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

20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2012
affected by the project. Our recommended revisions to the plan would include additional
provisions for identifying and protecting additional cultural sites including:
(1) requirements for National Register evaluation of all currently unevaluated resources
subject to unavoidable project-related effects. These effects would include those
associated with reservoir drawdown for operation and maintenance purposes (i.e., FS-05-
03-55-684 and FS-05-03-55-689), recreation activities, including trail maintenance and
alignment (PL-03 and PL-19), and road construction (FS-05-03-55-495), and
documentation of California SHPO concurrence with all National Register
recommendations; (2) a plan for assessment of project effects to any properties that are
determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register; (3) a plan for the curation of
any recovered archaeological materials; and (4) a plan to develop mitigation measures in
consultation with the California SHPO, Forest Service, and participating tribes for all
eligible properties where effects are adverse.
No-action Alternative
Under the no-action alternative, PCWA would continue to operate the project as it
currently does without making any of its proposed modifications to project facilities
including new recreation facilities. Environmental conditions would remain the same,
and no enhancement of environmental resources would occur.
Conclusions
Based on our analysis, we recommend licensing the project as proposed by PCWA
with some staff modifications and additional measures.
In section 4.2 of the EIS, we estimate the likely cost of alternative power for each
of the three alternatives identified above. Our analysis shows that during the first year of
operation under the no-action alternative, project power would cost $23,069,170, or
$22.20 per megawatt-hour (MWh) less than the likely alternative cost of power. Under
the proposed action alternative, project power would cost $19,302,360, or $19.41/MWh
less than the likely alternative cost of power. Under the staff alternative, project power
would cost $18,537,260, or $18.80/MWh less than the likely alternative cost of power.
Under Alternative 1, project power would cost $18,535,670, or $18.80/MWh less than
the likely alternative cost of power.
We chose the staff alternative as the preferred alternative because: (1) the project
would provide a dependable source of electrical energy for the region (985,877 MWh
annually); (2) the project could save an equivalent amount of fossil-fueled generation and
capacity, which may help conserve non-renewable energy resources and reduce
atmospheric pollution, including greenhouse gases; and (3) the recommended
environmental measures proposed by PCWA, as modified by staff, would adequately
protect and enhance environmental resources affected by the project. The overall
benefits of the staff alternative would be worth the cost of the proposed and
recommended environmental measures.
xxviii