extent

of response reaches below McCloud Dam are limited, it has been noted that there

are opportunities for temporal storage of coarse sediment within the transport and

response reaches (PG&E, 2009, Vol. II, pgs. 3-10 and 3-15). Study results from

Assessment of Channel Morphology and Fluvial Geomorphic Processes in the

Lower McCloud River (TM-68) also note that ‘longitudinal patterns in sediment

storage and sediment storage potential (i.e. stream power) suggest that the Project

forces or at least exacerbates supply limitation (deficit of coarse sediment supply

relative to bedload transport capacity) in responsive reaches in the first 7 or 8 km

(4.3 – 5 miles) downstream of McCloud Dam’ (TM-68, pg 48).

In addition to the reintroduction of gravels, the reintroduction of coarser sediments

would provide some benefit in maintaining/restoring the sediment regime. The FLA

notes that ‘...the reach from McCloud Dam to at least Hawkins Creek is potentially

the most degradational due to low regulated sediment supply’ because ‘the reach is

upstream of any significant tributary sediment inputs’ (PG&E, 2009, Vol. II, p. 3-

31).

Degradation and bed-elevation lowering of the Lower McCloud River below the dam was

documented in data collected at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gaging station (1137760)

(MC-7) located approximately one-half mile downstream of the dam. The USGS Water Data

Report (see chart below) for this station states that the gage was installed and the datum

established in 1966. By April 1972 the datum was lowered three feet. The USGS report notes

further changes to the channel during water years 1975-1981, with 24 different rating relations

(rating curves) developed for this station since its 1966 establishment.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 52

USGS

Water-Data Report 2008

1136770 McCloud River below McCloud Dam, near McCloud, CA

Sacramento River Basin

LOCATION-Lat 41o07’31”, long 122o04’03” referenced to North American Datum of 1927, in SW

1⁄4 NE 1⁄4 sec 27, T.38N., R.2W., Shasta County, CA, Hydrologic Unit 18020004, Shasta National

Forest, on left bank, 0.1 mi downsteam from Lizard Creek, 0.6 mi downstream from McCloud Dam,

and 9 mi southeast of McCloud.

DRAINAGE AREA. –404 mi2.

SURFACE-WATER RECORDS

PERIOD OF RECORD.—April 1966 to current year (operated as a low-flow station only).

GAGE.--Water-stage recorder. Datum of gage is 2,398.76 ft above NGVD of 1929 (levels by

Pacific Gas and Electric Co.). Prior to Apr.7, 1972, at datum 3.00 ft higher.

COOPERATION.—Records were collected by Pacific Gas and Electric Co., under general

supervision of the U.S. Geological Survey, in connection with Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission project no. 2106.

REMARKS.—Low flow regulated by Lake McCloud (station 11367740) since November 1965.

Most of McCloud River runoff is diverted from reservoir through tunnel to Iron Canyon Reservoir

(station 11363920) in Pit River Basin. This station records fishwater release. The minimum

requirement is 40 ft3/s at all times. Prior to water year 1974, flow was computed up to 400 ft3/s.

During water years 1975 -81, because of channel changes, flow was computed up to 200 ft3/s.

Currently, because of maximum required release, flow is computed to 220 ft3/s. See schematic

diagram of Pit and McCloud Basins available from the California Water Science Center.

While station datums can be raised or lowered for different reasons, one of the more common

reasons is due to channel bed elevation changes. The need to develop different rating curves is

typically driven by channel changes that affect width, depth, and/or gradient. It is unlikely that

a well-established boulder-step pool channel would change in response to a regulated flow

regime. It appears more likely that this channel reach contained and transported a steady

supply of mobile sediment (gravel) and that the regulated flow and sediment capture, scoured

the stored gravel, degraded the channel, and in effect exhumed the boulder-step pool

configuration. These effects may also be exacerbated by the relatively high spill frequency; the

Licensee has indicated that McCloud Reservoir spills approximately four out of ten years

(PG&E, 2009 p. B-3) which is atypical of many hydroelectric projects, but common on the

Lower McCloud River. Due to reservoir size constraints, McCloud Dam is relatively small for

the volume of flow in the river and often cannot capture larger events.

As reported in TM-68 (Table 4, p. 14), it is estimated that the pre-dam (unimpaired) McCloud

River conveyed 25,028 tonnes (one metric tonne = 2,204.6 pounds) per year from the upper

watershed to the mouth of Hawkins Creek located approximately 1.2 miles downstream from

the dam. With the Hawkins Creek contribution of 179 tonnes, the unimpaired McCloud River

below Hawkins Creek conveyed 25,225 tonnes of sediment annually (TM-68, p. 14).
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 53

It is reasonable to conclude that the McCloud River channel and its riparian/fluvial ecosystems

below Hawkins Creek were appropriately sized and in dynamic equilibrium with that load of

annual sediment. With the upper watershed sediment load captured by the dam, the McCloud

River below Hawkins Creek conveys only the 179 tonnes per year or less than 1 percent of the

unimpaired sediment load. Farther downstream past the Bald Mountain Creek confluence, the

contemporary annual load of sediment conveyed is just 11.5 percent of the unimpaired system.

Using sediment transport as an indicator of channel health and fitness in the conveyance of

watershed products (i.e., energy and nutrients), a 99- to 88-percent reduction in the conveyance

of a primary watershed product (sediment) should be recognized as a potentially significant

adverse impact on the physical channel as well as the riparian/fluvial ecosystems that rely on

the physical attributes of the channel. Given the long duration of the next license (30 – 50

years), it is appropriate to employ an adaptive management approach for augmenting gravel

and course sediments in the Lower McCloud River.

Augmentation Proposal Benefits

The Forest Service recognizes that implementation of a gravel/coarse sediment

augmentation plan may pose difficulties for the Licensee. The Forest Service

proposes that the Licensee use the Star City Creek inlet of McCloud Reservoir as an

initial source of gravel/coarse sediment for augmentation. The use of the Star City

Creek inlet would reduce costs by increasing efficiency associated with

augmentation operations and provide environmental and recreational benefits as

well.

 The location of the gravel/coarse sediment source is approximately 2.5

road miles away from the proposed introduction site below the dam. A

staging area for the gravel/coarse sediment may also be available at the

tunnel spoils site located on Hawkins Creek approximately 2.25 miles

below McCloud Dam. Storing gravel/coarse sediment at the tunnel spoils

site could allow for a one time withdrawal of gravel from the Star City

Creek inlet during the period of the license (i.e. all of the gravel/coarse

sediment required for augmentation during the license period could be

dredged from the inlet at one time or several intervals and stored at the

tunnel spoils site.

 Dredging the Star City Creek inlet would provide for increased reservoir

capacity in the inlet and provide for additional space to capture future

sediment inputs from Star City Creek.

 The dredging could assist boat access to the recreation site to be

reconstructed at Star City Creek inlet. Currently the gravel deposits (as

seen in the photograph below) preclude boating access when reservoir

elevations are lower.

 Using Star City Creek inlet as a gravel/coarse sediment source has the

added benefit of supplying the Lower McCloud River with the actual
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 54

sediment that is missing from the river. Moving this material around the

dam has the effect of adding one small tributary with a broad range of

coarse sediment size classes that would have been delivered to the Lower

McCloud River prior to the Project’s inception.

 If Star City Creek gravel/sediment is utilized, no washing of sediment

would be required. This gravel source is effectively inundated by

McCloud Reservoir every year by the same water that flows through the

Lower McCloud River so further washing would provide no added

benefits; once sorted, the stockpiled sediment could be deposited in the

Lower McCloud River. If Star City Creek sediments are not utilized, the

material would need to be sorted and washed to meet the license condition

(i.e. clean, rounded and ranging in size from approximately 8-128 mm).

The Licensee expressed concerns with having to obtain two separate

Water Quality Certifications for the removal, washing and sorting of

gravels, as was their experience on the Pit 3, 4, 5 project. The Water

Board has indicated that this was an anomaly and that the gravel/coarse

sediment removal and placement could be covered in the Project 401

Water Quality Certification process.

 The existing volume of sediment currently deposited in the Star City

Creek inlet is expected to meet the minimum recruitment needs of 150

tonnes per year for the period of the license. While this estimate needs to

be refined, it appears that the Star City Creek sediment delta is about

9,000 m2. Assuming an average depth of one meter results in an

estimated supply of 9,000 m3, or about 11,790 tonnes of sediment

(assumes 1.31 tonnes river rock per m3). Additional recruitment of

sediment in the Star City inlet would occur during the course of the

license term.

 In order to remove sediment from the Star City Creek inlet, a dredging

plan would be required (see Condition No. 24 - Reservoir Dredging).
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 55

Figure 2-2. Star City Creek Delta – McCloud Reservoir
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 56

Rationale for selecting 150 t yr-1gravel/coarse sediment introduction rate.

The amount of gravel/coarse sediment recommended for augmentation was

determined based on data provided in the FLA as well as practical considerations.

Step 1: Determine unimpaired annual coarse sediment contribution to

McCloud Reservoir.

The total estimated coarse sediment input from the Upper McCloud River

including reservoir tributaries (but excluding Mud and Huckleberry Creeks) =

21,518 t yr-1(TM-68, p. 14). Adding in the small amount of coarse sediment

generated from Mud and Huckleberry Creeks results in an unimpaired coarse

sediment contribution of 25,028 t yr-1(TM-68, p. 14) to McCloud Reservoir.

All of this sediment is presumed to originate from the total connected source

area draining into McCloud Reservoir. This number compares well with

information in the FLA that states that between 1964 and 2007, approximately

4,134,500 m3of sediment accumulated in McCloud Reservoir, of which an

estimated 937,400 tonnes is coarse sediment > 2 mm (PG&E, 2009, p. 3-4). The

cited value of 937,400 tonnes of coarse sediment accumulation was derived by

adjusting the estimated proportional volume by a density of 1.31 tonnes per m3

(PG&E, 2009, p. 3-538). Over this 43 year period the average annual input of

coarse sediment equates to 21,800 m3yr

-1

.

Step 2: Adjust annual coarse sediment contribution to approximate total

amount contributed by Star City Creek Watershed.

Because the Star City Creek delta is proposed as the gravel/coarse sediment

source and the conceptual idea for gravel/sediment augmentation is based on

adding one additional tributary to the Lower McCloud River below the McCloud

Dam, the total amount was adjusted to determine the amount of gravel/coarse

sediment sourced by the Star City Creek Watershed.

Star City Creek Watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 7) area = 8,344

acres or 13.04 square miles.

The total connected source area (Upper McCloud River including reservoir

tributaries and Mud/Huckleberry Creeks) 300.8 km2= 116 mi2.

Star City Creek accounts for 11.2% of connected source area.

11.2% of 25,028 t yr-1= 2,803 t yr-1of sediment is delivered to McCloud

Reservoir assuming uniform contributions.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 57

Step 3: Adjust Star City Watershed annual input by Project flow regime.

The estimate of 2,803 t yr-1is adjusted to reflect the current flow regime in the

Lower McCloud River. The unimpaired average summer base flows in the

McCloud River below the McCloud Dam in August were equal to 869 cfs

(PG&E, 2009, p. 3-50).5The total volume of gravel/sediment from the Star City

drainage area calculation is then adjusted for the new flow regime, assuming that

the post-license average August base flow will be near 200 cfs or 23 percent of

the original August unimpaired flow.

Adjusting the Star City Creek input of 2,803 t yr-1by a factor of 0.23 equates to a

proposed gravel introduction rate of 645 t yr-1. This number is comparable to

the amount of gravel being introduced to each reach for the Pit 3, 4, & 5 Project

(FERC No. 233). This amount was rounded down to 600 t yr -1 which represents

the maximum amount of gravel/coarse sediment that could be introduced to the

McCloud River in any given year.

Step 4: Practical adjustment to reflect small target reach and economic

considerations.

The general concept is to add one tributary to the Lower McCloud River to

augment gravel/sediment in the reach of river below the McCloud Dam. The Pit

3, 4, 5 Project requires introducing 600 t yr-1to 3 different target reaches that

total about 5 miles in length. Because the McCloud is a smaller river with a

small contributing source area, the minimum introduction rate was adjusted

downward to 150 t yr-1.

5 The month of August was chosen randomly from the unimpaired flow data.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 58

From Wolman Pebble Count Protocol

Large Woody Debris:

Project effects on transport of LWD on aquatic habitats were identified as a

potential resource management issue. Although this entire reach is heavily forested,

existing LWD inventories show that little LWD is stored in the Lower McCloud

River channel between McCloud Dam and Shasta Lake (CRMP 2001; personal

communication, S. Bachmann, Hydrologist, USFS, McCloud, CA, and J. Fitzgerald,

Engineering Geologist, North State Resources, Redding, CA, September 10, 2008).

Given the existing and expected amounts of LWD in this portion of the river, LWD

primarily functions as:

 Aquatic habitat along the channel margins;

 Riparian habitat where it rafts up onto surfaces above the low-flow

channel;

 Aquatic habitat, in rare cases where wood is retained in the active portion

of side channels.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 59

The primary purpose of this measure is to provide a framework and guidelines for

removal of LWD from McCloud Reservoir and placement into the Lower McCloud

River to increase the amount of habitat in these areas.

TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE AND BOTANY

Conditions No: 25, 26

a. Guidance:

Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

Forest Goals

 Integrate multiple resource management on a landscape level to provide and

maintain diversity and quality of habitat that support viable populations of

plants, fish and wildlife (4-4.2).

 Monitor and protect habitat for federally listed threatened and endangered,

(T&E) and candidate species. Assist in recovery efforts for T&E species.

Cooperate with the State to meet objectives for State-listed species (4-5.32).

 Manage habitats for sensitive plant and animals in a manner that will prevent

any species from becoming a candidate for T&E status (4-5.33).

 Cooperate with Federal, State, and local agencies to maintain or improve

wildlife habitat (4-6.44).

 Maintain natural wildlife species diversity by continuing to provide special

habitat elements within Forest ecosystems (4-6.45).

Standards and Guidelines

 Survey and Manage will provide benefits to amphibians, mammals, bryophytes,

mollusks, vascular plants, fungi, lichens and arthropods (4-12).

 Manage known sites; Survey prior to ground disturbing activities; Extensive

surveys (4-12).

 Manage Recreation Areas to minimize disturbance to species (4-13).

 Cliffs, Caves, Talus and Rock Outcrops. Manage these unique habitats on a

site-by-site basis to protect their existing micro environments and the viability

of dependant animal and plant species. Manage nearby water sources to

perpetuate natural cave processes (4-14.2b).

 Provide connecting travel corridors for wildlife species, particularly latesuccessional dependent species, by using Riparian Reserves and silvicultural

prescriptions (4-14.2h).

 Map, record, and protect essential habitat for known and newly discovered

sensitive and endemic plant species until conservation strategies are developed

(4-14.4a).

 Analyze the potential effects of all ground-disturbing projects on sensitive and

endemic plants and their habitat. Mitigate project effects to avoid a decline in

species viability at the Forest level (4-14.4b).
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 60

 Monitor the effects of management activities on sensitive and endemic plants.

If monitoring results show a decline in species viability, alter management

strategy (4-14.4c).

 Coordinate sensitive plant inventory and protection efforts with the CDF&G,

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Nature Conservancy, the California

Native Plant Society, and other concerned agencies, organizations, and adjacent

landowners (4-15.4e).

 Maintain riparian area values, particularly when locating and constructing new

roads and trails (4-25.17b).

 Identify and treat riparian areas that are in a degraded condition (4-25.17c).

 Minimize accidental electrocution of raptors by ensuring that newly constructed

overhead power lines meet safe design standards (4-29.25a).

 Manage habitat for neotropical migrant birds to maintain viable population

levels (4-29.25c).

 Develop interpretive view/sites for wildlife viewing, photography, and study (4-

29.25d).

 Maintain and/or enhance habitat for TE&S species consistent with individual

species recovery plans (4-30.h).

 Survey and evaluate habitat for TE&S species at the project level in

coordination with the USFWS. Place in Prescription VII or Prescription IX

and/or require limited operating periods or other restrictions as appropriate (4-

30.i).

 Manage and protect potential bald eagle and peregrine falcon sites for future

occupancy (4-30.j).

 Require limited operating periods adjacent to active goshawk nesting sites until

the young have fledged (4-30.k).

Management Prescriptions

Late-Successional Reserves

 Shasta salamander- this species is very narrowly distributed, occurring only in

localized populations on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Only a small part

of its range is included with Habitat Conservation Areas identified by the

Interagency Scientific Committee. It occurs in association with limestone

outcrops, protected by an overstory canopy. All known and future localities

must be delineated and protected for timber harvest, mining, quarry activity, and

road building within the delineated site, and a buffer of at least the height of one

site-potential tree or 100 feet horizontal distance, whichever is greater, should

surround the outcrop. Additional surveys conducted using a standardized

protocol must be undertaken to identify and delineate all occupied sites within

the species range (4-41).

 Evaluate impacts of nonnative species (plant and animal) currently existing

within reserves, and develop plans and recommendations for eliminating or

controlling nonnative species that are inconsistent with Late Successional

Reserve objectives. These will include an analysis of the effects of
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 61

implementing such programs to other species or habitats within Late

Successional Reserve (4-41).

Bald Eagles

 Maintain and/or enhance the habitat necessary to provide for 32 pairs of bald

eagle (4-4.6).

 Survey populations and habitat annually to determine status and trend (4-44.7).

 Update or develop and implement management plans for all known and newly

discovered nesting and roosting sites. Such plans will have site specific

management direction established for the benefit of the bald eagles and will be

coordinated with the bald eagle Recovery Plan (4-44.8).

Peregrine Falcons

 Maintain and/or enhance the habitat necessary to provide for 9 pairs of

peregrine falcons (4-44.9).

 Survey populations and habitat annually to determine status and trend (4-44.10).

 Develop and implement specific territory management plans for all known and

future sites necessary for population viability. These plans will be coordinated

with the Peregrine Falcon Recovery Plan (4-44.11).

Goshawks

 Exclude management activities within occupied nest stands during the nesting

period (4-44.12).

Sensitive Plants

 Known sensitive plants and those identified in the future, will be afforded the

protection necessary to maintain or increase populations. Suitable habitat will

be maintained or increased at a level that will assure the successful survival of

the species throughout their range (4-44.14).

Riparian Reserves and Key Watersheds

Aquatic Conservation Strategy

 Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity within and between

watersheds. Lateral, longitudinal, and drainage network connections include

floodplains, wetlands, upslope areas, headwater tributaries, and intact refugia.

These network connections must provide chemically and physically

unobstructed routes to areas critical for fulfilling life history requirements of

aquatic and riparian-dependent species (4-53.2).
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 62

 Maintain and restore the physical integrity of the aquatic system, including

shorelines, banks and bottom configurations (4-53.3).

 Maintain and restore the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain

inundation and water table elevation in meadows and wetlands (4-53.7).

 Maintain and restore the species composition and structural diversity of plant

communities in riparian areas and wetlands to provide adequate summer and

winter thermal regulation, nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion,

bank erosion, and channel migration and to supply amounts and distributions of

coarse woody debris sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability (4-

53.8).

 Maintain and restore habitat to support well-distributed populations of native

plant, invertebrates, and vertebrate riparian dependent species (4-53.9).

Lands

 For hydroelectric and other surface water development proposals, give priority

emphasis to instream flows and habitat conditions that maintain or restore

resources, favorable channel conditions, and fish passage. Coordinate this

process with the appropriate state agencies. During re-licensing of hydroelectric

projects, provide written and timely license conditions to FERC that emphasize

in-stream flows and habitat conditions that maintain or restore riparian

resources and channel integrity (4-57.7b).

General Riparian Area Management:

 Herbicides, insecticides, and other toxicant, and other chemicals shall be applied

only in a manner that avoids impacts that retard or prevent attainment of

Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives (4-58.8c).

McCloud River/Pit Management Area Supplemental Management Direction:

 Maintain or improve selected habitats for black bear, spotted owls, deer, elk and

turkey (4-123.12).

 Maintain or improve selected habitats for deer, elk, turkey, bear, bald eagles,

peregrine falcons, and spotted owls (4-127.8).

Monitoring Action Plan:

 Evaluate Forest plant communities for botanical diversity and health including

threatened, endangered and sensitive (TE&S) plants (5-5).

 Inland coldwater fish population surveys; Instream fish habitat improvement

structures; warmwater fish habitat improvement structures (5-9).

 Effectiveness monitoring of management indicator assemblage populations: late

seral stage, opening and early seral stage, multihabitat, snag and downed log,
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 63

riparian, aquatic, hardwoods, and cliffs, caves, talus and rock outcrop

assemblages (5-16).

 Determine trends of bald eagle breeding populations; Evaluate trends in habitat

capability for nesting birds (5-17).

 Determine Goshawk population and habitat trends (5-17).

 Verify Peregrine Falcon nesting and reproductive success (5-17).

 Ensure compliance of Forest Projects with spotted owl standards; Determine

population and habitat condition trends (5-18).

 Determine Furbearers population and habitat trends within designated fisher and

pine marten habitat (5-18).

b. Rationale to support license condition(s):

Wildlife

While the Project lies within Late Successional and Administratively Withdrawn land

prescriptions (LRMP Land Allocation map) and should experience less disturbance

from many of the land management activities (wood-cutting, timber harvest, etc.) more

common on Matrix lands, Project recreation use is expected to grow by as much as

350% (TM-37, Tables 17-20, p. 23-25) over the next license term, which could create

additional noise and activities near roosting, foraging or nesting sites. As a result, the

previously listed Peregrine Falcon and Bald Eagles will require monitoring to assure

populations remain stable or continue to grow as recreation use increases. Regular

monitoring and periodic survey throughout the new license period will capture any

changes or trends in the populations or individual nest sites, and allow for

modifications, if needed, to protect these species.

The Project facilities and reservoirs attract roosting bats, as documented in Special

Status Bats in Proposed Construction and Other Project Areas (TM-71). Study results

indicate that 13 species of bats were identified during Study Plan surveys, including

three species of Forest Service sensitive bats (pallid bat; Antrozous pallidus,

Townsend’s big-eared bat; Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii, and western red bat;

Lasiurus blossevillii) (TM-71, p. 9). Key sites were located around the McCloud

Reservoir and near the Pit 7 dam and Afterbay. Under the new license, existing and

proposed recreation development and on-going maintenance and construction at the

Project facilities will create disturbance at these sites (e.g. new recreation day-use sites

around McCloud Reservoir, micro-hydro generation at Pit 7 dam), and could result in

impacts to the existing populations. These areas will require regular monitoring and

periodic survey both to avoid impacts to day and night roost sites and foraging patterns,

and to map track any changes in populations and/or roosting locations. While natural

roost sites will be protected, it is possible that facility modifications at the dams could

impact man-made roost sites. In these instances, new roosting locations may be

required to provide alternate roost sites before existing facility can be changed or

removed. Monitoring will ensure that alternate sites are adequate and occupied.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 64

Similar concerns exist for sites near roadways, powerlines and Project infrastructure

that are maintained or replaced during the new license term.

Additional threatened, endangered, sensitive and special status species present with the

Project area include: northern spotted owl, terrestrial mollusks, northern goshawk,

northwestern pond turtle, shasta salamander, and habitat for willow flycatcher, valley

elderberry long-horned beetle, and various forest carnivores. Recreation development,

facility reconstruction, and road maintenance and reconstruction is proposed under the

new license conditions near locations where shasta salamanders were found and

goshawks were detected. Previous dispersed use has occurred in and near suitable

willow flycatcher habitat around Iron Canyon reservoir, and other riparian species are

subject to effects from erosion, sedimentation, recreation use, and flow changes.

As changes within the Project area occur (both construction and use increases) potential

exists for unintended consequences to these species. Regular monitoring and periodic

survey will allow impacts to be detected, and mitigations developed before species or

habitat is affected. Laws and regulations require special mitigation measures for listed

and special status species.

Botanical:

The Licensee and the Forest Service are required to comply with the Endangered

Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Forest

Management Act, and current Forest Service policy direction when operating on

NFS lands. There are a number of special status botanical species within the

Project and Project-affected area, and potential Project effects on these species

must be considered.

During the spring and summer of 2007 and 2008, multiple surveys were

conducted to locate and map terrestrial plant populations potentially affected by

the Project: Data Summary for Special-Status and Special-Interest Plant,

Lichen, and Fungi Species in the Study Area (TM-12), Invasive Plant Species

Data Summary (TM-13), Summary of Vegetation Mapping Survey Results in the

Project Area (TM-19), Vegetation Mapping Survey Results in the Proposed New

Construction Project Areas (TM-64), Assess Potential Ongoing Project Affects

on Riparian Vegetation Community Types in the Project Area (TM-65). The

study found and mapped nine special-status plant species at 47 locations,

including one newly described taxon: long-fruit jewelflower.

In addition to sensitive species, invasive and noxious species are widespread in

the Project area and are concentrated along access roads, around powerhouses

and at recreation facilities due to regular contacts with vectors such as vehicle

and equipment tires and recreationists. Invasive species were those identified as
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 65

“noxious” and have a pest rating by the California Department of Food and

Agriculture (CDFA), those species identified and rated on the California

Invasive Plant Council list (Cal-IPC), and those identified as a Forest Service

Species of Concern by the Shasta-Trinity National Forest (TM-13 p. 6).

Licensee recorded and mapped 25 invasive plant species at 1,155 locations in the

Project area during surveys in 2007 and 2008.

With the relicensing of the McCloud-Pit Project, ground disturbing activities

(recreation developments, road maintenance, micro-hydro construction) and flow

modifications will be on-going in the Project area creating potential impacts to

the existing populations of special status species, and the possible introduction or

spread of invasive species. While new impacts are possible, previously

disturbed areas (borrow areas, tunnel spoil piles, etc.) are also a concern and

have not received appropriate revegetation resulting in erosion, and colonization

by invasive species that crowd out native plants and provide additional vectors

for spread. Introduction of invasive species may occur through the use of

inappropriate plant material during replanting efforts, or by inadvertent

introduction on equipment and tires. Culturally significant plants should also be

used to protect continued traditional use where these plants were historically

found.

In addition, Licensee vegetation management under/along Project power and

transmission lines has conflicted in the past with Forest Service direction for

vegetation treatment (including fuels), and treatments in riparian reserves. It will

be necessary for the Licensee to have an approved plan to address all

construction, reconstruction and maintenance work.

Forest Service sensitive species found during the 2007-2008 surveys include:

 Shasta eupatory (Ageratina shastensis),

 Butte County morning glory (Calystegia atriplicifolia ssp. buttensis),

 Northern clarkia (Clarkia borealis ssp. borealis),

 Butte County fritillary (Fritillaria eastwoodiae),

 English Peak greenbriar (Smilax jamesii);

Special interest species documented in the study area include:

 Howell’s lewisia (Lewisia cotyledon var. howellii),

 woolly meadowfoam (Limnanthes floccosa ssp. floccosa),

 silvery false-lupine (Thermopsis gracilis var. gracilis)

 long-fruit jewelflower (Streptanthus longisiliquus),
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 66

High and Medium Priority Invasive species documented in the study area

include:

 Yellow star-thistle (Centaurea solstitalis)

 Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare)

 Perennial sweet pea (Lathyrus latifolius)

 Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia)

 Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor)

 Pale yellow iris (Iris pseudacorus)

 Spreading hedgeparsley (Torilis arvensis)

 Puncturevine (Tribulus terrestris)

 Tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima)

 Spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa)

 Field pepperweed (Lepidium campestre)

 Dyers woad (Isatis tinctoria)

 Cut-leaved blackberry (Rubus laciniatus)

 Cheat grass (Bromus tectorum)

 Canada thistle (Cirsim arvense)

 Wooley mullein (Verbascum Thapsus)

 Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius)

 Common St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum)

 Gypsyflower (Cynoglossum officinale)

 Wild teasel (Dipsacus fullonum)

 Tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea)

 English ivy (Hedera helix)

 Purpleanther field pepperweed (Lepidium heterophyllum)

 Spanish broom (Spartium junceum)

For the 47 populations of Special-Status or Special Interest plant species within

the Project or Project-affected area, monitoring and periodic surveys are

necessary in order to meet Forest Service requirements to maintain viable

populations and their habitat for the purpose of eventual de-listing. Mapping and

monitoring will also provide information necessary to minimize or eliminate

direct and indirect impacts from management activities on Special-Status or

Special Interest plants unless the activity is designed to maintain or improve

plant populations, and to evaluate all proposed projects for potential Threatened,

Endangered, or Sensitive plant habitat.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 67

The Forest Service is required to control the spread of invasive species by

completing inventories based on Regional protocols, evaluate treatment options

relative to the risk of spread, and monitor invasive species populations.

Monitoring and periodic surveys will be needed to track the 25 known

populations of invasive species and control their spread. Treatment options

should be developed where populations can be eliminated. All projects activities

involving ground disturbance and revegetation (planting or seeding) must adhere

to regional native plant policies. The “Vegetation and Invasive Weed

Management Plan” license condition will assist in meeting this requirement on

NFS lands affected by the Project.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 68

ROADS, FACILITIES, HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE

Conditions 28-29

a. Guidance:

Shasta-Trinity Land and Resource Management Plan

Forest Goals

 Manage the Forests’ transportation system to facilitate resource

management activities, protect wildlife, meet water quality objectives and

provide recreational access (4-4.8).

 Maintain or improve soil productivity and prevent excessive surface

erosion, mass wasting, and cumulative watershed impacts (4-5.29).

 Maintain or improve water quality and quantity to meet fish habitat

requirements and domestic use needs (4-6.39).

 Maintain water quality to meet or exceed applicable standards and

regulations (4-6.40).

Standards and Guidelines

 Perform road maintenance activities to meet a variety of management

objectives. Schedule road maintenance activities according to the

following priorities:

1. to provide for user safety;

2. to meet contractual and legal obligations;

3. to protect natural resources; and

4. to provide an efficient transportation system (4-16.7a).

 Assign road maintenance levels to each system road or road segment

based on traffic management and use objectives. Maintain all roads to at

least Maintenance Level 1(4-17.7b).

 Construct or reconstruct roads so that a stable road prism is established.

This includes road cuts and fills and the road surface. Minimize

sedimentation by employing construction practices such as:

1. placing surfacing on the roadway;

2. establishing a vegetative cover on slopes; and

3. installing proper drainage structures (4-17.7c).

 Use a full range of vegetative management techniques along roads, trails,

and transmission corridors with emphasis on non-chemical means (4-

17.7d).
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 69

 Coordinate road improvement and maintenance projects with other

Forests, State and local agencies and cooperators as needed (4-17.7h).

 Upgrade the surfacing on the Forests’ road system as necessary to protect

the road and other resource values (4-17.7i).

 Use landslide hazard information, in addition to that obtained during

necessary on-site geologic investigations, in the design and location of

any facility or structure (4-20.w).

 Implement Best Management Practices (BMP’s) for protection or

improvement or improvement of water quality, as described in “Water

Quality Management for National Forest System Lands in California” for

applicable management activities. Determine specific practices or

techniques during project level planning using information obtained from

on-site soil, water, and geology investigations (4-25.18c).

 Assess the potential impacts of vegetation management, road construction

and related activities on slope stability and watershed condition for areas

identified as moderately or highly unstable (4-25.18i).

Management Prescriptions

Late Successional Reserves

 Road maintenance may include felling hazard trees along rights-of-way.

Leaving material on-site should be considered as an alternative to felling

(4-39).

Riparian Reserves and Key Watersheds

Aquatic Conservation Strategy

 Maintain and restore water quality necessary to support healthy riparian,

aquatic, and wetland ecosystems. Water quality must retain within the

range that maintains the biological, physical, and chemical integrity of the

system and benefits survival, growth, reproduction, and migration of

individuals composing aquatic and riparian communities (4-53.4).

 Maintain and restore the sediment regime under which aquatic

ecosystems evolved. Elements of the sediment regime include the timing,

volume, rate and character of sediment input, storage, and transport (4-

53.5).

 For each existing or planned road, meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy

objectives by:

1. Minimizing road and landing locations in Riparian

Reserves;

2. Completing watershed analyses (including appropriate

geotechnical analyses) prior to construction of new
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 70

roads or landings in Riparian Reserves;

3. Preparing road design criteria, elements, and standards

that govern construction and reconstruction;

4. Preparing operation and maintenance criteria that govern

road operation, maintenance, and management;

5. Minimizing disruption of natural hydrologic flow paths,

including diversion of streamflow and interception of

surface and subsurface flow;

6. Restricting sidecasting as necessary to prevent the

introduction of sediment to streams;

7. Avoiding wetlands entirely when constructing new roads

(4-54, 55.2b).

 New culverts, bridges and other stream crossings shall be constructed,

and existing culverts, bridges and other stream crossings determined to

pose a substantial risk to riparian conditions will be improved, to

accommodate at least the 100-year flood, including associated bedload

and debris. Priority for upgrading will be based on the potential impact

and the ecological value of the riparian resources affected. Crossings will

be constructed and maintained to prevent diversion of streamflow out of

the channel and down the road in the event of a crossing failure (4-

55.2.d).

 Minimize sediment delivery to streams from roads. Outsloping of the

roadway surface is preferred, except in cases where outsloping will

increase sediment delivery to streams or where outsloping is unfeasible or

unsafe. Route road drainage away from potentially unstable channels,

fills, and hillslopes (4-55.2.e).

 Provide and maintain fish passage at all road crossings of existing and

potential fish bearing streams.

 Develop and implement a Road Management Plan or a Transportation

Management Plan that will meet the Aquatic Conservation Strategy

objectives. As a minimum, this plan shall include provisions for the

following activities:

1. Inspections and maintenance after storm events;

2. Inspections and maintenance during storm events;

3. Road operation and maintenance, giving high priority to

identifying and correcting road drainage problems that

contribute to degrading riparian resources;

4. Traffic regulation during wet periods to prevent damage

to riparian resources;

5. Establish the purpose of each road by developing the

Road Management Objective (4-55.2.g).
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 71

Monitoring Action Plan

 Cumulative impacts on stream channel condition and water quality (5-12)

 Implementation of best management practices (BMPs) (5-12).

 BMP’s monitoring for effectiveness of BMPs for the protection of water

quality, riparian areas, soil erosion, and slope stability (5-12).

Best Management Practices

Road and Building Site Construction

1.1General Guidelines for the Location and Design of Roads

1.2Erosion Control Plan

1.3Timing of Construction Activities

1.4Road Slope Stabilization (Preventative Practice)

1.5Road Slope Stabilization (Administrative Practice)

1.6Dispersion of Subsurface Drainage from Cut and Fill Slopes

1.7Control of Road Drainage

1.8Constraints Related to Pioneer Road Construction

1.9Timely Erosion Control Measures on Incomplete Road and Stream

crossing Projects

1.10 Construction of Stable Embankments

1.11 Minimization of Sidecast Material

1.12 Servicing and Refueling Equipment

1.13 Control of Construction in Riparian Management Zones

1.14 Controlling in-channel Excavation

1.15 Diversion of Flows Around Construction Sites

1.16 Stream crossings on Temporary Roads

1.17 Bridge and Culvert Installation

1.18 Regulation of Riparian Gravel Borrow Areas

1.19 Disposal of Right-of-Way and Roadside Debris

1.20 Specifying Riprap Composition

1.21 Water Source Development Consistent with Water Quality Protection

1.22 Maintenance of Roads

1.23 Road Surface Treatment to Prevent Loss of Materials

1.24 Traffic Control During Wet Periods

1.25 Snow Removal Controls to Avoid Resource Damage

1.26 Obliteration of Temporary Roads

1.27 Restoration of Borrow Pits and Quarries

1.28 Surface Erosion Control at Facility Sites

Watershed Management

1.3Protection of Wetlands

7.6 Water Quality Monitoring

7.7 Management by Closure to Use (Seasonal, Temporary, and Permanent).
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 72

Forest Service Traffic Levels:

A B C D

Flow Free flowing with

adequate parking

facilities.

Congested during heavy

traffic such as during

peak logging or

recreation activities

Interrupted by limited

passing facilities, or

slowed by the road

condition.

Flow is slow or may be

blocked by an activity.

Two-way traffic is

difficult and may

require backing to pass.

Volumes Uncontrolled; will

accommodate the

expected traffic

volumes

Occasionally controlled

during heavy use periods

Erratic; frequently

controlled as the capacity

is reached.

Intermittent and usually

controlled. Volume is

limited to that

associated with the

single purpose.

Vehicle

Types

Mixed; includes the

critical vehicle and

all vehicles

normally found on

public roads.

Mixed; includes the

critical vehicle and all

vehicles normally found

on public roads.

Controlled mix;

accommodates all vehicle

types including the critical

vehicle. Some use may be

controlled to vehicle type.

Single use; not designed

for mixed traffic. Some

vehicles may not be

able to negotiate.

Concurrent use traffic is

restricted.

Critical

Vehicle

Clearances are

adequate to allow

free travel.

Overload permits

are required.

Traffic controls needed

where clearances are

marginal. Overload

permits are required.

Special provisions may be

needed. Some vehicles

will have difficulty

negotiating some

segments.

Some vehicles may not

be able to negotiate.

Loads may have to be

off-loaded and walked

in.

Safety Safety features are a

part of the design.

High priority in design.

Some protection is

accomplished by traffic

management.

Most protection is

provided by management.

The need for protection

is minimized by low

speeds and strict traffic

controls.

Traffic

Management

Normally limited to

regulatory, warning,

and guide signs and

permits.

Employed to reduce

traffic volume and

conflicts.

Traffic controls are

frequently needed during

periods of high use by the

dominant resource

activity.

Used to discourage or

prohibit traffic other

than that associated

with the single purpose.

User

Costs

Minimize,

transportation

efficiency is

important.

Generally higher than

“A” because of slower

speeds and increased

delays

Not important; efficiency

of travel may be traded for

lower construction costs.

Not considered.

Alignment

Design speed is the

predominant factor

within feasible

topographic

limitations.

Influenced more strongly

by topography than by

speed and efficiency.

Generally dictated by

topographic features and

environmental factors.

Design speeds are

generally low.

Dictated by topography,

environmental factors,

and the design and

critical vehicle

limitations. Speed is

not important.

Road

Surface

Stable and smooth

with little or no

dust, considering

the normal season

of use.

Stable for the

predominant traffic for

the normal use season.

Periodic dust control for

heavy use or

environmental reasons.

Smoothness is

commensurate with the

design speed.

Many not be stable under

all traffic or weather

conditions during the

normal use season.

Surface rutting, roughness,

and dust may be present,

but controlled for

environmental or

investment reasons.

Rough and irregular.

Travel with lowclearance vehicles is

difficult. Stable during

dry conditions. Rutting

and dusting controlled

only for soil and water

protection.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 73

Forest Service Road Maintenance Level Descriptions

Maintenance levels 1-5 (operational and objective) are described in the following

paragraphs. Roads assigned to maintenance levels 2-5 are either constant service

roads or intermittent service roads during the time they are open to traffic.

Level 1. Assigned to intermittent service roads during the time they are

closed to vehicular traffic. The closure period must exceed 1 year. Basic

custodial maintenance is performed to keep damage to adjacent resources to

an acceptable level and to perpetuate the road to facilitate future management

activities. Emphasis is normally given to maintaining drainage facilities and

runoff patterns. Planned road deterioration may occur at this level.

Appropriate traffic management strategies are “prohibit” and “eliminate.”

Roads receiving level 1 maintenance may be of any type, class, or

construction standard, and may be managed at any other maintenance level

during the time they are open for traffic. However, while being maintained at

level 1, they are closed to vehicular traffic, but may be open and suitable for

non-motorized uses.

Level 2. Assigned to roads open for use by high clearance vehicles.

Passenger car traffic is not a consideration. Traffic is normally minor,

usually consisting of one or a combination of administrative, permitted,

dispersed recreation, or other specialized uses. Log-haul may occur at this

level. Appropriate traffic management strategies are either to (1) discourage

or prohibit passenger cars or (2) accept or discourage high clearance vehicles.

Level 3. Assigned to roads open and maintained for travel by a prudent

driver in a standard passenger car. User comfort and convenience are not

considered priorities.

Roads in this maintenance level are typically low speed, single lane with

turnouts and spot surfacing. Some roads may be fully surfaced with either

native or processed material. Appropriate traffic management strategies are

either “encourage” or “accept.” “Discourage” or “prohibit” strategies may be

employed for certain classes of vehicles or users.

Level 4. Assigned to roads that provide a moderate degree of user comfort

and convenience at moderate travel speeds. Most roads are double lane and

aggregate surfaced. However, some roads may be single lane. Some roads

may be paved and/or dust abated. The most appropriate traffic management

strategy is “encourage.” However, the “prohibit” strategy may apply to

specific classes of vehicles or users at certain times.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 74

Level 5. Assigned to roads that provide a high degree of user comfort and

convenience. These roads are normally double lane, paved facilities. Some

may be aggregate surfaced and dust abated. The appropriate traffic

management strategy is “encourage.”

For the Project and Project-affected roads, the Forest Service has completed a

review of the Road Management Objectives. Final Objectives were designated and

signed on December 29, 2009

b. Rationale to support license condition(s):

At the time of Project development in 1961, much of the Project area (McCloud

Reservoir, Lower McCloud River, Iron Canyon Reservoir, Pit 6, and Pit 7) was

inaccessible to the public due to the checkerboard ownership with large private

landholders, and the lack of cooperative roads serving the land base. In the 45+

years since the Project was built, the public has enjoyed recreation opportunities via

the road system developed for Project construction. Much of the surrounding land

is still held by large private landholders, and timber remains the primary focus for

private land uses. In addition to the Rationale provided below, the Forest Service

May 19, 2009, response to Licensee’s Draft License Application provides

substantial discussion on Project roads and the need for mitigations, and is

incorporated here by reference.

Project and Project-affected roads itemized below are from Table 1-3 in the Road

and Transportation Facility Management License Condition No. 29.

McCloud Reservoir Roads

General Road Information for McCloud Reservoir and Vicinity:

In these preliminary conditions, the Forest Service, in cooperation with the

Licensee, has developed a proposal to increase the number of developed recreation

sites around McCloud Reservoir to accommodate the dispersed use that has been

occurring. The proposal includes three new day uses sites in addition to the Boat

Ramp, and three additional water access sites. This should encourage those who

currently travel to the Boat Ramp for non-boating use, to use other sites where

amenities (toilets, parking, picnic tables) will be developed. This should help to

balance traffic around the reservoir and reduce impacts from unmanaged use.

Roads 38N11 - Hawkins Creek (Segment 1), and 38N04Y - Star City:
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 75

In August of 1963, the Hearst Corporation granted permission to the Licensee to

construct and/or relocate portions of the International Paper (IP) road down the west

side of the McCloud River. This road was used for logging Hearst Corp. lands.

Documents indicate that roughly six miles of the road would be inundated by the

McCloud reservoir under construction at the time. In addition, Hearst granted

permission to the Licensee to construct a second access road on the east side of the

reservoir for Project development (see TM-63, documents 2439-02-0002, 2438-02-

0012, and 2439-02-0005). Because alternate access did not exist to the north,

Hearst allowed temporary use of their private road #1 leading north to Highway 89,

for Licensee construction and logging needs associated with the Project. While use

of portions of the Eastside (now designated 38N04Y) and Westside (now designated

38N11) roads were perpetual, use of road #1 was temporary, until alternate access

could be developed from Tarantula Gulch to the end of the County Road in Squaw

Valley.

To the south, the Hearst Corporation granted permission to the Licensee to construct

a connecting road from the end of the existing road near Hawkins Creek, to the

junction of the eastside and westside roads at the top of McCloud Dam. This new

segment of road provided access for the Licensee to their stream gage at MC-7, and

connected the two road systems (north and south) for the first time.

Development of the reservoir coincided with a large Land-for-Land Exchange being

negotiated with the Forest Service. In 1955, the Hearst Corporation and the Forest

Service began negotiations to consolidate their respective ownerships to allow for

ease of timber management. (USDA, 1963b) Because the Forest Service did not

hold any legal road access to the McCloud River corridor, the Forest Service chose

to select lands in the Lower McCloud River (below the future reservoir) and Squaw

Valley Creek drainage where limited road access was possible from the Squaw

Valley Creek road. As the timber appraisal for the land exchange noted: “There

have been no public roads into this area in the past but, as a result of this exchange,

rights of way are being obtained...”

With the filing of the FERC license, the planned land exchange would have

eliminated all public land and the possibility of public access to the new reservoir.

Because recreation was a condition of the license, the Hearst Corporation and the

Forest Service agreed, in a 1963 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU,) that the

Hearst Corporation would donate approximately 95 acres of land (with associated

public road rights) around the newly formed reservoir to the Forest Service in order

to provide for public access and recreation at the new reservoir. This MOU allowed

the negotiated Land Exchange to proceed consistent with the license, and was

included in the Exchange documentation (USDA, 1963b).
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 76

As a result of the land-exchange, all lands, except the donated 95-acre strip of NFS

land surrounding the southern half of the reservoir, are privately held by the Hearst

Corporation, who blocks public access with locked gates. Visitors entering the

Reservoir area from the north have six options, five of which are Project

destinations (Tarantula Gulch boat ramp and locations around the reservoir edge,

Ah-Di-Na, Star City, the base of McCloud Dam, or Ash Camp). Surveys conducted

for the re-license of Project 2106 recorded over 18,000 vehicles traveling to the

Reservoir for the 2007/08 season, with less than 6% traveling beyond the Project to

the south (TM-22, A5-5 to 9). While the McCloud Boat Ramp is by far the most

popular destination, with as much as 68% of all use, Star City, Ah-Di-Na and Ash

Camp have a roughly equal share of the remaining Project traffic.

The Final License Application notes that “roads are categorized consistent with

FERC’s criteria that Project roads are only those used primarily for Project

purposes” (PG&E, 2009 p. 3-404). The Forest Service agrees with this standard and

believes that several additional roads meet this criteria based on the studies

conducted for the relicense.

While the eastside road to Star City (38N04Y) is designated as a Project Road in the

Final License Application, the Licensee asserts that the westside road (38N11

Segment 1) is only Project-related since visitors may only stop to view the Project

on their way to other destinations. The study data does not support that conclusion,

as less than 6% of the users travel or enters south of the Project. Because locked

gates block access to the few remaining roads around the reservoir, and Hearst

employees have alternate access to their lands, the vast majority (94%) of vehicles

are traveling “primarily for Project purposes.”

For reasons above, the Forest Service has determined that the portion of Forest Road

38N11 (Segment 1) from the County road junction to the Tunnel Spoil Pile (14.25

miles) is a Project Road and should be designated as such. The Star City road

(38N04Y) is currently designated a Project Road within the Project boundary and

should remain as such.

Road 38N81 - Brown Trout (a.k.a. McCloud or Tarantula Gulch Boat Ramp)

When the Forest Service completed the final connecting segment from Tarantula

Gulch to the end of County Road MC1N01, the public had road access to view the

newly minted McCloud Reservoir. However, it was not until 1969 that the Hearst

donation of 95 acres around the southern half of the reservoir was completed (Grant

Deed, dated 5-29-1969, recorded Shasta County Book 991, p. 566), and legal access

was available to the reservoir edge. In 1975 the Licensee granted an easement to the

Forest Service to construct a Boat Ramp at Tarantula Gulch so the public could

access the water surface (TM-63, #2438-02-0049). This road is currently designated
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 77

a Project Road and within the Project boundary and should remain as such.

Maintenance for this road may be shared between the Hearst Corporation (who has

access beyond the ramp through a locked gate) and the Licensee, however the Forest

Service believes that all public use is for Project purposes, and therefore the

responsibility of the Licensee.

Road U38N11X – Road to Base of McCloud Dam

Although this access road has historically been strictly for Licensee use, study data

has shown that the dam is a popular fishing location and occasionally used as a

boating put-in for whitewater trips on the Lower McCloud River. As a result, the

Licensee, in collaboration with the Forest Service and other parties, has agreed that

this location will be developed for public recreation use under the new license. The

road is currently designated a Project Road and will remain as such, but will be used

as a public access road for recreation purposes in addition to facility maintenance

needs.

Lower McCloud River Roads

General Road Information for Lower McCloud River and Vicinity:

The March 1963, MOU between Hearst and the Forest Service included the

assurance of road easements across roads previously constructed by the Licensee, as

well as the connecting route to the Lower McCloud River via Battle Creek and

Skunk Hill.

By August 1963, the Hearst Corporation had granted rights-of-way to the Licensee

to access stream gages along the McCloud River drainage near Big Springs, Angel

Creek, the Wyntoon estate, and Ah-Di-Na. After acquiring lands along the Lower

McCloud River in the land exchange, in 1966 the Forest Service issued a Special

Use Permit to the Licensee for the Ah-Di-Na gage, and a fence to protect the site

from the soon-to-be-developed campground.

With the completion of McCloud Dam and the development of public access below

the reservoir to Hawkins Creek, and over Skunk Hill to Ah-Di-Na, the Forest

Service understood that facilities would be needed to accommodate the new public

use that would follow Project development. In 1963, the Forest Service completed

the “Stage 2 Multiple Use Impact Report (MUIR) (USDA, 1963a) on Pit-McCloud

Project” to evaluate and plan for the changes the Project would bring.

As noted above under the rationale for Recreation, the Forest Service identified AhDi-Na and Ash Camp as key recreation development sites for campgrounds to serve

the Project recreation needs. Roads to both sites were developed by this time, and
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 78

the proximity to the reduced flows of the McCloud River below the dam was

anticipated to be a strong draw for fishing. As the document notes:

“Hawkins Creek would become accessible to anglers over the project

access and maintenance roads.” “Access resulting from the

construction of roads for the project will no doubt have the effect of

increasing the recreational use of the area many fold” (USDA, 1963a,

p. IV-C-3,4).

“This area includes the southern portion of the McCloud Reservoir,

about three miles of the McCloud River and Hawkins Creek. All this

area, previously closed to public access, is partially dependent for

development upon completion of the pending land exchange with

Hearst Corporation.”

“Initial development would consist of a 15-unit campground at

Butcherknife Creek and a 15-unit Campground at Ah-Di-Na.”

Since the road over Skunk Hill to Ah-Di-Na will be a public road and

connected to the west side road at Battle Creek, if the Hearst exchange

is completed, excellent campground sites will become available for

Forest Service development on the McCloud River. It would only be

a three to four mile drive to the reservoir if the camper tires of the

excellent river fishing.” (USDA, 1963a, p. IV-E-16 to 18).

Roads U38N11Y (Ash Camp) and 38N53 (Ah-Di-Na):

Both the Ash Camp (U38N11Y) and the Ah-Di-Na (38N53) roads end at the

McCloud River. In addition to the campground, the Ash Camp road also serves as

access to the Pacific Crest Trail which remains a non-Project feature that is Forest

Service responsibility. For Ah-Di-Na, in addition to the campground and stream

gage, the road also serves Hearst Corporation lands, and the Nature Conservancy.

While most of the traffic use is Project-related according to traffic studies conducted

for the relicense (TM-22, p. A5-7 and A5-9), the Forest Service has agreed to share

maintenance of these two roads with the Licensee under a Road Maintenance

Agreement to be developed prior to license issuance.

As requested by the Licensee, the Forest Service is willing to work with them

outside of the licensing process and prior to development of our Final 4(e) License

Conditions on a road agreement for the Ah-Di-Na road (FS road #38N53). This is

because road maintenance responsibilities should also involve other parties such as

the TNC, Hearst Corporation, and potentially others. Involvement of such a large

group of people within the constraints of a FERC license issued solely to the
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 79

Licensee can be cumbersome. However, should agreement not be reached, as

discussed with the Licensee, this condition will be combined with other Projectaffected roads in the Memorandum of Understanding (or other appropriate

authorization) discussed in Road Condition No. 29, Part 5.

Iron Canyon Roads

General Road Information for Iron Canyon Area:

Documents developed at the time of the original Project license indicate that the

main road from Big Bend north to the site of the new Iron Canyon Reservoir was a

private road (now 38N11 Segment 2) constructed by Zamboni Lumber Company in

cooperation with R.G. Watt and Rayner (USDA, 1963a, p. III-A-1).

Lands around the site of the proposed Iron Canyon Reservoir were mixed ownership

with NFS land, R.G. Watt, Alice McCourt Lamm, and the estate of W.E. Lamm.

Development of the reservoir inundated portions of the existing logging road used to

log the R.G. Watt lands, and construction of a new road around the reservoir by the

Licensee was necessary to replace landowner access. As a result, in 1963, the

Licensee secured easements from both R.G.Watt et. al. and the Forest Service to

construct connecting segments of a road leading from the Hawkins Creek Road

(38N11) to the Oak Mountain Road (37N34).

This Iron Canyon Loop Road (37N78) provides access to the Hawkins Landing

campground and boat ramp on Licensee lands, Deadlun Campground, 22 dispersed

campsites on NFS lands, the Iron Canyon dam and MC-10 stream gage, the borrow

pits for dam construction, and the dam control building. While the adjacent land

owner is now Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI), private logging remains the only

additional use served by this loop road around Iron Canyon Reservoir.

Road 38N11 - Hawkins Creek (Segment 2):

While it is clear that Segment 2 of the Hawkins Creek road (38N11) serves the

Project, it also serves points north and south, and the private in-holdings on the east

side of the reservoir. The Forest Service believes that this is a Project-affected road

and will share maintenance with the Licensee under a MOU for the portion of this

road from Kosk Creek Bridge, to the turn-off to the Iron Canyon Loop Road

(37N78).
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 80

Road 37N78 – Iron Canyon Loop Road:

Traffic surveys conducted for the re-license, show fewer public visits to Iron

Canyon Reservoir than McCloud Reservoir, with only 6,000 vehicles traveling up

from the town of Big Bend (TM-22 p. A5-11). Unlike McCloud Reservoir, two ungated roads lead from the loop-road to SPI lands to the west (see Figure A5-6, TM22). Traffic entering the loop-road either from the north or south from 38N11,

could be traveling to a non-Project destination. However, a review of both the

traffic counter data and visual observation data indicates that for the matching dates,

over 90% of the traffic is headed to Project facilities, while less than 10% travels up

the two private SPI roads (TM-22, p. A5-13, March 2008 version*)6.

Because nearly all traffic (over 90%) that turns off the Hawkins Creek Road

(38N11) to either the south or north shore of the reservoir is traveling to a Project

facility, and for other Project reasons discussed above, the Forest Service has

determined that the Iron Canyon loop road from the junction with Hawkins Creek

road (38N11) to the junction with the Oak Mountain Road (8.54 miles) is a Project

Road and should be designated as such.

37N27Y - Deadlun Road, 37N66Y -Hawkins Landing Road, 37N78A- MC-10

gage:

These roads are currently designated as Project roads and will remain as such.

Contrary to the FLA (PG&E, 2009, Table 3.7.2-1, p. 3-405), maintenance

responsibility for each of these roads will belong to the Licensee.

6 Note that the January 2009 version of table A5-5 appears to contain errors in traffic counter data for the

Hawkins Landing and two SPI roads. While number of matching days and total vehicle counts remain the

same for the three points of entry (Hawkins Creek Road, Oak Mountain Road, or the penstock road to James

B. Black), the vehicle counts for several columns appear to more than double or triple between the 2008 DLA

and the 2009 FLA documents.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 81

Oak Mountain Roads and Vicinity

37N34- Oak Mtn. Road, 37N93, 37N93A, 37N93C- Ridge Road and spurs:

All of the roads serving this area of the Project were built by the Licensee for

construction and operation of the Project infrastructure. They are currently

designated as Project roads and will remain as such with maintenance responsibility

by the Licensee. The Licensee currently and will continue to conduct snow removal

on the Oak Mountain road throughout the year to access the Iron Canyon Dam

operations. Because public comments and documented use from the study plan data

show a strong public desire for a longer season of use at the reservoir, a new boat

ramp is planned for the dam area that will provide access to the reservoir across Oak

Mountain road during the fall and spring months when other access may be blocked

by snow (see Recreation portion above).

Pit 6, Pit 7, Fenders Flat and Hogback Mountain

Road 34N17 – Fenders Ferry:

Traffic counters on the Fenders Ferry road leading into the Project recorded over

6,000 vehicles during the study period, with 29% heading past the Project facilities

to points north (TM-22 Table A1-1, p. A1-4). While the Licensee notes that

upgrades to Pit 7 Powerhouse and the Hogback Communication Site occurred

during this period and therefore increased the volume, it is also true that these sites

are Project facilities. The Forest Service proposes shared maintenance of this road

with the Licensee under an MOU proportionate to the share of each parties use.

Roads 35N46 – Reynolds Basin, and 35N93 – Hog Back Mtn:

In 1963, a fire lookout was proposed on the Hogback Mountain site to provide

visual fire detection in the newly developing Pit 6 and Pit 7 areas where Licensee’s

hydroelectric construction was occurring. The 1963 Multiple Use Impact Report

states that:

“Little Round Mountain Lookout, although relatively close to the

project area, is completely blocked out from viewing any of the

critical areas by a ridge close to the lookout. Studies have been made

of Hogback Mountain as a possible replacement site and results

indicated this would be a highly desirable move to make. The

U.S.F.S. and the State are in agreement that a lookout station should

be built on Hogback Mountain as early as possible. A low standard

road now exists to the proposed site” (USDA, 1963a, p. III-B-3).
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 82

Construction of the fire lookout was followed by installation of Communication

equipment by the Licensee for regulation of the dams. Since Project construction in

the 1960’s, fire detection techniques have changed and lookouts have been

abandoned, including the Hogback lookout. While the Licensee communication site

remains, the Forest Service has no further need for the site. Authorization for the

Communication equipment is by Special Use Permit to the Licensee. The Forest

Service proposes shared maintenance of these access roads (35N46 and 35N93) with

the Licensee under an MOU proportionate to the share of each parties use.

Pit 6 Powerhouse Road, Road 35N23 – Pit 7 Road, Road 35N66 – Fenders Flat:

The road to Pit 6 and Pit 7 powerhouses are currently designated as Project roads

and will remain as such with all maintenance by the Licensee. A limited amount of

recreation development is planned for the Pit 7 reservoir (small parking area and

trail) to allow for fishing access to the reservoir.

The access road to the Fenders Flat Afterbay dam (35N66) is a popular fishing

access to the river and Afterbay below the dam, and new recreation facilities are

proposed to manage this use. Improvement of the site with picnic tables, pedestal

grills, vault toilet and trash receptacle and Project Patrol will improve the site and

limit trespass onto the v-notch weir. This road is currently designated as a Project

road and will remain as such with all maintenance by the Licensee.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 83

RECREATION, SIGNS, AND VISUAL QUALITY CONDITIONS

Conditions 30, 30a, 31 and 32

a. Guidance

Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

Forest Goals

 Manage the Shasta-Trinity National Forest land base and resources to

provide a variety of high quality outdoor recreation experiences (4-5.22).

 Encourage use of the Forests by the disadvantaged, physically challenged,

and minorities (4-5.24).

 Develop or expand opportunities for scenic drives and vista points (4-

5.37).

 Emphasize sport fisheries as a major recreation activity by expanding

recreational fisheries opportunities (4-4.12).

 Maintain a diversity of scenic quality throughout the Forests, particularly

along major travel corridors, in popular dispersed recreation areas, and in

highly developed areas (4-5.38).

Standards and Guidelines:

 Trails will be maintained as needed for specific management objectives.

Erosion control and primary access will receive priority (4-17.7j).

 Trails and trail bridges will be located, designed, constructed, and

maintained so that they are suitable for the type of travel being served (4-

17.7l).

 During licensing procedures, require Licensees to develop, operate,

maintain, or replace recreational facilities. The need for these actions will

be generated by the Project in proportion to its size (4-20.k)

 Bury penstocks and powerlines, where feasible and desirable, for resource

mitigation. This mitigation will be determined by environmental analysis

(4-20.o).

 Ensure that Environmental Impact Statements (EIS’s) and/or

Environmental Assessments (EA’s) for hydroelectric projects evaluate

and propose mitigation measures for secondary, and/or side effect of

projects, such as crew housing, recreational needs, and law enforcement

problems (4-20.p).

 During the project planning phase, consider the need for construction of

trails, roads, and/or recreational facilities. The intent is to maintain or
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 84

enhance current use and mitigate adverse impacts during construction (4-

20.q).

 Licensee will adopt the Forests’ design motif and standard details to

coordinate recreational/visual standards (4-20.r).

 Manage activities and projects to meet adopted Visual Quality Objective

(VQO’s) of: (1) preservation (P); (2) retention (R); (3) partial retention

(PR); (4) modification (M); or (5) maximum modification (MM). On rare

occasions the adopted VQO may not meet management’s objectives (i.e.,

catastrophic events). Any proposed modification to adopted VQO’s must

go through the NEPA process and be approved by the Forest Supervisor

(4-27.21a).

 Manage developed recreation sites according to the Recreation

Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classes (4-23.a).

 Provide barrier free recreation facilities that are accessible to physically

challenged individuals (4-24.c).

 Prepare objectives and prescriptions for managing vegetation in and

around developed recreation sites (4-24.d).

 Provide interpretive services to direct visitors to their recreation

destinations, to facilitate understanding of resource management

activities, and to acquaint them with unique or special features on the

Forests and the function of forest ecosystems (4-24.g).

 Continue to improve access to rivers, streams, and lakes for wateroriented recreation activities consistent with the Aquatic Conservation

Strategy. Continue to provide access to hunting, fishing and wildlife

viewing (4-24.m).

 Mitigate the physical impacts of increased, dispersed recreation use.

Rehabilitation efforts should respond to resource damage to soils, water

and vegetation (4-24.o).

 Encourage the private sector to help provide needed recreation sites,

facilities, and services with a development level consistent with the

environmental setting and appropriate studies (4-24.t).

Riparian Reserves and Key Watersheds:

 New Recreation facilities within Riparian Reserves, including trails and

dispersed sites, should be designed to not prevent meeting Aquatic

Conservation Strategy objectives. Construction of these facilities should

not prevent future attainment of these objectives. For existing recreation

facilities within Riparian Reserves, evaluate and mitigate impact to ensure

that these do not prevent, and to the extent practicable contribute to,

attainment of Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives (4.56.a).

 Adjust dispersed and developed recreation practices that retard or prevent
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 85

attainment of Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. Where

adjustment measures such as education, use limitations, traffic control

devices, increased maintenance, relocation of facilities and/or specific site

closures are not effective, eliminate the practice or occupancy (4-56.b).

McCloud River/Pit Management Area Supplement Management Direction:

 Where the opportunity arises, acquire public access along the McCloud

River and Squaw Valley Creek (4-123.7).

 Continue to develop trail access to and along Squaw Valley Creek and the

McCloud River (4-123.8).

 Evaluate whitewater boating opportunities (4-123.9).

 In cooperation with private landowners, Licensee and the DFG manage

the Upper and Lower McCloud River and Squaw Valley Creek under a

CRMP (4-123.11).

 Manage the Pit River for dispersed, water-oriented recreation

opportunities (4-127.5).

Monitoring Action Plan (5-10, 11)

 Implementation of Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS).

 Determine if recreation management direction meets expectations of

visitors.

 Determine if critical recreation resource attributes for each ROS class are

protected from degradation.

 Determine if actual use compares with projections.

 Condition of developed sites

 Recreation Management and facility costs.

 Determine effectiveness of off-highway vehicle plan in protecting Forest

resources.

b. Rationale to support license condition(s):

Surveys and studies conducted for the relicensing of the McCloud-Pit Project support the

Forest Service belief that an increasing number of Project users is translating into a strong

demand for more and improved facilities with an extended season of use at the Project

reservoirs and facilities. In addition to the Rationale provided below, the Forest Service

May 19, 2009 response to Licensee’s Draft License Application provides substantial

discussion on Project nexus and the need for recreation mitigations, and is incorporated

here by reference.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 86

General

Many of the responses note the inadequate toilet facilities and lack of Project patrol. All

day-use facilities should have restrooms, potable water, animal proof trash receptacles, and

regular Project patrol to keep sites clean, safe and sanitary.

Fishing is the number-one use at the McCloud and Iron Canyon Reservoirs, much of

it boat based. While the McCloud boat ramp is over capacity and the Hawkins

Landing ramp lacks adequate slope, study results indicate that all reservoirs are still

under capacity for surface use. For the McCloud Reservoir, results indicate that

boat-based fishing concentrates in the upper arm of the reservoir (RL-S3, TM-23)

while higher speed boating occurs in the main body of the reservoir. Occasional

high-speed use on the upper reach of the McCloud Reservoir generates complaints

from fishing boats, and several respondents requested slower speed limits in the

upper reach to prevent conflicts and increase safety in the future. Higher speeds are

not uncommon on Iron Canyon reservoir and conflicts may develop as facilities

improve.

Winter storm debris on the reservoir surfaces accumulates at access points and at the

boat ramps partially blocking access. Large floating debris also creates a boating

hazard on reservoir surfaces.

Better management of reservoir surfaces with various access points, surface speed

restrictions, and debris removal would allow surface use to continue to grow safely.

McCloud Reservoir

Surveys (RL-S1) indicate that nearly half of Project users are older (>55) day-use boaters

who fish for over three hours at least twice a week. They are mostly from locations within

Siskiyou County (McCloud, Mt. Shasta, Weed, etc.). While use was highest in the

summer (80%), there is steady use during the spring (54%) and fall (44%), and even some

winter use (10%). Several comments noted the congested ramp, limited parking, lack of

potable water, lack of shoreline trails, and the need for a longer season of use. Results of

the capacity study (TM-44, Table 1) confirmed this impression that the parking lot and boat

ramp are over capacity in the summer months, and at or approaching capacity during the

shoulder seasons.

Over-flights in 2007 and 2008 show boating use on McCloud Reservoir nearly every month

of the year. Boats were observed all flight days from April – October and additionally on

50% of the flight days in February, and 60% of the flight days in March. Single flights

were conducted in November and January and boats were recorded both days. If the

season of available use is extended to include snow-free days in spring, fall and winter, it is

clear that visitors will come.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 87

Lack of facilities and limited access has also created conflicts at the single available

dock. Several responses (RL-S1, TM-24) note the conflict between swimming,

fishing, and boat launching at the McCloud Reservoir loading dock. Development

of alternate day use sites, with access to the water, should alleviate the pressure and

conflicts at the McCloud ramp from non-boating use.

In conjunction with fishing, camping is the next most desirable use for reservoir

development. (RL-S1, TM-34). Despite the lack of facilities around McCloud

Reservoir, the public still camps regularly at various dispersed sites, including Star

City. Several sites receive steady use for both overnight camping and day use

access for swimming and wading. Past use and comments received show a strong

desire for an overnight facility at McCloud reservoir that is clean, safe and well

maintained, as well as developed day use areas where visitors can swim or fish from

shore or a dock.

Iron Canyon Reservoir

Iron Canyon Reservoir experiences fewer users than McCloud Reservoir and mostly from

Shasta County (Redding, Burney, etc.). Congestion at Hawkins Landing boat ramp is less

severe, however, very limited parking is available above the high water line. When vehicle

travel below the high water mark is restricted by the Forest Service Travel Management

Plan and License conditions, additional parking must be developed to accommodate both

historic and anticipated future use. The shallow slope and large fluctuations of the

reservoir do not lend themselves to improvements at this site. A new ramp must be

developed where slope conditions are favorable and where the water does not recede so

dramatically from the shoreline. A location near the Iron Canyon Dam would also allow

for an expanded season of use since snow removal takes place by the Licensee all winter

over the Oak Mountain road. When the ramp is snow-free, plowing the parking area at the

new ramp would allow some recreation use of the reservoir outside of the peak

spring/summer season. Lighting at both ramps (McCloud and Iron Canyon) would provide

more safety for surveyed users who fish early or late in the day when fish are more active,

especially in the shoulder seasons when daylight hours are limited.

Existing dispersed camping around Iron Canyon reservoir points to a demand for

shoreline development near portions of the reservoir where drawdown is less

dramatic. Although the two existing campgrounds (Deadlun and Hawkins) provide

nearly 40 campsites, occupancy is at or below capacity during the recreation season

(TM-44, p. 4). In contrast, recreation surveys found 22 dispersed use campsites

around the shoreline of the reservoir (TM-16, p. 22). Many of these included signs,

campfire rings, and hand-built toilets. The pattern indicates a need to relocate the

camping opportunities away from the shallow fingers of the lake and towards the

deeper areas where water remains accessible during most of the recreation season.

When alternate facilities are available, closure of some or all areas to dispersed
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 88

overnight use should be considered to alleviate on-going resource concerns

including soil erosion and compaction, sanitation, visual, loss of vegetation, cultural

impacts, etc. If current dispersed use is eliminated without providing desired

shoreline facilities, public dissatisfaction, law enforcement issues, and additional

resource damage would likely result.

Although exact locations to move Deadlun Campground need field verification next

year (and prior to Final Section 4(e) conditions), past field reviews identified likely

suitable locations along the north shoreline where deeper water is in close proximity

to NFS land. These sites were identified in Licensee’s 1972 “Revised Recreation

Use Plan Iron Canyon Reservoir McCloud-Pit Project FPC No. 2106”. These areas

would best serve the recreating public because they are adjacent to the main

reservoir where waters are deeper, rather than at the end of the arms where reservoir

elevation fluctuates greatly. Deadlun Campground was only constructed beyond the

terminus of the Deadlun Creek Arm because at the time of construction this was the

only NFS land with topography that allowed construction of a campground. Since

then, a land exchange around Iron Canyon Reservoir has resulted in much better

sites for a campground(s), and are in fact locations the public currently uses for

dispersed camping. Thus, reconstructing Deadlun Campground in its existing

location, as proposed by Licensee, would result in continued under-utilization, not

meet public demand, not achieve Forest Service recreation management objectives,

nor address current resource concerns.

Pit River

Use on Pit 6 and Pit 7 reservoirs remains very light due to steep slopes and limited

access. Options exist for expanded access to Pit 7 reservoir either from the Pit 6

access road or from the Pit 7 dam. If surveys show that use has grown at this site

during the next license period, additional options (such as new trails or hand-launch

boat access) may be considered. Because of the low Recreational Opportunity

Spectrum on much of the two reservoirs, development would continue to be low and

of a primitive nature.

Fishing is the primary use at the Pit 7 Afterbay site, both at the v-notch weir and as

access to the Upper Pit River arm of Shasta Lake. Improvement of the small boat

launch should help to move use below the v-notch and direct use to authorized

areas. Trespass onto the v-notch weir remains a safety concern and the proposal to

develop an alternate site near the base of the Pit 7 dam with development of the

micro-hydro is intended to offer an alternate, safer opportunity to fish the Afterbay.

Monitoring results during the next license will be used to evaluate other options if

trespass continues and use remains high.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 89

McCloud Reservoir Constraints

When the 2106 Project license was issued in 1961, the Forest Service and the Hearst

Corp. were completing a land exchange to consolidate ownership in a checkerboard

area of the Forest. The Forest Service did not intend to manage recreation in the

McCloud River area, and was disposing of NFS lands around what would become

McCloud reservoir. To provide for public access to the newly created reservoir, the

Hearst Corp. donated roughly 95 acres of land around the southern shore to the

Forest Service. While it is clear that the public has benefited from both the Project

and the donation, the Project boundary and deed covenant have been problematic.

Public pressure to reach the water has grown and has lead to site damage, trespass,

and sanitation concerns, especially at Star City. The Hearst Corp. has raised

concerns regularly about wildfires and unmanaged public use (correspondence

Hearst Corp to District Ranger, various years). Closure of the Star City site to

overnight camping would require constant policing, would be questionably

successful, and would not meet the intent of managing Project-induced recreation.

Alternate facilities are not available to McCloud recreation users. Results from the

recreation inventory (RL-S2, TM-16) identified nine user-created dispersed

recreation sites around this reservoir. The data confirmed information from Forest

Service Law Enforcement and Recreation staff regarding popular dispersed

locations around the reservoir. The Forest Service recommends redefining the

Project (and private property) boundary to the outside edge of the two roads circling

the south half of the reservoir (38N11 and 38N04Y roads). This would allow the

Project to include all of the public recreation sites and their access roads, and reduce

the potential for trespass. Development of overnight and day-use areas around the

southern shoreline would provide a managed opportunity with resource protection

on NFS land, and security for the adjacent private lands.

Project Nexus to Lower McCloud River

The Forest Service believes that a clear Project nexus exists to the Lower McCloud

River based on documents developed at the time the Project was issued a license in

1961, and that the Project had a direct affect on access and use of the Lower

McCloud River once the Forest Service acquired the land and associated access in

the mid to late 1960’s. Additionally, the Forest Service believes relicensing study

results support the nexus, as does the anglers on-going concerns that changes to

Project instream flow below McCloud Dam will adversely affect their angling

experience. Thus, the Forest Service disagrees with Licensee’s statements in the

July 27, 2006 Pre-Application Document (PAD), February 2009 Draft License

Application (DLA), and the July 2009 Application for New License (FLA), where

Licensee concluded that no Project nexus exists with the Lower McCloud River, and
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 90

concludes that Ash Camp and Ah-Di-Na Campground could become Project

facilities within the new license. The Forest Service is willing to work on

developing an alternate agreement outside of relicensing between the Forest Service

and the Licensee, and approved by the Forest Service for rehabilitation and

management of these facilities, as discussed in Condition No. 30a.

Specifically, on P. E1-11-12 of the July 2009 License Application their argument

states:

“The road to the Ah-Di-Na area was originally constructed to access a

homestead. Later the USFS improved the road (designated Forest Road 38N53)

and built Ah-Di-Na Campground and Ash Camp to address the recreation that

was occurring on the Lower McCloud River, long before the Project was

constructed.”

The discussion of facts below shows why the above statement is incorrect.

FERC License 2106 was issued to Licensee in 1961 when the National Forest

ownership did not include the Ah-Di-Na or Ash Camp areas, and public access to

the lower river corridor did not exist. Contrary to the Licensee’s assertion,

acquisition and consequent Forest Service construction followed (not predated)

license issuance. Historical records from the period of construction indicate that the

campgrounds were built in order to accommodate increased and projected public use

as a direct result of Licensee’s McCloud-Pit hydroelectric Project.

Project Chronology:

1955: Initiation of Hearst Land for Land Exchange with U.S. Forest Service

1961: Federal Power Commission issues License 2106 to PG&E

1963: Forest Service prepares 5430 Hearst Exchange Report and MOU

1963: Forest Service prepares Multiple Use Impact Report for Pit-McCloud

Project

1965: Deed recorded for Hearst/USA Land Exchange

1965: Date of Commission Unit No. 2 @ James B. Black Powerhouse

1966: Forest Service begins recreation developments at Ah-Di-Na

1966: Date of Commission Unit No. 1 @ James B. Black Powerhouse

1969: Hearst donation to USA for land around McCloud Reservoir

In 1955, the Forest Service and the Hearst Corporation began negotiating a land-forland exchange in the McCloud River drainage that included lands below what would

become McCloud Reservoir. The goal of the exchange was to “consolidate within

the upper portion of the Hearst holdings for their land management, and to

consolidate National Forest land in the southern portion.” (Chapter I. Introduction,

Hearst Corporation Exchange Land for Land, USDA, 1963b).
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 91

During this period, the FPC issued license 2106 to Licensee for construction of the

McCloud Pit Project. The land exchange package appraised both the offered and

selected lands in light of the new McCloud reservoir and the opening of public

access to the river below the dam. The exchange report states:

“Of impact on the exchange area, is the current development of the Pacific

Gas & Electric Pit-McCloud hydroelectric power project. As a part of this

project, the McCloud Reservoir is being constructed within the southern area

of the selected lands. In order to protect the public’s interest in this

Reservoir, agreement has been reached with the Hearst Corporation on access

to the Reservoir and the use of the Reservoir by the public. Of prime

importance in consideration of the exchange are the recreational aspects.

Currently all the area south of the town of McCloud, that is, along Squaw

Valley Creek and along the McCloud River to where it enters Shasta Lake,

for many years has been closed to public access.” (USDA, 1963 b).

“With development and completion of the McCloud Reservoir... this area,

too, will provide fishing and boating recreation for the public. With the

consummation of the exchange the area south of the Reservoir will also be

open to public fishing. Because of the terrain, the area immediately adjacent

to the McCloud Reservoir is considered unusable from a recreation

development standpoint. However, an area south of the Reservoir offers one

of the more desirable sites....This area, located at Ah-Di-Na, is immediately

adjacent to the McCloud River” and “represents the bulk of the potential

recreation land in the vicinity of the McCloud Reservoir.” (Chapter IV-3

Physical Description, USDA, 1963b. IV-3).

“Releases from the lake are fixed at a minimum of 160 cubic feet per second.

This will result in considerably less flowage in the Lower McCloud River

than currently exists....This in effect will enhance the value of the Lower

McCloud River by reducing the volume of water and thereby the threatening

nature of the McCloud River itself.” (Chapter IV-3, USDA, 1963b. IV-3).

“The area located at the junction of the McCloud River and Hawkins Creek

consists of 96 acres, a portion of which is located on the opposite side of the

McCloud River from the access. The accessible area would provide

sufficient room for several overnight campsites.” (Chapter IV-3, USDA,

1963b. IV-3).

The land exchange appraisal established three separate values for the identified

lands; 1) Timber value, 2) Natural land value, and 3) Special or Recreation land

value. Of the total acres offered, 608 acres were appraised reflecting additional
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 92

values by their location with respect to the McCloud Reservoir. Recreation lands

included potential recreation land at Ash Camp and Ah-Di-Na. The 1963 Land

Exchange report states:

“McCloud Reservoir will be a major attraction in this area and with its

completion access to this area will be much improved. Development in the

Ah-Di-Na area will benefit both by the reservoir and by the Lower McCloud

River. The reduction in volume of the McCloud River from its existing

volume to 160 cubic feet-per-second minimum will undoubtedly enhance the

value of this river area. Many recreationists (sp) prefer to associate with a

smaller, not so threatening stream, rather than the existing McCloud River”

(Chapter IV-4, USDA, 1963b). IV-4).

The report concluded, “Offered Unit #7 is the most desirable site in the entire

exchange area. It consists of 187 acres of excellent recreation land at Ah-DiNa. Its proximity to the McCloud Reservoir dictates that it will ultimately

serve the recreation pressures resulting from the construction of the

Reservoir.” (Chapter IV-9-4, USDA, 1963b. IV-9)

With the land exchange, all public lands around the reservoir were traded. Under

the terms of FPC license 2106, the project called for a “comprehensive plan for

improving and developing the McCloud and Pit Rivers ...and for other beneficial

uses, including recreational purposes.” (United States of America, Federal Power

Commission, Project No. 2106, Order Consolidating Proceedings and Issuing

License (Major). Issued August 18, 1961, Condition 9, P. 8).

In order to provide for these “recreational purposes,” in March of 1963, the Hearst

Corporation and the Forest Service signed a Memorandum of Understanding

identifying how this condition would be met. The two parties agreed that the Hearst

Corporation would donate to the Forest Service roughly 95 acres of land in a strip

between the 2680-foot contour (high water mark) and the Project boundary along

the southern shore of the reservoir to provide for public recreation access. The MOU

identified likely recreation sites (Star City and Tarantula Gulch) and the necessary

road rights of way to access these sites. The MOU included provisions to lease

additional areas of private land to the Forest Service for developed recreation

facilities. The donation was contingent upon signature of the Patent Deed (signed

June 10, 1965) and was consummated in 1969.

In a May 16, 1963, letter from Regional Forester Chas. A. Connaughton to the Chief

of the Forest Service, the Regional Forester lays out the reasoning behind the

Memorandum of Understanding and future donation between the Hearst Corp. and

the USA:
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 93

“The exchange proposal was initiated before the F.P.C. license was

issued to Licensee. At that time, COPCO’s application for license was

still pending with Squaw Valley as the impounding reservoir and with

a series of diversions and power plants down the river. With the

change of the licensee and project plans, certain changes were made in

the land adjustment or exchange proposal. The present plan is to

provide for full public use of the south half of the reservoir by making

available the project lands south of Star City and Tarantula Creeks...

The parcels of non-project National Forest lands around the reservoir

are in the exchange proposal. Thus, the public would be restricted to

the water surface and to the National Forest land within the project

boundaries south of the two Creeks. In effect, the “Understanding” is

to provide two public access routes to the south half of the water body

with access from the town of McCloud on the north as well as from

the Pit River area to the south, and in addition, access to the lower

McCloud. The campgrounds will be along the lower McCloud and

Hawkins Creek, the nearest over a mile south of the dam.”

On December 12, 1963, the Shasta-Trinity Forest Supervisor signed the PitMcCloud Project Multiple Use Impact Report (MUIR) (USDA, 1963a). The Impact

Report identified: Project impacts to the National Forest; consistency with current

management plans; and recommendations to limit or mitigate the McCloud-Pit

Hydro Project impacts on each resource area, including recreation. The Impact

Report states:

“In consequence of the nearly complete private control of the project area, no

public recreation or fishing exists on or in the vicinity of the project area on

the McCloud River from the [McCloud] Falls to Ah-Di-Na, a distance of

approximately 15 miles....” (USDA< 1963a, p. I-5).

In 1963, the McCloud District Multiple Use Management Plan proposed that the

area around the future McCloud Reservoir be dropped from further consideration for

public use and be managed strictly for timber. All public permits were canceled in

preparation for the change. (USDA, 1963a, p. I-6).

With development of the Project, the Forest Service made several recommendations

in the Impact Report to modify the current management plans and protect resources

within the Project area. The Impact Report states that a field survey was completed

in the spring of 1963 to identify all sites suitable for recreation development. That

inventory identified three general areas: A) Fenders Ferry Recreation Area, B) Iron

Canyon Recreation Area and C) McCloud Lake Recreation Area, which is described

as:
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 94

“... the southern portion of the McCloud Reservoir, about three miles of the

McCloud River, and Hawkins Creek. All this area, previously closed to

public access, is partially dependant for development upon completion of the

pending land exchange with Hearst Corporation.” (USDA, 1963a, p. IV-E16).

Estimated recreational development includes 16 specific sites (12 on the Lower

McCloud River or Hawkins Creek) including the Ah-Di-Na and Ash Camp

Campgrounds. (USDA, 1963a, p. IV-E-20-22).

The Impact Report describes the McCloud River as “one of the most famous trout

streams in the world” (MUIR p. IV-C-1). The “Project is located in a relatively

undeveloped section of the Shasta-Trinity National Forest...Private control of

access in the McCloud and Iron Canyon areas, and the steep topography of the Pit

have kept these areas remote to general public use” (USDA, 1963a, p. III-A-1).

Documents completed during Project planning in the 1960’s provide clear evidence

of a nexus between the McCloud-Pit Hydro Project and recreation on the Lower

McCloud River. The Forest Service (and other parties involved in these documents)

clearly understood that Project impacts extended well beyond the inundation line of

the reservoir and would significantly change the recreation use patterns in the Lower

McCloud River. Because lands in the vicinity of the proposed McCloud Reservoir

and lower McCloud River were in private hands at the time of License issuance

(1961), the License did not require the development of a Recreation Plan similar to

the one created for the Iron Canyon Reservoir and Pit 7 Afterbay portions of this

Project. It is clear, however, that with the impending land exchange, the immediate

need for recreation facilities was expected and anticipated.

Appraisal rates were modified for the specific areas at Ah-Di-Na and Ash Camp to

account for their increased recreation value. Reduced flows from Project operations

were expected to draw fishing enthusiasts and create a demand for overnight use

along the river once public access was open. The Forest Service modified the

Multiple Use Management Plan in order to emphasize public recreation in these

locations rather than timber management as previously expected. The 1963 Impact

Report specifically addresses campgrounds to be constructed on the lower McCloud

River as a result of the land exchange induced by the McCloud-Pit Hydro Project.

Current use of both Ash Camp and Ah-Di-Na Campgrounds, and the publically

managed lands along the Lower River is high. The campgrounds are at or

approaching capacity (TM-44, Tables 2 and 3) during popular periods of the stream

fishing season (April – June, and October-November), and user-created trails have

developed along the river corridor between the two sites. In addition, a small but

steady amount of whitewater boating occurs on the river even without support
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 95

facilities or specific access (RL-S3). Both the quality of the rapids and the clear,

clean water draw boaters looking for more remote wilderness experiences. Existing

facilities along the lower river are reaching or have reached their useful life and

upgrades are needed to continue to serve the public demand.

Protection of significant Native American resources is a key component in

management and maintenance of the developed sites and use of dispersed sites.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 96

FIRE MANAGEMENT AND RESPONSE

Condition 33

a. Guidance

Shasta-Trinity Land and Resource Management Plan

Forest Goals

 Restore fire to its natural role in the ecosystem when establishing the

Desired Future Condition of the Landscape (4-4.10).

 Achieve a balance of fire suppression capability and fuels management

investments that are cost effective and able to meet ecosystem objectives

and protection responsibilities (4-4.11).

Standards and Guidelines

 All wildland fires, on or threatening private land protected by agreement

with the State of California, will receive a “control” suppression response

(4-17.b).

 Activity fuels that remain after meeting wildlife, riparian, soil, and other

environmental needs will be considered surplus and a potential fire

hazard. The amount and method of disposal will be determined in the

ecosystem analysis (4-17.c).

 Plan and implement fuel treatments emphasizing those treatments that

will replicate fires natural role in the ecosystems (4-18.d).

 Natural fuels will be treated in the following order of priority: (1) public

safety; (2) high investment situations (structural improvements,

powerlines, plantations, etc.); (3) known high fire occurrence areas; and

(4) coordinated resource benefits, i.e., ecosystem maintenance for natural

fire regimes (4-18.e).

 Consider fuelbreak construction investments when they compliment

Forest health/biomass reduction needs, very high and extensive resource

values are at risk and to protect Forest communities (4-18.f).

 Design the fire prevention efforts to minimize human-caused wildfires

commensurate with the resource values-at-risk (4-18.g).

Management Prescriptions

Late Successional Reserves (4-40)

 Fuels management in Late-Successional Reserves will utilize minimum
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 97

impact suppression methods in accordance with guidelines for reducing

risks of large-scale disturbance. Plans for wildfire suppression will

emphasize maintaining late-successional habitat.

 In Riparian and Late-Successional Reserves, the goal of wildfire

suppression is to limit the size of all fires.

Riparian Reserves and Key Watersheds (4-56, 57)

 Design fuel treatment and fire suppression strategies, practices, and

activities to meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives, and to

minimize disturbance of riparian ground cover and vegetation. Strategies

should recognize the role of fire in ecosystem function and identify those

instances where fire suppression or fuels management activities could be

damaging to long-term ecosystem function.

 In Riparian reserves, water drafting sites should be located and managed

to minimize adverse effects on riparian habitat and water quality, as

consistent with Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives.

McCloud River/Pit Management Area Supplement Management Direction

 Utilize natural fuels reduction to protect special habitat areas and forest

investments (4-127.2).

b. Rationale to support license condition(s):

The Fire Response and Prevention Plan license condition would provide protection

for Forest resources by requiring the Licensee to plan and prepare for responding to

wildland fires as well as implementing fuel treatments around recreation sites where

potential fire risk is greater. If a fire occurs, the Licensee response would minimize

damage to NFS land and resources, especially in Late Successional Reserves and

Riparian Reserves.

Survey results from RL-S7 (Project Wildfire Hazards) did not find any documented

fires within the Project boundary. Management in the Lower McCloud River and

Iron Canyon regions must be consistent with the goals of Late Successional

Reserves and Riparian Reserves while management in the Pit River Canyon must be

consistent with the guidelines for Administratively Withdrawn Areas. Both

designations favor low impact fire suppression tactics, and fuelbreak development

around specific resources, recognizing that the limits to land management activities

in the past may present higher fuel loading in the region surrounding the Project.

The 4(e) condition is intended to provide for shaded fuel breaks, and fuel treatment

where the risk from Project-induced human caused (recreation, vehicles,
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 98

maintenance) fires may be higher, while protecting the late successional qualities of

the surrounding landscape. The condition is also intended to facilitate

communication between the Licensee, private landowners, and affected agencies in

fire emergencies.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 99

HERITAGE RESOURCES

Condition 34

a. Guidance:

Shasta-Trinity Land and Resource Management Plan

Forest Goals:

 Preserve and interpret significant historic and prehistoric sites for the

benefit of Forest visitors (4-4.5).

 Provide archeological research opportunities for the professional

community (4-4.6).

 Develop partnerships with Native American tribes and organizations to

enhance those cultural resources that reflect their heritage (4-4.7).

Standards and Guidelines:

 Provide for Native American needs for collection and/or use of traditional

resources (4.16.a).

 Protect traditional Native American rights and practices (cf. P.L. 95-341)

to ensure that access to sacred sites will continue and use will not be

impaired (4-16.b).

 Manage heritage resources, including “Archaeological Interest”- 36 CFR

296, not covered by Forest Standards and Guidelines or Prescription XI,

according to the Shasta-Trinity National Forests’ Manual Supplement to

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2361(4-16.c).

 Evaluate heritage resources that might be effected by Project activities for

eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). This will

be done in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office as well

as interested parties (4-16.e).

 Identify sites that will require protection (e.g., by signing and/or flagging)

prior to implementation of management activities adjacent to the site (4-

16.f).

 Sign Heritage Resources in areas of recreation only if visitor use is

impairing the site’s values or if the site is to be interpreted (4-16.g).

 Historic sites, unless assigned to Prescription XI, will not be enhanced or

interpreted. They will be managed so that the site is not adversely

affected and no hazard is caused to the public. Modifications to historic

structures must be compatible with standards and guidelines issued by the

Department of the Interior and the Advisory Council on Historic
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 100

Preservation (ACHP) (4-16.h).

 Mitigate adverse effects to heritage resources that are eligible for the

NRHP, according to direction issued by the Department of the Interior

and the ACHP (4-16.i).

Prescription XI. Heritage Resource Management

 Heritage Resources will be protected primarily by locating trails and

camp sites away from sensitive areas. Recreational activities and

development will be limited in such a way that visitor use does not take

place on or in the immediate vicinity of cultural resources, unless it is an

interpretive activity (4-50.1).

 Archaeological and ethnographic surveys will be designed to inventory

the area so that all cultural resources are located and recorded (4-50.2).

 All cultural resources associated with this prescription will have a

protection plan that specifies the need for signing, patrolling, flagging,

etc. Periodic monitoring of sites will also be conducted as needed, to

determine success of protection efforts (4-50.3).

 Consult with Native Americans so that management direction can be

developed for those areas having cultural importance and that they may

participate in watershed/project planning to assure that Native American

concerns are addressed as part of the process (4-50.4).

 No new road or trail construction will be allowed unless approved by the

Forest Supervisor. Reconstruction will be allowed only if adverse effects

are not created (4-51.6).

 Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use will be prohibited (4-51.8).

 Management activities should be compatible with Semi-Primitive NonMotorized or Semi-Primitive Motorized Recreation Opportunity

Spectrum (ROS) guidelines dependant on the level of interpretation

proposed for the sites (4-51.10).

 All projects, proposals, and activities must proceed in full compliance

with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, including

Special Use Permits (4-51.12).

McCloud/Pit Management Area Supplemental Management Direction

 Conduct a thematic study of the archaeological sites representing the

Native American uses of the McCloud River. Emphasize sites that are

being disturbed by dispersed recreation activities such as Ash Camp,

Camp 4, Four Mile Flat, and Ah-Di-Na. Pursue partnerships with Shasta

College, California State University Chico, or other institutions (4-123.1).

 Interpret archaeological sites along the McCloud River in areas where
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 101

visitors are already being directed (4-123.2).

 During project level planning, identify cultural and historical values.

Manage significant sites under Management Prescription XI (4-127.9).

Monitoring Action Plan (Table 5-1)

 Investigate disturbances of Native American religious/sacred places (5-6).

 Investigate disturbances of Native American traditional resource areas

(not religious) (5-6).

 Check adequacy of site protection measures (5-6).

 Determine thoroughness of field identification of sites; datum tagging (5-

6).

b. Rationale to support license condition(s):

In developing the cultural resource terms and conditions, the Forest Service gave

due consideration to the current condition of these resources as demonstrated by

relicensing study results, other reasonably available data, and literature. Much of

this information is contained in the McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project Application

for New License (July 2009).

Since many of the historic properties are on lands managed by the Shasta-Trinity

National Forest, the Forest Service retains legal responsibilities for management of

those historic properties. Federal historic preservation laws and regulations include

but are not limited to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its

implementing regulations 36 CFR 800, AIRFA (American Indian Religious

Freedom Act), ARPA (Archaeological Resources Protection Act), and NAGPRA

(Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act). Existing recreation use

has created impacts to many of these sites and mitigations will be needed to further

protect these resources as recreation use grows during the next Project license term.

Study results from CR-S1 have determined that there are approximately 33

archeological sites within the project APE, 22 of which lie on federal land managed

by the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Study results from CR-S2 for the Pit River

Tribe have determined that there are approximately 22 ethnographic sites within the

project APE, nine of which lie on federal land managed by the Shasta-Trinity

National Forest. Completion of CR-S2 for the Winnemem Wintu Tribe is likely to

reveal additional ethnographic places.

Many of these sites were previously known and recorded and three sites along the

Lower McCloud River (Ash Camp, Ah-Di-Na, and Fitzhugh Gulch) are designated

as Prescription XI sites (i.e. heritage resource management emphasis) in the Shasta-
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 102

Trinity Land and Resource Management Plan. Existing recreation use has created

impacts to many of these sites and mitigations will be needed to further protect these

resources as recreation use grows.

Data collected for the relicense has included many areas along the Lower McCloud

River that have not been evaluated in several decades and now benefit from the

larger picture of known resources along the river. The high density and quality of

these sites may support the consideration of a larger Historic District that would

connect these sites in time and space to a distinct period of occupation. The

prehistoric resources on public lands, combined with the resources on the McCloud

River Club and Nature Conservancy give added weight to this discussion. In

addition, new information suggests that there may have been up to four Indian

Allotments near Claiborne Creek, within the expanded APE.

Pre-construction surveys, with routine monitoring, are necessary to determine if

degradation is occurring at known sites, and to develop mitigations to protect these

resources.

Comments on Draft Heritage Properties Management Plan (HPMP) (PG&E,

2009 Volume IV, July 2009, Privileged)

General Comments:

This draft document does not contain complete study results, fails to incorporate

previous Forest Service input, has not yet included formal consultation with Tribal

Governments, and does not include collaborative development of Project-specific

mitigations based on study results and other necessary components. It therefore

needs to be labeled as a “Draft” document until approved by the Forest Service,

tribes, and the Commission.

The bound copy of CR-S1 Part 2 is not paginated nor are the sites grouped

geographically. Though requested during a cultural meeting September 23, 2009

with the Pit River Tribe in Burney, no cross walk has been provided for Part 2.

Directions to many of the sites in Iron Canyon Reservoir and datum descriptions are

inadequate. Standard protocol on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest is to provide

approximate mileage to a site from a given point on a road, and walking directions

to the site if the site cannot be reached solely by road. Likewise, site datum’s are

usually described and their diameter (if a standing tree) is usually approximated.

ALB-12 (F.S. 05-14-61-601 (Old Bridge). Site record does not show location of

bridge footings on new site map from 2009.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 103

Specific Comments:

Page 1-8, Table 1.6-1. See also Page 7-1

There is no schedule for completion of the Draft HPMP for review by affected

parties and approval by the Forest Service and the Commission. Collaborative

meetings with the Forest Service and affected Tribes to complete the HPMP should

continue during this period of license development until final completion of the

document, as needed and should be facilitated. Changes should be made to the

document on a laptop projected on a screen for collaborators to view. The Final

HPMP must include complete and accurate site records as approved by the Forest

Service on NFS lands, completion of the CR-S2 ethnographic Winnemem Wintu

study or equivalent data, the identification of where current or proposed projects

may affect historic properties, and specific mitigations to prevent impacts to these

resources.

Page 3-2

See Forest Service rationale for Ah-Di-Na and Ash Camp as Project related

recreation developments (Enclosure 2, p. 43-47), and Forest Service Section 4(e)

conditions for Recreation Development and Management Plan (Enclosure 1, p. 42-

43). Because both campgrounds contain Prescription XI sites, which are determined

eligible to the National Register of Historic Places, the effects of the Section 4(e)

conditions proposed and appropriate mitigations must be addressed. The Forest

Service is proposing re-construction of these campgrounds to further enhance

recreation while providing site protection through a recreation improvement

strategy.

Page 3-3. Vandalism

Forest Service also provided this same comment in May 19, 2009, Forest Service

response to Draft License Application. Change the word “only” to “major” in first

sentence.

Page 4-2

First sentence at top of page, “All surveyed areas and areas that could not be

surveyed are identified in Appendix C”, change to “on maps in Appendix C.”

Page 4-7, Table 4.1.2-1

Add FS number 05-14-61-39 to CA-SHA-969

Page 4-3

The Draft HPMP listed 55 sites within the APE. This list does not appear to include

the new site found on the McCloud River. The Forest Service attempted to re-locate

CA-SHA-969 (F.S. 05-14-61-39); during our search we found a new site and sent
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 104

preliminary information, with a GPS location point, to Albion in an e-mail on June

5, 2009. The Forest Service also provided this same comment in the May 19, 2009

response to the Draft License Application. Change all figures accordingly for

number of prehistoric sites, number of new sites, etc.

Page 4-7

Add Forest Service Number 05-14-61-39 to the Table underneath CA-SHA-969. In

text description of sites on McCloud River Club property, add F.S. 05-14-61-601

after aka ALB-12. Based on site records, Draft HPMP should approximate which

sites are within the Project APE.

Page 4-7 through 4-10. Section 4.1.2.

The number of sites potentially within the expanded APE is erroneous based on the

information from site records obtained from the Northeast Center of the California

Historical Resources Information System. There are approximately 10 sites (though

this number should be double-checked within the project APE). It may be possible

to determine potential eligibility of some of the prehistoric sites on McCloud River

Club property based on site descriptions and impacts described.

Page 4-14: Resources Identified within the APE

Results of the correlation between TCP’s and archaeological resources should be

addressed in the Draft HPMP as a separate chapter.

Page 5-1 General Treatment Measures

A Table is needed to summarize all of the general treatment measures that could be

applied to historic properties, ethnobotanical gathering areas, and ethnographic

places. A sample Table is provided here:
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 105

Table 2-15. Sample General Treatment Table

Site Type General Treatment Measure Options

Prehistoric and Historic

Archaeological Sites

Annual Site Monitoring or Scheduled

Monitoring

Erosion Control/Stabilization

Padding/Filter Cloth

Road Closures/Barriers

Restrictive Signage

Interpretive Signage

Ethnobotanical Gathering

Areas

Prohibit use of herbicides

Use of ethnobotanical or native plants for

revegetation

Ethnographic Places Annual Monitoring

Restrictive Signage

Redesign or realignment of existing

infrastructure

Restrictive Signage

Interpretive Signage

Road Closures/Barriers
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 106

Page 5-1

Third paragraph: “Because the McCloud-Pit Project is located....” Add the word

“partially.”

Page 5-2

Title of Section 5.2 should be changed to “Current and Proposed Recreation

Development/Improvement.” Text already acknowledges proposed development or

improvements.

Page 5-4

Another potential location for interpretive signs is at Ash Camp and Ah-Di-Na

campgrounds.

Page 5-9: Management of Ethnobotanical Resources

CR-S2 dated September 2009, identified two gathering areas: ETH-50 and ETH132. These should be addressed in the Draft HPMP, including proposed

management of these areas since they are now documented. Because one area is on

NFS lands, management should be in consultation with Forest Service. Forest

Service requires that access is protected and herbicides are not used.

Page 5-13. Monitoring of Erosion/Siltation

The Forest Service supports the Licensee’s proposal for an erosion/monitoring

program. This program should be part of an appendix in the Draft HPMP and a

reference for these types of studies cited in the Draft HPMP.

Page 5-14. Monitoring and Reporting Protocols

Blank or master Monitoring Log should be included in an Appendix to the Draft

HPMP.

Page 5-15. Site Specific Monitoring

After baseline conditions are established, the Draft HPMP should document (in

tabular form) proposed monitoring frequencies for each site, after consultation with

affected parties.

Page 5-22 Curation of Recovered Cultural Materials:

Licensee should provide additional funding for curation of artifacts from any

archaeological sites within the Project APE from Project-related activities to the two

curation facilities, where appropriate: Pit River Tribe curation facility and the

Shasta College Laboratory.

Page 6-2

Second paragraph: Additional information and discussion is needed to determine if

there is compelling evidence for an archaeological and/or ethnographic historic
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 107

district along the Lower McCloud River. A District usually ties the sites and

ethnographic places chronologically and contextually, and has a tangible/defined

boundary. Since there is a cluster of sites that appear to have late period context

with midden and house pits, and there is a plethora of ethnographic information, and

Indian allotment information from a new thesis, an in-depth examination and

thorough review of all documentation for this area is warranted to determine if a

Historic District is warranted.

Table 6.1.0-1 should list the sites below the McCloud dam for proposed

management.

Section 6. Site Specific Treatment Measures

General comments –

Update tables to reflect proposed treatment measures in text. Example: Page 6-20-

CA-SHA-252 includes bank stabilization in text but not in Table.

The Forest Service recently re-visited a majority of sites around the Iron Canyon

Reservoir. It appears that the location of three sites on the west side of McGill

Creek may have been incorrectly located on new documents based on the locations

in the original site records. In addition to the comment the Forest Service provided

in our May 19, 2009, response to the Draft License Application, the Forest Service

additionally notes that all of the sites within the reservoir pool area around Iron

Canyon are being eroded and are subject to artifact dispersal due to Iron Canyon

Reservoir operational fluctuations. Site specific treatment measures should be based

on their potential eligibility to the National Register. The Forest Service proposes

that all of the sites directly in the pool area be evaluated for their potential

significance to the National Register through test excavations.

Page 6-25, Table 6.1.0-5

ALB-12, F.S. 05-14-61-601 (Claiborne Creek) – Project related effects include

boater pull out and use by the McCloud River Club. The Forest Service proposes

long-term photographic monitoring of this site. The Forest Service will also require

McCloud River Club to obtain a Special Use Permit for an unauthorized bridge and

trails on NFS lands.

Page 6-27, Table 6.1.-0-5

CA-SHA-686/H F.S. 05-14-61-08 (Ah-Di-Na) – Project related effects include the

Licensee’s gaging station that was built on top of an archaeological site. Thus,

maintenance of the gage station and road access to it has effects on the

archaeological site that require mitigation(s) to be included in the Draft HPMP.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 108

Page 6-46, Traditional Cultural Properties

The results of CR-S2 for the Pit River Tribe are now available and should be

incorporated into the Draft HPMP and not an amendment.

Appendix F

Resource Location Maps should include the Ethnographic data. Isolated find data

are not necessary in the Draft HPMP.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 109

IV. LITERATURE CITED

Application for New License, 2009. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, McCloud-Pit

Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project 2106. Volumes I – IV.

Ballinger, C.G. 1998. Shasta’s Headwaters: An angler’s guide to the Upper Sacramento

and McCloud Rivers. Frank Amato Publications, Portland, OR.

Brown LR, Bauer ML. 2009. Effects of hydrologic infrastructure on flow regimes of

California’s Central Valley rivers: Implications for fish populations. River Research

and Applications

Freeman MC, Bowen ZH, Bovee KD, Irwin ER. 2001. Flow and habitat effects on juvenile

fish abundance in natural and altered flow regimes. Ecological Applications 11:

179-190.

Gasith, A. and V.H. Resh. 1999. Streams in mediterranean climate regions: abiotic

influences and biotic responses to predictable seasonal events. Annual Review of

Ecology and Systematics 31:51-58.

Jager HI, Van Winkle W, Holcomb BD. 1999. Would hydrologic climate changes in Sierra

Nevada streams influence trout persistence? Transactions of the American Fisheries

Society 128: 222-240.

Jowett IG, Richardson J, Bonnett ML. 2005. Relationship between flow regime and fish

abundances in a gravel-bed river, New Zealand. Journal of Fish Biology 66: 1419-

1436.

Lytle DH, Poff NL. 2004. Adaptation to natural flow regimes. Trends in Ecology and

Evolution 19: 94-100.

Marcheti MP, Moyle PB. 2001. Keeping alien fishes at bay: effects of flow regime and

habitat structure on fish assemblages in a regulated California stream. Ecological

Applications 11: 75-87.

McCloud River Coordinated Resource Management Plan (CRMP). 1990.

Moyle B, Mount JF. 2007. Homogenous rivers, homogenous faunas. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences 104: 5711-5712.

Naiman RJ, Latterell JJ, Pettit NE, Olden JD. 2008. Flow variability and the biophysical

vitality of river systems. Comptes Rendus Geoscience 340: 629-643.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 110

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). 2009. Application for New License.

Volumes 1-V.

Poff NL, Allan JD, Bain MB, Karr JR, Prestegaard KL, Richter BD, Sparks RE, Stromberg

JC. 1997. The natural flow regime: a paradigm for river conservation and

restoration. Bioscience 47: 769-784.

Poff NL, Bledsoe BP, Cuhaciyan CO. 2006a. Hydrologic variation with land use across

the contiguous United States: geomorphic and ecological consequences for stream

ecosystems. Geomorphology 79: 264-285.

Pringle CM, Freeman MC, Freeman BJ. 2000. Regional effects of hydrologic alterations

on riverine macrobiota in the New World: tropical-temperate comparisons.

Bioscience 50: 807-823.

Richter BD, Baumgartner JV, Powell J, Braun DP. 1996. A method for assessing

hydrologic alteration within ecosystems. Conservation Biology 10: 1-12.

Richter BD, Thomas GA. 2007. Restoring environmental flows by modifying dam

operations. Ecology and Society 12: 12.

USDA, Forest Service. 1994. Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and

Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the

Northern Spotted Owl. Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for

Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the

Northern Spotted Owl.

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 2000. Water Quality Management for

Forest System Lands in California.

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Shasta-Trinity National Forests. 1995.

Land and Resource Management Plan.

USDA Forest Service, Region 5, Shasta-Trinity National Forest. 1963a. Stage 2, Multiple

Use Impact Report on the Pit-McCloud Project (Pacific Gas & Electric Company).

(Forest Service filed document with FERC on December 17, 2009).

USDA, Forest Service, Shasta-Trinity National Forest. 1963b. Hearst Land for Land

Exchange (Forest Service filed document with FERC on December 17, 2009).

USDA Forest Service, Shasta-Trinity National Forest, Shasta-McCloud Management Unit.

1998. Lower McCloud Watershed Assessment.

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1996. Riparian Areas

Environmental Uniqueness, Functions, and Values. NRCS/RCA Issue Brief

11 Riparian Areas, August 1996.
Enclosure 2 – Rationale

Page 111

Webb RH, Wegner DL, Andrews ED, Valdez RA, Patten DT. 1999. Downstream effects

of Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River in Grand Canyon – a review. In The

Controlled Flood in Grand Canyon, Webb RH, Schmidt JC, Marzolf GR, Valdez

RA (eds). AGU Monograph 110: Washington, D.C; 1-21.

Williams JD, Warren Jr. ML, Cummings KS, Harris JL, Neves RJ. 1993. Conservation

status of freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada. Fisheries 18(9): 6-

22.

Yarnell SM, Viers JH, Mount, JF. In Press. Ecology and management of the spring

snowmelt recession. Submitted to Bioscience.
This page intentionally left blank.
Enclosure 3 – Section 10(a) Recommendations & Rationale

Page 1

ENCLOSURE 3:

PRELIMINARY 10 (a) LICENSE RECOMMENDATIONS AND

RATIONALE

IN CONNECTION WITH

THE McCLOUD PIT HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

FERC NO. 2106,

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Since the Forest Service authority does not extend to the entire Project, we are submitting

terms where there are no direct or indirect effects to National Forest resources as 10(a)

recommendations.

RECOMMENDATION NO. 1 - FOOTHILL YELLOW LEGGED FROG

MONITORING PLAN

Within one year of license issuance the Licensee should develop and file with the

Commission, a Foothill Yellow Legged Frog (Rana boylii) (FYLF) Monitoring Plan. At

a minimum, the Plan should include: 1) An initial five-year study period to include both

wet and dry season flows following initiation of the new flow regime. 2) Incremental

monitoring of FYLF every four years (or period recommended by the CDF&G) after the

completion of the initial study period. At a minimum, the study should include:

 Surveys for FYLF distribution within the McCloud River from Claiborne

Creek to the intersection with Shasta Lake during the spring and summer to

determine presence and life stage development.

 Descriptions of the physical features of all identified frog breeding sites

including substrate, water temperatures at the onset of egg deposition,

vegetative cover, water velocities at egg deposition sites, canopy categories,

patch size, channel habitat type, evidence of predation, etc.

 Determination of whether changed instream flows result in breeding in newly

inundated margins, or utilization of old sites that may now be deeper.

 Assessments of whether the new breeding sites: 1) connect with the summer

lower flow channel; 2) remain as disconnected off channel water bodies; or 3)

dry up entirely.

 Return visits to breeding sites and adjacent low flow areas that may be tadpolerearing habitat to assess survival of tadpoles to metamorphosis. Beginning

after hatching of larvae, revisit a subset of breeding sites every 3 weeks to

determine survival and time of metamorphosis. To ensure comparability of

density estimates, time and area constrained searches shall be used. This

monitoring data will also be relevant to determining timing of young of the
Enclosure 3 – Section 10(a) Recommendations & Rationale

Page 2

year population metamorphosis (full tail reabsorbtion).

 Estimates of the number of adults at the onset of breeding at each breeding site.

 Monitoring of the time from egg deposition to hatching.

 Monitoring of tadpole numbers and life stage development using K.L. Gossner

(1960) life stage categories.

 Monitoring of water temperatures annually in March through May to determine

at what temperature breeding initiates and terminates. This information shall

be developed into a predictive tool in future years to avoid untimely spills or

flow fluctuations that could detrimentally affect FYLF recruitment.

 Take advantage of non-planned spring/summer high flow events to determine

any correlation between these spill events and changes in tadpole or

metamorph numbers from years when these spill events did not occur.

 Take advantage of the naturally (or Project induced) receding spring

hydrograph to determine flow vectors at known breeding sites and their

changes with flows.

 Reporting of survey results.

Rationale:

In order to ensure that flows proposed under the new license are not detrimental to

existing or potential Foothill Yellow Legged Frogs (Rana boylii, Forest Service

sensitive species), the Forest Service concurs with Licensee’s proposal for a FYLF

monitoring plan.
Enclosure 3 – Section 10(a) Recommendations & Rationale

Page 3

RECOMMENDATION NO. 2 – WHITE STURGEON AUGMENTATION PLAN

Within six months of license issuance Licensee should provide at least $5,000

annually for a program that would augment the existing stock of white sturgeon

within Shasta Lake with small/young fish. The means by which this is to be done is

to be determined by the Dept. of Fish and Game.

When and if the moratorium on the release of cultured white sturgeon into state

waters is lifted, and in lieu of the above annual funding, the Licensee shall enter into a

partnership with the Forest Service and the Dept. of Fish and Game for the purpose of

rearing white sturgeon for release into Shasta Lake. The Forest Service would

provide up to 10 fish cages, the Licensee would provide yearling sturgeon (up to 350

fish per cage) and supply the fish food annually. The Dept. of Fish and Game would

provide the fish culture and fish disease expertise as well as transportation for the

sturgeon from the aquaculture facility to the cages. The sturgeon would be raised for

a period of 6 months. The agreement would cover a ten-year period, after which it

could be renegotiated or terminated as needed, as determined by the Dept. of Fish and

Game and Forest Service.

Rationale:

After the completion of Shasta Dam, but prior to the completion of the facilities for

the Pit 6 and Pit 7 Powerhouses, white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) utilized

these reaches of the Pit River for spawning. The construction of the Pit 7 Dam

blocked this run, thereby preventing the recruitment of new individuals to the land

locked sturgeon population residing in Shasta Lake. As the population can no longer

spawn, augmenting this population with young fish would provide a continuing

supply of sturgeon to the lake, and would improve this sport fishery over time.
This page intentionally left blank.