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

20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2012
opportunities on the Murderer’s Bar Run, and increase opportunities on the Confluence
Run, especially during below normal and critical water years. Similar to PCWA’s
proposal, the flows specified by the agencies would release water earlier in the day and
increase boating opportunities. Because the agencies specify more days of providing
early-day releases of a longer duration, there would be more class II boating opportunities
provided than if the project is operated under PCWA’s proposed flow schedule.
Higher instream flows in the peaking reach could also affect other recreational
uses related to the Western States Trail and angling, which also are outstandingly
remarkable values of the reach. On an hourly basis, PCWA’s proposed flow schedule
would not substantially affect crossing opportunities at key crossing locations. Across all
water year types it would reduce easy/moderate crossing opportunities at the crossings in
the peaking reach by an average of 22 minutes a day compared to existing conditions and
reduce moderate/difficult crossing opportunities at the crossings in the peaking reach by
an average of 17 minutes a day. These changes would not be appreciably different from
what exists under existing conditions.
Implementing flows specified by the agencies would reduce easy/moderate
crossing opportunities at the crossings in the peaking reach by an average of 62 minutes a
day and reduce moderate/difficult crossing opportunities at the crossings in the peaking
reach by an average of 5 minutes a day. Compared to PCWA’s proposal and existing
conditions, the flows recommended by the agencies would noticeably reduce
easy/moderate crossings in the peaking reach. This effect would be reduced by
implementing measures to provide real-time and projected flow information to the public,
which would enable recreationists that use the crossings to plan their trips accordingly.
As discussed in section 3.3.2, Aquatic Resources, improved fish habitat provided
by increased flows as PCWA proposes and the agencies specify, would likely improve
angling in terms of there being more fish in both the bypassed and peaking reaches
compared to existing conditions. Because the higher flows in the peaking reach could
affect wading, PCWA evaluated the effects using a suitable range of flows both for
wading and fishing and determined that implementing either flows proposed by PCWA
or provided by the agencies would be similar to what currently exists. Because fish
habitat would be improved and wading opportunities would be maintained in the peaking
reach, conditions for angling would be improved over what currently exists by
implementing either PCWA’s proposed flows or the flows specified by the agencies.
These flows would also maintain or improve the outstandingly remarkable value related
to fish in both the Rubicon River and the peaking reach.
Because the flow-dependent recreational uses in the peaking reach have different
suitable flow ranges, there could be user conflicts among whitewater boating, angling,
and crossing the river by trails. PCWA’s proposed flow schedule attempts to make the
tradeoffs between user groups while maintaining or improving opportunities for
whitewater boating. However the agencies’ flow schedule refines PCWA’s flow
schedule to provide flows in the optimal boating range, as opposed to the suitable range,
242