DOCSLIB.ORG

FEATHER RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC No

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FEATHER RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC No DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT OF PROJECT LICENSE TO RECONSTRUCT THE LAKE OROVILLE MAIN SPILLWAY, MODIFY THE EMERGENCY SPILLWAY, AND TO RELOCATE A PROJECT TRANSMISSION LINE FEATHER RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC No. 2100 California Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20426 November 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ iv LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................... v ACRONYMS ...................................................................................................................... vi 1.0. APPLICATION ......................................................................................................... 1 2.0 PURPOSE OF ACTION ........................................................................................... 1 3.0. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 2 3.1 Feather River Project Description .......................................................................... 3 3.3 Initial Response Actions ........................................................................................ 6 4.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ...................................................... 9 4.1 Action Alternatives ................................................................................................ 9 4.2 Proposed Action ................................................................................................... 10 4.2.1 Initial Response Actions ............................................................................... 10 4.2.2 Recovery Actions .......................................................................................... 16 4.2.3 Supporting Facilities ..................................................................................... 21 4.2.4 Schedule ........................................................................................................ 25 4.3 No-Action Alternative ......................................................................................... 25 5.0 STATUTORY COMPLIANCE AND CONSULTATION .................................... 25 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ......................................................................... 31 6.1. Scope of the Analysis ........................................................................................... 31 6.2 General Description of the Project Area .............................................................. 32 6.3 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................ 33 6.3.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................... 33 6.3.2 Environmental Effects ................................................................................... 33 6.3.3 Staff Recommendations ................................................................................ 36 6.4 Water Quantity and Flow ..................................................................................... 36 6.4.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................... 36 6.4.2 Environmental Effects ................................................................................... 38 6.4.3 Staff Recommendations ................................................................................ 41 6.5 Water Quality ....................................................................................................... 41 ii 6.5.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................... 41 6.5.2 Environmental Effects ................................................................................... 43 6.5.3 Staff Recommendations ................................................................................ 51 6.6 Fisheries and Aquatic Resources ......................................................................... 51 6.6.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................... 51 6.6.2 Environmental Effects ................................................................................... 54 6.6.3 Staff Recommendations ................................................................................ 63 6.7 Terrestrial Resources ............................................................................................ 64 6.7.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................... 64 6.7.2 Environmental Effects ................................................................................... 69 6.7.3 Staff Recommendations ................................................................................ 71 6.8 Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................... 73 6.8.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................... 73 6.8.2 Environmental Effects ................................................................................... 77 6.8.3 Staff Recommendations ................................................................................ 81 6.9 Cultural and Historic Resources .......................................................................... 83 6.9.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................... 83 6.9.2 Environmental Effects ................................................................................... 88 6.9.3 Staff Recommendations ................................................................................ 97 6.10 Recreation ............................................................................................................ 97 6.10.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................... 97 6.10.2 Environmental Effects ................................................................................. 101 6.10.3 Staff Recommendations .............................................................................. 107 6.11 Aesthetics ........................................................................................................... 109 6.11.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................. 109 6.11.2 Environmental Effects ................................................................................. 109 6.11.3 Staff Recommendations ................................................................................. 110 6.12 Air Quality ......................................................................................................... 111 6.12.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................. 111 iii 6.12.2 Environmental Effects ................................................................................. 111 6.12.3 Staff Recommendations .............................................................................. 113 6.13 Transportation .................................................................................................... 114 6.13.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................. 114 6.13.2 Environmental Effects ................................................................................. 114 6.13.3 Staff Recommendations .............................................................................. 119 6.14 Noise .................................................................................................................. 119 6.14.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................. 119 6.14.2 Environmental Effects ................................................................................. 120 6.14.3 Staff Recommendations .............................................................................. 121 6.15 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................... 121 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................ 123 7.1 Comprehensive Development and Staff-Recommended Measures ................... 123 7.1.1 Staff-Recommended Measures ................................................................... 123 7.2 Consistency with Comprehensive Plans ............................................................ 127 8.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ....................................................... 128 9.0 LITERATURE CITED .......................................................................................... 129 10.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ......................................................................................... 132 iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location Map of the Feather River Hydroelectric Project (source: FERC 2007) ............................................................................................................................................. 4 Figure 2. Transmission lines in the vicinity of Oroville Dam and spillways (source: Commission staff) .............................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • LONGFIN SMELT Spirinchus Thaleichthys USFWS: None CDFG: Threatened
    LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PUBLIC DRAFT SOLANO HCP JULY 2012 SOLANO COUNTY WATER AGENCY NATURAL COMMUNITY AND SPECIES ACCOUNTS LONGFIN SMELT Spirinchus thaleichthys USFWS: None CDFG: Threatened Species Account Status and Description. The longfin smelt is listed as a threatened species by the California Fish and Game Commission. Abundance of the longfin smelt has reached record lows in the San Francisco-Delta population, and the species may already be extinct in some northern California estuarine populations, resulting in an overall threat of extinction to the species within California (Federal Register 2008). The longfin smelt was also proposed for federal listing, but on April 8, 2009 the USFWS determined that the San Francisco Bay Estuary population does not qualify for listing as a distinct population segment under federal regulations. Further assessment of the entire population is being conducted, however, and future listing may be considered. Photo courtesy of California Department of Fish and Game Longfin smelt, once mature, are slim, silver fish in the family Osmeridae (true smelts). Moyle (2002) describes the species as being 90-110 mm (standard length) at maturity, with a translucent silver appearance along the sides of the body, and an olive to iridescent pinkish hue on the back. Mature males are often darker than females, with enlarged and stiffened dorsal and anal fins, a dilated lateral line region, and breeding tubercles on paired fins and scares. Longfin smelt can be distinguished from other California smelt by their long pectoral fins (which reach or nearly reach the bases of the pelvic fins), incomplete lateral line, weak or absent striations on the opercular bones, low number of scales in the lateral line (54-65) and long maxillary bones (which in adults extent just short of the posterior margin of the eye).
    [Show full text]
  • News Release
    CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Divisions of Boating and Waterways, Historic Preservation and Off-Highway Vehicles News Release For Immediate Release Contact: Apr. 5, 2017 Aaron Wright Sector Superintendent [email protected] (530) 538-2200 Summer Recreation at Lake Oroville State Recreation Area OROVILLE, Calif. -- The emergency effort to repair the Lake Oroville spillways will not interfere with most outdoor recreation this summer at the lake, and with the exception of the Spillway Boat Launch Ramp, all boat launch ramps are open, announced California State Parks (DPR) and the Department of Water Resources. All campgrounds also are open and floating campsites are back on the lake and available for rental. Some areas near the dam will continue to be off-limits to visitors as crews work to repair or replace spillways damaged in February during high runoff. Outdoor activities available at Lake Oroville this summer include: Campgrounds: All campgrounds are now open with site-specific reservations available at Bidwell Canyon, Loafer Creek and Lime Saddle. Campers without reservations are still welcome on a day-to-day basis to any campsites that have not been previously reserved. Campground showers have been equipped with token machines. Each site will have a unique, collectable token which can also be used at other participating state parks. Trails: Lake Oroville has a number of trails for hiking, biking and equestrian use. Trails around the Diversion Pool and Hyatt Power Plant likely will be closed throughout the summer, although DPR may make changes to other trails to accommodate more hikers and help compensate for the closures.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Genome of the Korean Smelt Hypomesus Nipponensis and Its Transcriptomic
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.26.437215; this version posted March 28, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 1 2 3 Draft Genome of the Korean smelt Hypomesus nipponensis and its transcriptomic 4 responses to heat stress in the liver and muscle 5 Biao Xuan1,2, Jongbin Park1,2, Sukjung Choi2, Inhwan You1,2, Bo-Hye Nam3, Eun Soo 6 Noh3, Eun Mi Kim3, Mi-Young Song4, Younhee Shin5, Ji-Hyeon Jeon5,6 and Eun Bae 7 Kim1,2,# 8 1 Department of Applied Animal Science, College of Animal Life Sciences, Kangwon National 9 University, Chuncheon 24341, Kangwon-do, Republic of Korea 10 2 Laboratory of Microbial Genomics and Big Data, College of Animal Life Sciences, Kangwon 11 National University, Chuncheon 24341, Kangwon-do, Republic of Korea 12 3 Biotechnology Research Division, National Institute of Fisheries Science, Busan 46083, Korea 13 4 Inland Fisheries Research Institute, National Institute of Fisheries Science, Gapyeong 12453, 14 Korea 15 5 Research and Development Center, Insilicogen Inc, Yongin 16954, Republic of Korea 16 6 Department of Biological Science, Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon 16419, Korea 17 18 # Corresponding author 19 Mailing address: Department of Applied Animal Science, College of Animal Life Sciences, 20 Kangwon National University, Chuncheon 200-701, Republic of Korea. 21 Tel: +82-33-250-8642 22 Fax: +82-33-259-5574 23 E-mail: [email protected] 24 1 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.26.437215; this version posted March 28, 2021.
    [Show full text]
  • Newlands Project
    MP Region Public Affairs, 916-978-5100, http://www.usbr.gov/mp, February 2016 Mid-Pacific Region, Newlands Project History The Newlands Project was one of the first Reclamation projects. It provides irrigation water from the Truckee and Carson Rivers for about 57,000 acres of cropland in the Lahontan Valley near Fallon and bench lands near Fernley in western Nevada. In addition, water from about 6,000 acres of project land has been transferred to the Lahontan Valley Wetlands near Fallon. Lake Tahoe Dam, a small dam at the outlet of Lake Tahoe, the source of the Truckee Lake Tahoe Dam and Reservoir River, controls releases into the river. Downstream, the Derby Diversion Dam diverts the water into the Truckee Canal and Lahontan Dam, Reservoir, carries it to the Carson River. Other features and Power Plant include Lahontan Dam and Reservoir, Carson River Diversion Dam, and Old Lahontan Dam and Reservoir on the Carson Lahontan Power Plant. The Truckee-Carson River store the natural flow of the Carson project (renamed the Newlands Project) was River along with water diverted from the authorized by the Secretary of the Interior Truckee River. The dam, completed in 1915, on March 14, 1903. Principal features is a zoned earthfill structure. The reservoir include: has a storage capacity of 289,700 acre-feet. Old Lahontan Power Plant, immediately below Lahontan Dam, has a capacity of Lake Tahoe Dam 42,000 kilowatts. The plant was completed in 1911. Lake Tahoe Dam controls the top six feet of Lake Tahoe. With the surface area of the lake, this creates a reservoir of 744,600 acre- Truckee Canal feet capacity and regulates the lake outflow into the Truckee River.
    [Show full text]
  • System Reoperation Study
    System Reoperation Study Phase III Report: Assessment of Reoperation Strategies California Department of Water Resources August 2017 System Reoperation Study Phase III Report This page is intentionally left blank. August 2017 | 2 Table of Contents Chapter 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................................1 -1 1.1 Study Authorization ....................................................................................................................................................................................1 -1 1.2 Study Area ..................................................................................................................................................................................................1 -2 1.3 Planning Principles .....................................................................................................................................................................................1 -4 1.4 Related Studies and Programs...................................................................................................................................................................1 -4 1.5 Uncertainties in Future Conditions ............................................................................................................................................................. 1-6 1.5.1 Climate Change ..........................................................................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • Hypomesus Nipponensis) Stock Trajectory in Lake Kasumigaura and Kitaura
    Open Journal of Marine Science, 2015, 5, 210-225 Published Online April 2015 in SciRes. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ojms http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojms.2015.52017 Factors Affecting Japanese Pond Smelt (Hypomesus nipponensis) Stock Trajectory in Lake Kasumigaura and Kitaura Ashneel Ajay Singh1, Noriyuki Sunoh2, Shintaro Niwa2, Fumitaka Tokoro2, Daisuke Sakamoto1, Naoki Suzuki1, Kazumi Sakuramoto1* 1Department of Ocean Science and Technology, Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, Tokyo, Japan 2Freshwater Branch Office, Ibaraki Fisheries Research Institute, Ibaraki, Japan Email: *[email protected] Received 5 February 2015; accepted 26 March 2015; published 30 March 2015 Copyright © 2015 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Abstract The Japanese pond smelt (Hypomesus nipponensis) stock has been observed to fluctuate quite ri- gorously over the years with sustained periods of low catch in Lake Kasumigaura and Kitaura of the Ibaraki prefecture, Japan which would adversely affect the socioeconomic livelihood of the lo- cal fishermen and fisheries industry. This study was aimed at determining the factors affecting the stock fluctuation of the pond smelt through the different years in the two lakes. Through explora- tory analysis it was found that the pond smelt had significant relationship with total phosphorus (TP) level in both lakes. The global mean land and ocean temperature index (LOTI) was also found to be indirectly related to the pond smelt stock in lake Kasumigaura and Kitaura at the latitude band of 24˚N to 90˚N (l).
    [Show full text]
  • Insights Into the Oroville Dam 2017 Spillway Incident
    geosciences Communication Insights into the Oroville Dam 2017 Spillway Incident Aristotelis Koskinas 1, Aristoteles Tegos 1,2,*, Penelope Tsira 1, Panayiotis Dimitriadis 1 , Theano Iliopoulou 1, Panos Papanicolaou 1, Demetris Koutsoyiannis 1 and Tracey Williamson 3 1 Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Heroon Polytechniou 9, Zografou, GR-15780 Zographou Athens, Greece; [email protected] (A.K.); [email protected] (P.T.); [email protected] (P.D.); [email protected] (T.I.); [email protected] (P.P.); [email protected] (D.K.) 2 Arup Group Limited, 50 Ringsend Rd, Grand Canal Dock, D04 T6X0 Dublin 4, Ireland 3 Arup, 4 Pierhead Street, Cardiff CF10 4QP, UK; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 9 December 2018; Accepted: 7 January 2019; Published: 11 January 2019 Abstract: In February 2017, a failure occurring in Oroville Dam’s main spillway risked causing severe damages downstream. A unique aspect of this incident was the fact that it happened during a flood scenario well within its design and operational procedures, prompting research into its causes and determining methods to prevent similar events from reoccurring. In this study, a hydroclimatic analysis of Oroville Dam’s catchment is conducted, along with a review of related design and operational manuals. The data available allows for the comparison of older flood-frequency analyses to new alternative methods proposed in this paper and relevant literature. Based on summary characteristics
    [Show full text]
  • Leasburg Diversion Dam Flows Along the Rio Grande River About a Mile and a Half Northwest of Fort Selden Historic Site
    H. Davis with the U.S. military was Explore History, Where It Happened surveying the area for use as a military Visit New Mexico Historic Sites and explore the state’s most important places. post. These seven historic sites and one historic property highlight the traditions and Today, the Diversion Dam is part of culture of New Mexico. It is an experience LEASBURG Leasburg Dam State Park, designated a you won’t forget. state park in 1971. DIVERSION DAM Help Preserve Fort Selden Help us preserve Fort Selden by becoming a site volunteer or by making a designated gift to the Museum of NM Foundation for the Fort’s preservation and interpretation. 100% of your gifts will be used to support Fort Selden. Become a Friend of Fort Selden Join other community members as we work to form a non-profit group to support the Fort. Call us for more information at 575-202-1638. The Leasburg Diversion Dam flows along the Rio Grande River about a mile and a half northwest of Fort Selden Historic Site. This diversion dam is vitally important to the region because water is one of New Mexico’s most important commodities. For thousands of years the Rio Grande has been a source of water for travelers, settlers, and livestock and provided water for crop irrigation. Fort Selden Historic Site However, the Rio Grande is an extremely powerful force of nature. It 1280 Ft. Selden Rd. Radium Springs, NM 88054 is a naturally moving river whose path changes on an almost yearly basis. Phone (575) 526-8911 Regional Office: (575) 202-1638 nmhistoricsites.org In the mid-19th century, settlers in the two flood controls in Picacho North and through to the Juarez Valley can have Upper Mesilla Valley were looking for Picacho South; and diversion dams access to water when needed.
    [Show full text]
  • (Entosphenus Tridentatus), California – Sacramento Regional Management Unit
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Arcata Fisheries Technical Report TR 2018-34 Regional Implementation Plan for Measures to Conserve Pacific Lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus), California – Sacramento Regional Management Unit Damon H. Goodman and Stewart B. Reid U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 822-7201 May 2018 Funding for this study was provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Pacific Southwest Region Fish and Aquatic Conservation Program Office, with additional support provided by the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office. This plan was developed as part of the Pacific Lamprey Conservation Initiative using information collected through: (1) regional stakeholder meetings hosted throughout the Sacramento Regional Management Unit in 2015-2017, (2) subsequent discussions with various stakeholders, and (3) the authors' experience. New information, as it becomes available, will be incorporated into subsequent revisions of this plan and posted on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office website. Disclaimers: The mention of trade names or commercial products in this report does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the Federal Government. The Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office Fisheries Program reports its study findings through two publication series. The Arcata Fisheries Data Series was established to provide timely dissemination of data to local managers and for inclusion in agency databases. The Arcata Fisheries Technical Reports publishes scientific findings from single and multi-year studies that have undergone more extensive peer review and statistical testing. Additionally, some study results are published in a variety of professional fisheries and aquatic science journals.
    [Show full text]
  • April 21, 2021
    ITEM NO. 15d ORIGINATING SECTION: Integrated Planning CONTACT: Sal Segura/Amparo Flores AGENDA DATE: August 18, 2021 SUBJECT: Monthly Water Inventory and Water Budget Update SUMMARY: In support of Zone 7’s mission to “deliver safe, reliable, efficient, and sustainable water…services,” for Strategic Plan Goal A – “Reliable Water Supply and Infrastructure;” this report summarizes water supply, usage and storage conditions as of the end of July 2021. An overall analysis of the annual water supply takes place in April of each year with the Annual Review of Sustainable Water Supply. Long-term water supply planning is summarized in the Urban Water Management Plan, which is updated every five years and assesses water supply reliability on a 20-year horizon. The report considers the various sources of supply and storage available to Zone 7 locally and in State Water Project facilities, as well as in remote groundwater storage banks. Figure ES 1: At-a-Glance Summaries of Water Supplies, Deliveries, and Available Water (as of July 2021) Annual Yield: Imported and Local Water Supplies vs. Delivered Water Year-To- 400,000 50,000 Date Yield 300,000 feet) - 0 Annual Imported Local Average feet - (acre 200,000 Annual Yield Water Water Yield acre Water Deliveries: 100,000 2021 feet) - 10,000 0 5,000 2013 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 (acre 0 Water Deliveries Total Water Treated Untreated 2021 Projected Deliveries Delivered Water Water Actual Water Deliveries Water Storage Treated Water Deliveries: Treated Water Deliveries: Imported Water (via Delta) 11% 0% Surface Water 43% Local Water (Lake Del Valle) Groundwater 57% Imported Water (Stored As Groundwater) 89% JULY 2021 Zone 7 Water Inventory and Water Budget Supply and Demand (See Table 1, Table 2, Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 4) • Monthly totals: 5,150 AF delivered to customers (4,150 AF treated, 1,000 AF untreated) • The total treated water production increased by 6% compared to last month.
    [Show full text]
  • CA-Waterways-Map.Pdf
    O R E G O N S rk m o it F h e dl R Mid . Goose Lake S o ut k h r o F C K l O O a m a N t h r Sa e c v r er i a Riv R m d e u A A aterways n o l t o o C c R W M E V A D i v e R i r r t v i e Some of the water you use every day has probably traveled T P r S S r i n i Trinity Lake ty M a d T T R iv er great distances and over high mountain ranges before reaching E UREKA R i v e r Shasta Lake Va n your faucet. This is because water is not always where we need R EDDING Du Clear zen Whiskeytown River Creek Lake Tunnel it. In California, most of the rain and snowfall is in the north. But Lake Antelope E Almanor Lake e l most of the people live in the south. The solution is to distribute S a R c i v r e a r m Corning R k Lake Frenchman e r n o Canal F Davis Lake the water to where it is needed through delivery systems such t o h t r o A R N rk Black i Fo v e e Butte r dl id as the State Water Project (SWP). Lake M Lake k N or F Oroville h t u So G Thermalito New Bullards The SWP delivers water from Lake Oroville in the north to the T Forebay and Bar Reservoir e h Lake Oroville Afterbay F e a a Visitors Center Indian m t h r a a e Valley e iv E R R r a San Francisco Bay area, the San Joaquin Valley, and Southern b u u Y Reservoir - s s i Clear Lake R a C i n o v e l u r S R sa i California.
    [Show full text]
  • 6 Hedge Canal Diversion Dam Daly Ditches Irrigation District
    6HedgeCanalDiversionDam DalyDitchesIrrigationDistrict ProjectDescription DalyDitchesIrrigationDistrict[DDID][Hamilton] wastherecipientof$290,000inAmericanRein vestmentandRecoveryAct[ARRA]fundsin 2009.Thisfundingwasusedtoreplaceanaged timberdiversiondamontheBitterrootRiver southofHamilton. Thisprojectconsistedofreplacingtheexisting timberframediversiondamwithamoresolid damconsistingofa6’vertical,subsurfacecon cretewallsupportinga6’verticalgroutedrock wall.Thisnewstructureservedtostabilizethe riverbankatitsinterfacewithacanaladjacentto theBitterrootRiver,bypassinganuphillspring runningbeneaththecanal,thusenablingcontin uedfunctioningofthedam. Figure61–Largeboulderswereplacedandgroutedtogetheratthe Thenew,replacementdiversiondamprevents siteoftheformer,decayingdam.[Photo:PropertyofMorrison fishentrainmentwhileencouragingfishpassage. MaierleInc.] Previousfailuresofthediversiondamhavere sultedinalossofirrigationwatersto41%ofthe irrigationdistrict. History DDIDwasfoundedbyMarcusDalyinthelate 1800sandincludestheHedgeCanalDiversion Dam.Thiscanalwasconstructedadjacenttoand uphilloftheBitterrootRiverintheearly1900s. Uponitsconstruction,itwasexpectedtofunc tionfor50to75years.Sinceitsconstruction,a springhasdevelopeduphillfromthecanal,which hasservedtocausesignificantweakeningofthe canalbankbetweentheriverandthecanal.An additionaldetrimenttotheoriginaldiversion damhasbeenthecontinuederosionoftheriver bank,duetoriverfluctuationsincombination Figure62–Boulderplacementaccuracyhelpedtoensurethelon withanunstablebank.Thiserosionhascontrib gevityofthereplacementdam.[Photo:PropertyofMorrisonMaierle
    [Show full text]