Placer County Water Agency Middle Fork American River Project (FERC No. 2079) Recreation Technical Working Group Meeting July 21, 2008

Update of 2008 Visitor Recreation Surveys 2

REC 2 – Recreation Visitor Surveys Overview (through July 11, 2008)  Total Surveys – 377  French Meadows Area  Hell Hole Area – 134  Ralston Area- 29  ASRA Area– 101  Survey response rate has been higher than expected (about 50%).  Campground turnover rate has been lower than expected (number of nights camped: mean=3.18, median=3.0).  Day use and camping user groups appear to be the same population. 3

REC 2 - Recreation Visitor Surveys  165 surveys were analyzed from Ralston, French Meadows and Hell Hole Reservoir areas  69 surveys for period 6/1-6/20  17 surveys for weekend of 6/21-6/22  79 surveys after 6/22  95% of the respondents stated they were Very Satisfied or Satisfied with their experience (n=157).  5% of the respondents stated they were Somewhat Satisfied, Unsatisfied, or Very Unsatisfied (n=8). 4

REC 2 - Recreation Visitor Surveys  Open ended comments on all of the 165 surveys were reviewed.  Reasons for respondents marking Unsatisfied or Very Unsatisfied include:  Restrooms being out of order (n=1)  Lack of showers at campgrounds (n=1)  Inability to catch fish (n=1) 5

REC 2 - Recreation Visitor Surveys 6  Completed Form B surveys were analyzed to assess visitation history (n=25)  60% of respondents have recreated in the area for more that 15 years  1-5 Years – 24%  6-15 Years – 16%  Years – 24%  More than 20 Years – 36%

  Protocol adjustment enacted beginning July 7 th   Revised protocol proposal sent to REC TWG on June 30, 2008 with request for comment by Monday July 7 th.   No comments to the protocol revision were received from REC TWG.   Recreation Field Technicians now roam nearby campgrounds during the 4-hour block after having completed surveying all of the willing visitors at their assigned locations.   Proposed protocol adjustments to be initiated July 21 st - pending REC TWG approval   Recreation Field Technicians to roam between nearby campgrounds and day use areas after they have completed surveying all of the willing participants at the assigned locations. Recreation Visitor Survey Protocol Adjustments 7

Summary of Planned Flow Studies 8

  REC 4 TSP Study Approach   Assemble a group of anglers to asses fishing conditions over a range of flows at specific locations in the peaking reach and on the Rubicon River downstream of Ellicott Bridge.   Key Focus Group Findings   Bypass Reaches   Focus group reported that fishing quality is good at flows that are present when area is accessible.   Peaking Reach   Focus group reported that fishing quality is good at all flow levels in the peaking reach.   Flow-related effects on fishing is associated with ramping in the peaking reach (during ramping and for about 1 hour after). Angling Flow Studies 9

Angler Flow Studies   Refined Study Approach   Address flow-related fishing issues in the peaking reach by analyzing ramping conditions in the peaking reach in lieu of assembling a group of anglers to assess fishing conditions.   Characterize frequency, timing and duration of ramping in various locations in the peaking reach under current Project operations.   Utilize information to determine how current ramping scenarios affect fishing opportunities in the peaking reach. 10

  REC 4 TSP Study Approach   Assemble a group of stream crossing users to asses stream crossing conditions over a range of flows at specific locations in the peaking reach.   Conduct studies in coordination with whitewater and aquatic flows studies.   Key Focus Group Findings   Stream crossing is primarily dependent upon channel morphology (substrate), water depth and velocity.   River crossing is not possible at flows above 350 cfs.   Most of the flows to be assessed as part of the whitewater and aquatic flow studies are above 350 cfs. Stream Crossing Flow Studies 11

  Refined Study Approach   Develop stage/discharge relationships at the stream crossing locations in lieu of assembling a group of stream crossing users to assess crossing conditions.   Develop stage/discharge relationships at five specific locations in the peaking reach:   Ford’s Bar (Otter Creek)   Ruck-a-Chucky   Poverty Bar   Mammoth Bar   Oregon Bar   A stage/discharge relationship may also be developed at the Coffer Dam crossing location, pending the results of a site visit.   Utilize information to depict stream morphology, water depths, and velocities at specific locations over a range of flows. 12

  REC 4 TSP Study Approach   Conduct whitewater boating studies on four runs in the peaking reach, under a range of flow conditions, up to a maximum of 1,000 cfs, the flow capacity of Oxbow Powerhouse.   Determine the need for flow studies in the bypass reaches based on information developed through the focus group and other sources. Whitewater Boating Flow Studies 13

  Key Focus Group Findings   Peaking Reach   A flow study is not needed on the Mammoth Bar to Confluence run because it is a short run, has similar characteristics as the Ruck-a- Chucky to Mammoth Bar run, and involves a difficult portage around Murderer’s Bar rapid.   Studies at a target flow of 368 cfs are not needed on either the Oxbow to Ruck-a-Chucky or Ruck-a-Chucky to Mammoth Bar runs because this flow is well below the known boatable range for these runs.   Bypass Reach   Boaters expressed interest in flow availability on all bypass reaches, with an emphasis on the Rubicon River from Ellicott Bridge to Ralston Afterbay and the Middle Fork American River from Interbay to Ralston Afterbay. Whitewater Boating Flow Studies 14

  Refined Study Approach   Peaking Reach   Conduct boating flow studies on three of the four runs in the peaking reach at the following target flows. RunTarget Flows (cfs) Oxbow to Ruck-a-Chucky1000, 800, 600 cfs Ruck-a-Chucky to Mammoth Bar1000, 800, 600 cfs Confluence to Oregon Bar368, 600 and 1000 plus either 200 or 800 depending upon the results of the 368 flow study 15   Bypass Reaches   Continue to interview boaters to develop additional information about boatable flow ranges.   Use flow ranges provided by focus group and other boaters in conjunction with hydrologic data to determine how Project operations do or do not affect boating opportunities.   Continue to evaluate need for additional flow studies on bypass reaches.