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

20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2012
Recreation
Although we recommend that PCWA be responsible for operating and
maintaining project-related recreation facilities, we do not recommend that PCWA be
required to provide funding for Forest Service law enforcement because PCWA already
provides this funding support through land use fees and county taxes. Further, the
Commission would have no way of ensuring any funding provided to the agency for law
enforcement would be used for project purposes. Additionally, providing funding to the
Forest Service for operating and maintaining the project recreation facilities through a
collection agreement would not ensure these facilities would be properly operated and
maintained. PCWA is ultimately responsible for operation and maintenance of projectrelated
recreation facilities. Accordingly, we do not recommend that PCWA be
required to enter into a collection agreement as specified in Forest Service condition
no. 34.
We do not recommend the project include any development at Cache Creek as
specified in Forest Service condition no. 35, at an estimated levelized annual cost of
$7,500, because recreation use is related to dispersed camping and gold panning, which
have no nexus to the project. Similarly we do not recommend installing a restroom and
parking area at Ellicott Bridge as specified in the Alternative 1 Recreation Plan, at an
estimated levelized annual cost of $8,400, because it is located more than 8 miles
downstream of Hell Hole reservoir, and this site is used for river access that would exist
irrespective of the project.
The Forest Service specifies in condition no. 36 PCWA make improvements to
an administrative facility at Hell Hole reservoir that would serve a shared purpose with
the Forest Service. As described in its rationale document, the Forest Service
inappropriately seeks to provide amenities that are not consistent with the ROS
classification associated with Hell Hole reservoir. Further, described as a shared
purpose facility with the Forest Service, this measure is beyond the scope of meeting a
project need or addressing a project effect. Consequently, we do not recommend this
measure because it lacks a clear nexus to the project.
At McGuire Picnic area, we recommend converting this site to a group
campground with two group sites. However we only recommend constructing two 25-
PAOT sites at an estimated levelized annual cost of $27,800, rather than the capacity
specified by the Forest Service (one 25-PAOT and one 50-PAOT site; estimated
levelized annual cost of $35,800) and included in the Alternative 1 Recreation Plan,
because our recommended capacity should provide adequate initial capacity and
additional capacity can be considered based on future monitoring. The benefits of the
Alternative 1 approach would not be worth the associated costs.
Although we recommend that PCWA develop visitor information that can be
disseminated by various entities and agencies, we do not recommend that PCWA be
responsible for printing materials associated with this measure. The estimated levelized
cost of developing and printing this marketing material would be $8,920. Instead we
343