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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2012 desire to maintain the reservoir level at French Meadows as high as possible during the recreation season to restrict encounters with physical hazards and to maintain reasonable access to the shoreline from developed recreation facilities. Reservoir water surface elevations are a key factor in the functionality of boat ramps; the higher the water level, the better access for recreational boaters via existing boat ramps on both reservoirs. The estimated levelized annual cost for this measure is included in the costs presented for minimum flows. The cost of implementing both PCWA’s and our recommended minimum reservoir surface elevation measure would be minimal, and the benefit of potential enhanced recreational opportunities at French Meadows and Hell Hole reservoir would warrant any such incremental cost. Streamflow and Reservoir Gaging Plan We recommend new instream flow requirements and minimum water surface elevation requirements for French Meadows and Hell Hole reservoirs. Streamflow and water surface elevation gages would be needed to document compliance with any such requirements in a new license. We find in section 3.3.2.2, Aquatic Resources, that both the proposed Flow and Reservoir Monitoring Plan and the Alternative 1 Streamflow and Reservoir Monitoring Plan could document compliance with designated streamflows and water surface elevations. Key differences between the proposed and our recommended plans include the following: • Our recommended plan includes provisions for operating and maintaining the gages in accordance with applicable USGS protocols. • Our recommended plan includes provisions to provide all 15-minute gage information to the agencies and the Commission upon request in a readily accessible electronic format, not just a single gage on the peaking reach as provided for in PCWA’s proposed plan. We prefer the concise approach taken in the Alternative 1 plan because it presents the basics of what is needed for flow and reservoir water level monitoring. PCWA’s proposed plan would rely on 24-hour average flows and reservoir elevations. This approach could conceivably mask substantial variations of flow or water surface elevations within a 24-hour period. In addition, raw data would only be available upon request from a single peaking reach flow monitoring station. We recommend a modified version of the Alternative 1 Streamflow and Reservoir Gaging Plan. The monitoring data reports should include the minimum and maximum stream flow values for each day in addition to the daily average values. This additional information at a nominal cost would provide a basis for the agencies and the Commission to decide whether to request files with the raw 15-minute time interval data from PCWA to confirm compliance with instantaneous flow values that may be specified in a new license. The benefit of accurately documenting project-related required flows and water surface elevations for compliance purposes with our 334
20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2012 recommended streamflow gaging plan would be worth the estimated levelized annual cost of $130,100. Development and Implementation of a Spawning Habitat Improvement Plan Fisheries surveys indicate that recruitment of trout in the peaking reach is well below what would be expected in unregulated streams. This is likely because the quality of available spawning habitat is compromised by daily flow fluctuations. PCWA’s proposed placement of spawning-sized gravel downstream of Ralston afterbay at Indian Bar and Junction Bar would increase spawning habitat in downstream reaches compared with existing conditions. Forest Service condition no. 26 specifies that within 1 year of license issuance PCWA develop a spawning habitat improvement plan for the Middle Fork American River downstream of Ralston afterbay dam. Our analysis in section 3.3.2.2, Aquatic Resources, finds that additional benefits to trout spawning success and juvenile recruitment in the Middle Fork American River downstream of Ralston afterbay could likely be realized by strategic placement of gravel in the bypassed reach because of the relatively stable flow regime compared to the peaking reach. This would enhance recruitment to trout populations in the peaking reach because most trout reared in the bypassed reach would eventually move downstream to the peaking reach. We therefore recommend that PCWA develop a spawning habitat improvement plan for Commission approval that lays out a specific approach to augmenting gravel in this bypassed reach, defines how implementation of this plan would be coordinated with our recommended Sediment Management Plan, and includes a provision for monitoring the effectiveness of this measure on trout spawning by conducting redd surveys or other quantitative approaches. The expected increase in recruitment to the trout populations in the peaking reach would be worth the estimated levelized annual cost of $800 to develop the plan, and the cost for implementing the plan would be built into the cost of the gravel augmentation component of the Sediment Management Plan. Annual Reporting on the Status of Anadromous Fish Restoration NMFS recommends that PCWA file a report with the Commission by December 31 of each year following license issuance on the status of reintroduction to the American River watershed of federally listed anadromous fish based on PCWA’s participation in Reclamation’s Fish Passage Steering Committee. The Commission is the action agency under section 7 of the ESA in this relicensing proceeding and would continue to be if a new license is issued for this project. The feasibility of restoring listed anadromous fish upstream of Nimbus and Fulton dams is being evaluated and could occur during the term of a new license. Therefore, we recommend that PCWA file an annual report on the status of reintroduction of federally listed anadromous fish into the American River watershed as recommended by NMFS. The report would be developed in consultation with NMFS, Reclamation, FWS, and California Fish and Game; include a discussion of the steps that have been taken to assist in the reintroduction process; and provide a summary of the results of any studies that have 335
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 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
275 Table 4-2. Summary of annual co
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
279 Enhancement/Mitigation Measures
Page 311 and 312:
281 Enhancement/Mitigation Measures
Page 313 and 314: 283 Enhancement/Mitigation Measures
Page 333 and 334: 303 c Base 2010 costs were provided
Page 335 and 336: 20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial)
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 363: 20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial)
Page 403 and 404: A-1
Page 405 and 406: A-3
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?