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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2012 Middle Fork Development The landscape in the vicinity of Middle Fork interbay is moderately steep, entrenched, and confined by narrow V-shaped valleys. The vegetation is comprised of communities dominated by mixed conifer and with some hardwood vegetation on the surrounding hillsides; riparian species occur along the stream channel. Middle Fork interbay dam and Powerhouse Road are in an area that is managed predominantly for the Modification VQO. The passive microwave reflector station above Middle Fork interbay is in an area managed for the Partial Retention VQO. Project facilities between the river and the Middle Fork powerhouse penstock and butterfly valve house are in an area managed for the Partial Retention VQO. Project facilities at and above the valve house are to be managed to meet the Modification VQO. Ralston Development The landscape in the Ralston area is characterized by moderate to steep slopes with elevations ranging from 1,600 to 4,000 feet. Steeply sloping hillsides are characterized by mixed brush hardwood stands and scattered conifers. Project facilities within this area are managed for the Partial Retention VQO since they are within the foreground view of the Ralston Picnic Area and Ralston afterbay. To the south of the Middle Fork American River, which includes the confluence with the Rubicon River, project facilities are within an area which is to receive interim protection of its Wild, Scenic, or Recreational values until Congress makes a formal designation by law or disposes of the proposal. Lands within this area are to be managed to meet the Retention VQO. Reservoir Levels Typical reservoir annual operation results in the capture or diversion of water into Hell Hole and French Meadows reservoirs during the winter and spring (filling period), and drawdown of the reservoirs during the summer, fall, and early winter (release period). Project operation varies from year-to-year based on the timing and magnitude of spring runoff, which is influenced by the amount of the winter snow pack and ambient temperature conditions, as well as precipitation (see figures 3.3.2-1 and 3.3.2-2). Despite the year-to-year variation, both reservoirs typically reach their maximum storage for the year in late spring or early summer. Reservoir levels begin to decline in the summer and continue to decline until the late fall or winter. Reservoir levels are typically at their lowest in January. French Meadows reservoir maximum and minimum operating water surface elevations are 5,262 feet and 5,125 feet, respectively. Hell Hole reservoir maximum and minimum operating water surface elevations are 4,630 feet and 4,340 feet, respectively. Although more shoreline is exposed as water surface elevations at Hell Hole and French Meadows reservoirs recede, this effect is diminished from farther distances where other factors such as lighting, cloud cover, air quality, and vegetation growth influence the view. 268
20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2012 Middle Fork interbay water surface elevations typically remain near full pool. Ralston afterbay is primarily used as a regulating facility. As such, water surface elevations may fluctuate on a day-to-day or hour-to-hour basis throughout the year. In general, daily fluctuations at Ralston afterbay do not exceed 6 feet, except during the annual maintenance outage. During the maintenance outage the water surface elevation is considerably lower than under normal operating conditions. Photographs of Ralston afterbay at high, intermediate, and low water surface elevations indicate there is very little difference between the photographs taken at high and intermediate reservoir levels. 3.3.7.2 Environmental Effects This section describes the environmental effects on visual resources of the lands within and surrounding the project as well as project reservoirs. Reservoir Levels PCWA proposes to increase Hell Hole reservoir level by 6 feet and operate the project with new minimum pool requirements. During the recreation season, PCWA proposes minimum pool requirements at Hell Hole and French Meadows reservoirs that would be the same or higher than what occurs under existing operations. Both reservoirs would be operated within their historic range with minor changes, 22 occurring on a seasonal basis, depending upon water year type (see table 3.3.5-7). Alternative 1 (Forest Service condition no. 37) specifies higher minimum reservoir elevations at Hell Hole and French Meadows reservoirs than what PCWA proposes (see table 3.3.5-7). Our Analysis Because of its large size, raising the maximum elevation of Hell Hole reservoir by 6 feet would not be noticeably different from how the reservoir appears to visitors under existing operations. Under PCWA’s proposed operation the reservoirs would not be drawn down earlier in the season as compared to existing operations, regardless of water year type, and would generally remain higher for a longer period of time. Because higher reservoirs would reduce the time when visitors would see a sharply contrasting and unvegetated swath of land encircling the reservoir, this would improve visual resources as compared to existing operations. Alternative 1 specifies higher minimum reservoir elevations than PCWA proposes so this measure would further improve the reservoirs’ appearance relative to PCWA’s proposal. Visual Resource Management Plan PCWA proposes to implement a Visual Resource Management Plan that identifies and describes the measures that PCWA would implement over the term of the new license to maintain or improve the EVC of project facilities with respect to Forest Service 22 Including raising the maximum elevation of Hell Hole reservoir by 6 feet. 269
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:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
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 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248: 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 297: 20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial)
Page 305 and 306: 275 Table 4-2. Summary of annual co
Page 309 and 310: 279 Enhancement/Mitigation Measures
Page 333 and 334: 303 c Base 2010 costs were provided
Page 337 and 338: 307 Resource No-Action Alternative
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?