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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2012 Our Analysis Both VIPMPs provide sound avoidance and protection measures that would protect plant resources that may be affected by the project. However, the proposed plan is not specific regarding how much riparian vegetation would be removed at sediment augmentation sites, whereas the Alternative 1 plan is very specific about the maximum amount of riparian vegetation that can be removed: about 0.94 acre. The specificity in the Alternative 1 plan regarding riparian vegetation removal at augmentation sites would avoid any misinterpretation about the acceptable limit of riparian disturbance and enable Commission staff to confirm compliance with the VIPMP during the term of a new license. Sediment management activities and vegetation management at the augmentation areas would permanently eliminate up to 0.94 acre of riparian vegetation at Junction Bar, Indian Bar, and Willow Bar. These effects, however, would be outweighed by a net benefit to riparian vegetation from proposed sediment management activities because natural sediment supply and transport function would be restored to these areas. Sediment management is discussed in more detail in section 3.3.1.2, Geologic and Soils Resources. Similarly, sediment management activities in conjunction with the proposed and Alternative 1 modified instream flow regime have the potential to affect special status plant populations along unsurveyed project stream reaches. Any such effects on unidentified plant populations would be outweighed by the overall ecosystem enhancements that would accrue from approaching more natural geomorphological processes and flow regimes. For the Commission to approve a proposed plan, it should represent a stand-alone document that can be used by Commission staff to document compliance with the plan without having to refer to documents not included in the plan. Both plans state that surveys would be conducted in accordance with methods specified in a technical study report filed with the final license application (PCWA, 2008a). We therefore assume that implementation of either VIPMP would entail the methods specified in the technical study report, even though the report is not appended to either plan. Protection of Riparian Vegetation along Bypassed and Peaking Reaches Routine maintenance activities, changes in project operations and maintenance activities, and construction activities associated with modification of existing or construction of new project facilities could alter the abundance or distribution of riparian species and communities. Routine vegetation management and noxious weed control measures, discussed previously and addressed in the VIPMPs, could result in direct loss of individuals. Other effects on riparian resources could include direct loss of individuals from trampling riparian plants, and crushing or cutting resulting from vehicle and equipment use. Under the proposed and Alternative 1 operating regimes, minimum flows in the peaking and bypassed reaches would be equal to or greater than under existing conditions 166
20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2012 and, in general, the number and duration of pulsed flows during the spring would increase over existing conditions. These flow regimes all have the potential to influence riparian vegetation and are discussed in greater detail in section 3.3.2.2, Aquatic Resources. Both the proposed action and Alternative 1 include the Sediment Management Plan filed with the final license application (discussed in detail in section 3.3.1.2, Geologic and Soils Resources). Implementation of this plan would affect riparian vegetation. The plan includes routine sediment management activities that would be carried out at three small diversion pools and two medium reservoirs during the term of a new license, and it outlines periodic sediment removal by heavy equipment in small and medium-size reservoirs. The plan also outlines infrastructure modifications (e.g., retrofitting existing structures with self-cleaning, wedge-wire screen intakes) to allow sediment transport past small diversion facilities during high-flow events. A portion of sediment removed from medium-size reservoirs during periodic sediment management activities would be placed at approved channel sites in the Middle Fork American River downstream of the Middle Fork interbay and Ralston afterbay dams to augment the supply of coarse sediment in downstream reaches. Placement downstream of Ralston afterbay dam is discussed in the previous subsection. The plan includes interim and contingency sediment management activities; specifications for sediment removal, disposal, and in-channel placement; as well as measures for avoiding and protecting biological resources, monitoring, reporting, and agency consultation. PCWA also proposes a Geomorphology and Riparian Monitoring Plan that includes monitoring of riparian species composition, age class structure, relative cover, community structure, position along the stream channel, and health of riparian vegetation in the bypassed and peaking reaches. The proposed Geomorphology and Riparian Monitoring Plan also includes monitoring of channel and sediment conditions in the bypassed and peaking reaches, including channel cross-section geometry, bank conditions, and fine sediment in pools. Forest Service 4(e) and California Fish and Game 10(j) recommendation 28 specify that the plan needs to be finalized and submitted for approval to the Forest Service. PCWA notes in its January 11, 2012, filing with the Commission that, although minor revisions may be needed to secure stakeholder consensus on this plan, it considers its proposed plan to be the same as the Alternative 1 plan for analytical purposes. Our Analysis Under the proposed and Alternative 1 actions, operations of the diversion pools have the potential to affect riparian resources, particularly during the spring (time of seed release) and summer growing period. Overall, implementation of the small diversion infrastructure modifications, sediment management activities below medium dams, and new instream flow measures plus avoidance and protection measures included in both VIPMPs, the Sediment Management Plan, and the Geomorphology and Riparian Monitoring Plan would adequately maintain or enhance riparian vegetation in the project vicinity. Specifically, the proposed and Alternative 1 actions would result in a more 167
Page 1 and 2:
20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial)
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
41 Table 3.3.1-1. Average number of
Page 73 and 74:
43 Site/Release Location Gravel Ini
Page 75 and 76:
45 a Q 1 - TSR, Table G-1 (PCWA, 20
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
69 Table 3.3.2-3. Hydrology for sel
Page 101 and 102:
71 Exceedances and Summary Statisti
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
91 Figure 3.3.2-6. Fish passage bar
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
105 Location American River below M
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146: 20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial)
Page 165 and 166: 135 Species Name Status a Butte Cou
Page 175 and 176: 145 Table 3.3.3-5. Special-status w
Page 177 and 178: 147 Species Name Status Habitat Occ
Page 195: 20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial)
Page 225 and 226: 195 Figure 3.3.5-1. French Meadows
Page 227 and 228: 197 Figure 3.3.5-3. Long Canyon, re
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
253 Table 3.3.6-1. Archaeological a
Page 285 and 286:
255 Resource Number Type a Descript
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
275 Table 4-2. Summary of annual co
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
279 Enhancement/Mitigation Measures
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
303 c Base 2010 costs were provided
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
307 Resource No-Action Alternative
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
319 Table 5-2. Staff-recommended mi
Page 351 and 352:
321 Location Middle Fork American R
Page 353 and 354:
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363 and 364:
Page 365 and 366:
Page 367 and 368:
Page 369 and 370:
Page 371 and 372:
Page 373 and 374:
Page 375 and 376:
Page 377 and 378:
Page 379 and 380:
Page 381 and 382:
Page 383 and 384:
Page 385 and 386:
Page 387 and 388:
Page 389 and 390:
Page 391 and 392:
Page 393 and 394:
Page 395 and 396:
Page 397 and 398:
Page 399 and 400:
Page 401 and 402:
Page 403 and 404:
A-1
Page 405 and 406:
A-3
Page 407 and 408:
Page 409 and 410:
Page 411 and 412:
Page 413 and 414:
Page 415 and 416:
Page 417 and 418:
Page 419:
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?