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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2012 Based on operation model results for the period of record, both PCWA’s proposed action and the Forest Service condition would result in relatively little change in the actual operational reservoir elevations/volumes as compared to existing operations, and these measures would not substantially affect surface area or water depth in French Meadows or Hell Hole reservoirs. Shoreline access to the reservoirs and exposed obstacles such as tree stumps and bedrock outcrops that appear as the water level in the reservoirs recede would be similar to what currently exists. Because little change is expected in reservoir habitat (see section 3.3.2, Aquatic Resources) and French Meadows and Hell Hole reservoirs would continue to be stocked, both measures would provide angling opportunities at these reservoirs similar to what currently exists. The 4,530-foot minimum water surface at Hell Hole reservoir during wet, above normal, and below normal water year types, as PCWA proposes and the Forest Service specifies would be sufficiently high to retain boating access to the upstream end of the reservoir during the recreation season in these water year types that is not provided by the existing license requirements. The Forest Service also specifies higher minimum water surface elevations for French Meadows reservoir during the peak recreation season than what PCWA proposes. The Forest Service rationale for the condition states the agency’s desire to maintain the reservoir level at French Meadows as high as possible during the recreation season to restrict encounters with physical hazards and to maintain reasonable access to the shoreline from developed recreation facilities. Even though the reservoir elevations specified by the Forest Service would presumably provide this desired condition, the agency has not provided any information indicating why PCWA’s measure would not provide this same condition. Nevertheless, reservoir water surface elevations are a key factor in the functionality of boat ramps. Boat Ramp Extensions Both the PCWA and Alternative 1 recreation plans include measures to extend boat ramps at French Meadows and Hell Hole reservoirs. The French Meadows reservoir ramp would be extended up to 25 vertical feet which would allow launching boats until the reservoir is drawn down to about 5,175 feet. No extension is proposed or specified for the McGuire boat ramp. PCWA proposes to extend the ramp at Hell Hole reservoir 45 vertical feet to an elevation of 4,485 feet, and the Alternative 1 Recreation Plan specifies an additional extension to an elevation of 4,455 feet. However, PCWA states in its November 2011 supplemental filing that it does not know if there is sufficient slope or reservoir bed conditions at Hell Hole reservoir to extend the ramp and if conditions are unsuitable, the ramp would only be extended as far as possible (up to the specified length). Similarly, the Alternative 1 Recreation Plan indicates it may not be feasible to extend the French Meadows ramp to the specified elevation of 5,175 feet. 226
20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2012 Our Analysis At the French Meadows ramp, PCWA reports the ramp is currently functional when the reservoir is at or above elevation 5,200 feet. PCWA’s November 2011 supplemental filing provides graphs of the water surface elevations for different water year types (appendix D) and tabular summaries (table 3.9-1) listing the percent of time, by water year type, that the ramps are functional during the primary recreation season as well as an extended recreation season (through November 1). We conclude that the tabular summaries oversimplify the existing conditions. For example, it appears that if the reservoir elevation was above 5,200 feet from Memorial Day through the end of August but then dropped below 5,200 feet at the end of the Labor Day weekend, the whole year would be categorized as not having boat ramps available during the recreation season when, in fact, the ramps would have provided access during all but a few days of the recreation season. Because the tabular summaries do not reveal sufficient detail, our analysis considers the graphs of water surface elevation that portray the relationship between reservoir elevation and boat ramp functionality. We consider our no-action alternative to correspond to the assumptions PCWA uses for its graphs labeled existing conditions. Our analysis compares no-action reservoir levels to those represented by the graphs labeled “Alternative 1—Future Demand” and “Proposed Action—Future Demand” (PCWA, 2011a, appendix C2c). The ramps at French Meadows reservoir currently provide boating access to the reservoir throughout the peak recreation season in all but critical and extremely critical water year types when the ramps are generally functional until the beginning of September and mid-July, respectively. The ramps are currently functional through the extended recreation season only in wet, above normal, and below normal water year types. During critical and extreme water year types PCWA proposes and Forest Service condition no. 37 specifies minimum water surface elevation during the peak recreation season of 5,152 feet and 5,175 feet, respectively. If the French Meadows boat ramp were extended to an elevation of 5,175 feet, as proposed by PCWA and specified in the Alternative 1 Recreation Plan, the minimum water surface elevation specified in Forest Service condition no. 37 would provide additional reservoir boating during the peak recreation season in critical and extreme critical water year types. If the boat ramp were extended to 5,175 feet, the boat ramp would not be functional if PCWA’s proposed minimum water surface elevation of 5,152 feet were implemented. Because both PCWA and Alternative 1 plans would extend the boat ramp, there would be greater boating access to the reservoir during the extended recreation season than what currently exists. However, the differences in terms of the minimum reservoir elevations and implementation dates between the two measures are too subtle to determine the relative benefit of the two measures as to the effects during the extended recreation season. As compared to the existing conditions, the Alternative 1 measure would provide additional boating access during the peak recreation season in critical water year types and during the extended recreation season there would be additional boating access in dry and critical water year types. 227
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:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
135 Species Name Status a Butte Cou
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
145 Table 3.3.3-5. Special-status w
Page 177 and 178:
147 Species Name Status Habitat Occ
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206: 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 255: 20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial)
Page 283 and 284: 253 Table 3.3.6-1. Archaeological a
Page 285 and 286: 255 Resource Number Type a Descript
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?