WSP07315 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3 sand by reducing the movement of sand downstream. The interim flow criteria are defined in Table 1. Table 1. Interim Flow Parameters "inilllUlll "axillUII Allowable Rap releases re' elSes dlfly rite (c:fs) (c:fs) . fluc:tuations (c:fs/hr) (c:fs/24hr) 8,000 between 20,000 5,000 2,500 up 7a.m. and 7p.m. 6,000 or 8,000 1,500 down (based on monthly 5,000 at night volumes) The baseline for impact comparison in the EIS is the no action alternative (based on historic dam operations). Using cause and effect relationships developed through GCES and impact analysis from the interdisciplinary, interagency EIS team; the draft EIS was prepared and distributed to the public. Public: comments were received from over 30,000 people. Revisions to the draft EIS were made based on these comments and the final EIS was completed. After completion of the GAO audit, the Secretary will issue a ROD, the selected alternative will be implemented, and the adaptive management process will formally begin. The EIS team concluded the following: . The No Action, Maximum Powerplant Capacity, and High Fluctuating Flow Alternatives have similar impacts; too much sand transport capacity which jeopardizes the long-term storage of sand. . The Interim Low Fluctuating Flow, Existing Monthly Volumes, and Year- Round Steady Flow Alternatives have similar impacts; they maximize long- term sand storage but provide only limited system dynamics (deposition and erosion of sandbars). Limited system dynamics would result in vegetation encroachment on sandbars and net erosion above the normal high river stage. . The Moderate Fluctuating Flow, Modified Low Fluctuating Flow (preferred alternative), and the Seasonally Adjusted Steady Flow Alternatives have similar impacts. They provide long-term sand storage and system dynamics (deposition and erosion of sandbars). The changes to the preferred alternative between the draft and final EIS do not change this conclusion.