Draft EIS_072312.pdf - Middle Fork American River Project ...

20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2012
Our Analysis
Periodic drawdowns of Ralston afterbay for sediment removal and maintenance
have the potential to affect hardhead, but, as under existing conditions, a refuge pool for
fish is provided during these events by maintaining a minimum water surface elevation of
no lower than the bottom of the spill gates (elevation 1,149 feet) in Ralston afterbay
during both sediment removal activities and the annual maintenance outage. During this
period, the minimum flows required for the peaking reach would flow from the spill gates
and through the afterbay and refuge pool to maintain suitable temperature and dissolved
oxygen conditions for fish (dissolved oxygen concentrations have always measured
greater than 7 mg/L under existing conditions). Overall, we expect no substantial
changes in existing conditions of reservoir fish habitat under either action alternative.
Fish health, abundance, and distribution should be maintained under either alternative.
Monitoring Compliance with Water Quality Objectives
Routine project operations and maintenance activities, implementation of nonroutine
recreation activities, modification of existing or construction of new project
facilities, and modifications to hydrology (pulse flows, increased minimum instream
flows) in the bypassed reaches could affect water quality. Proposed and Alternative 1
project changes are scheduled to occur over a period of up to 14 years and public use
patterns of project lands and waters may also change during the term of a new license, all
of which may have a bearing on water quality.
PCWA proposes a Water Quality Monitoring Plan with a goal of periodically
characterizing physical, chemical, and bacterial, water quality conditions in the bypassed
and peaking reaches and reservoirs associated with the project over the term of a new
license. Water quality monitoring would be conducted every 5 years beginning 3 years
after the license is issued. Water quality monitoring would include the collection of insitu
measurements, general water quality sampling, and fecal and total coliform sampling.
Information gathered from the water quality monitoring would be compared with basin
plan objectives, the California Toxics Rule water quality standards (Federal Register 65
FR 31682, EPA 2000), and the National Toxics Rule water quality standards (Federal
Register 57 FR 60848, EPA 1992) to confirm whether the water quality objectives set
forth in these plans are being maintained.
Forest Service 4(e) condition no. 28 includes the Water Quality Monitoring Plan
among the plans that still need to be finalized. The Forest Service did not indicate if and
what issues remained to be resolved to finalize the Water Quality Monitoring Plan.
Therefore, for the purposes of our analysis, we assume the Alternative 1 plan would
essentially be the same as PCWA’s plan with the potential for additional minor
modifications to occur.
Our Analysis
Existing water quality in the project is generally high (exceptions are described
below). Increased flows under the proposed and Alternative 1 actions would have little
115