[UPDATE: I've been contacted by a reporter who asked about my feelings and those of my readers about PG&E's handling of this mess. Essentially, I said this emnity towards PG&E's McCloud operations dates back years (remember those times they turned flows up the day before or after the season opened?). I don't think anything tricky is happening here, but PG&E's communciation through this fiasco has been abysmal (like it always is), and some are asking questions about why they didn't inspect all the couplings while replacing the first. Readers should leave comments in the comments section.]
This just received via email (I’m placing it in the “could have been worse, but only a little” category):
Dear McCloud-Pit Project Relicensing Participants:
Testing of the other James B. Black Powerhouse penstock couplings has identified one additional coupling that needs to be repaired before the powerhouse can be restarted. The coupling repair work is proceeding and should be complete in the next couple of days. Once repairs are completed it will take 2 to 3 days to refill the water tunnel between Iron Canyon Reservoir and the powerhouse. Once water is flowing through the powerhouse, it will take an additional 3 to 4 days to bring the water level down in Iron Canyon and McCloud reservoirs.
As a result the current estimate to reduce water spill flows from McCloud Dam to Lower McCloud River and return to a base flow of approximately 210 cfs at the Ah-Di-Na gage is 11/7.
Of course, the Underground offers a hearty “Thank you” to PG&E for mucking up the McCloud during a big chunk of the spring, and now during almost all the Fall.
I’m sure the towns surrounding the river appreciate your contribution to the well-being of the economy.
Of course, I thought long and hard about keeping this information to myself, then showing up to fish the still-deserted McCloud on the 7th, but I couldn’t (stupid conscience!).
See you in a couple weeks, Tom Chandler.
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
Ok, I’ll take the bait. Sure, from a short-term fishing perspective, this fall’s high flows on the McCloud have “mucked up” the fishing. However, from what I have heard from CalTrout and others, these high flows are actually very similar to what historic unimpaired flows on the McCloud would be at this time of year sans PG&E project.
There are many good people that are working hard to see the rivers and streams in California restored to something approaching natural, unimpaired flows, or at least flows mimicking natural hydrographs. These flows are a taste of that as far as I understand. And the spring high flows were conducted as part of studies to help relicensing participants develop a healthier flow regime on the river, not solely for trout, but for all plants, wildlife, and humans that use that amazing water as well.
I can complain about PG&E as much as the next guy. But when the outcome of their actions result in something more natural and less controlled than before, then I will keep my mouth shut.
(Quote)
Yuri: Good points, though I have to point out the spring flows tests were supposed to be conducted prior to the season opener. I haven’t heard a good excuse as to why that happened late.
As to the whole “natural” flow concept, I’d like to point out that dam isn’t exactly natural, and we used to have a lot more small stream fishing in the area before streams were diverted for irrigation, power, etc.
As soon as they return those opportunities to us (the Scott, Shasta, small streams, etc), I’ll be more sanguine about natural flows on the McCloud, which is an altered landscape to be sure.
I understand that fishermen may have to accept higher flows as a consequence of relicensing because it’s better for fish, but let’s face it – consistently higher flows will likely produce consistently bigger fish populations. That’s something we don’t get when the flows are low and then suddenly raised, so while the flows right now might be “natural,” the fish populations almost certainly aren’t.
The fisheries vs fishability question is playing out right now, and I understand why organizations like CalTrout have to be careful about raising the fishability issue.
(Quote)
I have a hard time believing that without the dam the flows would be anywhere near as high as they currently are at this time during the year. In general (IMHO) most non-tail water rivers flow high in the spring and low to very low in the fall. I hope PG&E isn’t considering having higher flows most of the time!? If higher flows were purposed for spring then something in between now and what have classically been the flows might be fish-a-ble, I really wouldn’t call it fish-a-ble at what it is now.
Tom — is there anywhere online with more information on the relicensing? I assume the fundamental purpose of relicensing was to provide the community and other stake holders, e.g., fly fisherman, environmental groups, etc. a bit of oversight in the process.
I also doubt that the high flows at this time when the browns are attempting to spawn are a good thing. For example: what happens if eggs get dropped on some piece of water that is normally above the stream level, i.e. dry, with normal flows: the flows drop the eggs are lost. I also don’t know if more water necessarily means more and bigger fish. Its not a simple equation.
Frankly, this whole October debacle is the result of poor planning. Any experienced engineer should have known that if they had a failed coupling and there were 4 or so other couplings the same age that it was likely that 1 or more of the others would also require repair. So, either it the engineers had their brains turned off or it really wasn’t important to PG&E to fix this quick. The direct communication about this issue in a realtime sense from PG&E, as far as I know, has also been non-existent. I guess on a $ level its not a big deal to them… precisely why oversight is so important.
Grrrrrrr.
(Quote)
Loon – Yes, “most non-tail water rivers flow high in the spring and low in the fall”. But the McCloud is no ordinary “non tail-water river”. As most in the know could tell you, the McCloud is fed by numerous prolific cold water springs that together provide significant flow. Much of this flow is diverted or removed from the system, as far as I understand it. Thus, the McCloud’s natural flows would have been much higher than they are now, both in springtime high flow periods and in the relatively lower periods of autumn. The point is that the McCloud would be flowing higher across the board, and the flows we’re seeing now are more in line with that.
Tom – good points and I agree (oh, and I by no means am arguing that the dam/reservoir are natural…god no). I’d love to see the Scott/Shasta, numerous creeks, returned to us too. You’re perfectly ok to raise your voice, my point was only that these higher flows, if applied across the board, could really improve the fishing (and everything else that depends on a healthy river) if done right. Of course, it’ll take some time getting used to–for us anglers and for the fish.
(Quote)
Yuri: The flows issue is playing out right now during the relicensing process, and there is a little friction between some fishermen and those involved in the process about fishability issues vs fisheries issues. I expect higher flows will probably be the result, though I don’t know how much.
And yes, I agree that as a group, we can’t necessarily demand more water for fisheries in other places but say we want less here because it’s harder to fish.
Still, that’s a separate issue – the real problem here is PG&E’s absolute lack of communication, and while I’m sure they’re losing money like crazy, I have to ask the same question Loon did (about inspecting and replacing the couplings).
Perhaps there’s a good reason for all this, but their lack of communication only spawns a lot of conjecture, and frankly, most fly fishermen haven’t forgotten this spring’s flow tests (supposed to be held prior to the season), and the joyous opening days of prior years, when PG&E turned up flows just before (or just after) the season opener.
(Quote)
Yuri – Yes, I almost stopped myself from making that generalization. In my head I can count probably a dozen significant (small) creeks that feed it, but some of those are below the dam and, as far as I know, many of them also run low in the fall. I agree the overall flows (naturally) would be [slightly] higher, but I doubt in the fall the would be close to 900cfs. For example if you look at the CDEC MCO (Lake McCloud) MSS (McCloud river above Shasta) stations and compare the lake level of MCO (AF) to the flows of MSS during in August, it seems clear that with the lake level going down, i.e., more going out of the McCloud dam than is coming into lake McCloud, the flows are somewhere in the 370cfs range (that translates to around 250cfs out of the dam) — from my calculations (I’m a engineer, not a Hydrologists though). Honestly, I would like to see the flows stay about the same as they have been for years and years. I’d welcome higher spring time flows (but not that high) if it would make the fishery healther, but I also think the flows in that case should be tapered down to the old levels as fall approached….
FYI, I did find: http://www.mccloud-pitrelicensing.com/ with some more info on the relicensing. It seems its the federal gov that is the license giver and I’m not sure how much public comment is really taken.
(Quote)
Oops… I should have added in the Pit powerhouse tube in there also. So, yes, agreed the flows would not be as low… but lets just keep them the way they are :-)
(Quote)
I’ve been fishing the McCloud for years and these flows were NOT fishable. Its comes down to the fact that at these flows wading was dangerous. Both prime times on the McCloud (June & October) this year were affected by PG&E altering flows. This is in a nutshell the root cause of the angst anglers are feeling. PG&E could have done several things better: do flow studies outside of the season, provide a place where anglers can get _up_to_date_ information on upcoming flows and any issues, e.g., the powerhouse problems, and if there are repairs needed then make realistic estimates. It seemed that the only information about the repairs was 2nd hand and that the estimate did not take into account the obvious risk that more couplings would be damaged.
(Quote)