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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

306 Table 5-1. Comparison of alternatives for the Middle Fork Project (Source: staff). Resource No-Action Alternative Proposed Action Staff–Recommended Alternative Alternative 1 Generation 1,039,078 MWh 994,444 MWh 985,877 MWh 985,877 MWh Geology and Soils Sediment, including spawning gravel, trapped in project impoundments, effects reduced somewhat by pilot augmentation program downstream of Ralston afterbay LWD collected at Hell Hole reservoir burned on site; small amounts removed from small diversion pools; woody debris that collects in Middle Fork interbay and Ralston afterbay periodically flushed downstream Small diversion dam infrastructure improvements would pass sediment downstream of dams; sediment augmentation downstream of Middle Fork interbay and Ralston afterbay dams would enhance spawning and riparian habitat Woody debris at small diversion dams would be passed downstream with infrastructure changes Same as proposed action Same as proposed action Same as proposed action, but LWD from Hell Hole reservoir would be passed downstream to the Rubicon River if feasible Same as proposed action
307 Resource No-Action Alternative Proposed Action Aquatic Recruitment to trout populations in peaking reach low Minimum flows relatively constant throughout the year, no provisions for planned pulse flows that would simulate unregulated streams or downramping that would avoid stranding Some enhancement of recruitment from gravel augmentation Minimum flows increased, with higher minimum flows during the spring trout spawning and incubation period; spring pulse flows would simulate natural high flows; protective downramping; would result in enhanced trout populations and aquatic habitat Staff–Recommended Alternative Alternative 1 Same as proposed action but spawning habitat in the Ralston afterbay bypassed reach would be enhanced with gravel placement or other measures Similar to proposed action for bypassed reaches; generally higher minimum flows in the peaking reach would build on proposed project enhancements Same as proposed action Same as staff alternative
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:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
253 Table 3.3.6-1. Archaeological a
Page 285 and 286: 255 Resource Number Type a Descript
Page 291 and 292: 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 335: 20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial)
Page 339 and 340: 309 Resource No-Action Alternative
Page 341 and 342: 311 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 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?