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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2012 The ramp at Hell Hole reservoir currently provides boating access to the reservoir throughout the peak recreation season in all water year types. In general, the ramps are currently functional through the extended recreation season, in wet, above normal and below normal and dry water year types. In critical water years the ramp is available until about Labor Day and in extreme critical water years the ramp is available until around the beginning of August. If the Hell Hole boat ramp were extended to an elevation of 4,485 feet, as proposed by PCWA and specified as the first phase of extension in the Alternative 1 Recreation Plan, the latter would provide additional reservoir boating during the peak recreation season in dry water year types at the lowest minimum water surface elevation but PCWA’s proposal would not. 21 Extending the boat ramp to an elevation of 4,455 feet, as specified as the second phase of extension in the Alternative 1 Recreation Plan, would ensure additional boating access during the peak recreation season in critical water year types at the lowest minimum water surface elevation. Because both PCWA’s proposal and the Alternative 1 plan would extend the boat ramp, there would be greater boating access to the reservoir during the peak and extended recreation season than what currently exists. However, implementing a second phase to extend the boat ramp to elevation 4,455 feet, as the Alternative 1 plan specifies, would ensure the ramp would be functional at the minimum water surface elevation during the peak recreation season in critical water year types whereas PCWA’s proposal would not. Evaluating measures to extend boat ramps should also consider the benefit in terms of the number of recreationists that would take advantage of the additional days of boating access and potential site constraints that may prevent extending the boat ramps. Because extending the boat ramps would generally provide additional access during the extended recreation season when recreation use is low and mainly in drier water year types, the benefit of extending the ramps may be marginal. Additionally, because both PCWA and the Forest Service state that it is not known if extending the ramps is even feasible, it would be premature to require PCWA to extend the ramps to only ensure access in drier water year types. As compared to the existing conditions, PCWA’s proposal 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. If the Hell Hole boat ramp were further extended to an elevation of 4,455 feet, as specified in the Alternative 1 plan, there would be boating access during the peak and extended recreation seasons in all but extreme critical water year types when the ramp would be available until about the beginning of July. As compared to the existing conditions, the Alternative 1 plan would provide additional boating access during the extended recreation season in critical water year types. 21 We assume that a boat ramp extended to an elevation of 4,485 feet would not be functional at a minimum reservoir elevation of 4,482 feet. 228
20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2012 Reservoir Level Objectives Forest Service condition no. 37 also specifies mid-summer reservoir elevations at French Meadows and Hell Hole reservoirs to maintain functioning facilities (e.g., boat ramps), support current and future recreational uses, and maintain aesthetic qualities. The specified reservoir elevations (table 3.3.5-8) would be operational goals rather than compliance targets. If PCWA determines the specified projected elevations could not be met during any given year, the condition describes the detailed consultation process that would occur with the Forest Service including the possibility of requiring PCWA-funded measures such as additional patrols, shoreline protection from motorized use, and additional public information. PCWA would be required to prepare a report every 5 years that documents whether the mid-summer targets were achieved and provides the reasons for and time periods when the targets were not achieved. The report would be provided to the Forest Service, California Fish and Game, and Water Board and filed with the Commission. Table 3.3.5-8. Reservoir level objectives specified in Forest Service condition no. 37 (Source: Forest Service, August 2011). Reservoir Level Objective (feet) to be Met by July 15 (unless otherwise noted) Water Year Type French Meadows Reservoir Hell Hole Reservoir Wet 5,245 4,590 Above normal 5,245 4,580 Below normal 5,240 4,570 Dry 5,220 4,530 Critical 5,200 4,530 Extremely critical None 4,450 a a Reservoir level objective to be met September 1. Our Analysis The mid-summer reservoir objectives specified in the Forest Service condition are similar to the water surface elevations that typically occur under existing project operations. Reservoir levels based on projected future demand are also similar to or greater than what is specified by the Forest Service. Because the mid-summer reservoir elevations would not be compliance targets, this measure would not have a predictable effect on reservoir boating access at French Meadows and Hell Hole reservoirs although the objectives may encourage PCWA to maintain higher mid-summer reservoir elevations which would improve conditions for boaters. Although the water surface elevations specified in the condition are objectives rather than compliance targets, the 229
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:
Page 207 and 208: 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 257: 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 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?