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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2012 During PCWA’s surveys for special-status mussel and aquatic snail species, the non-native signal crayfish was documented and a number of other common aquatic mollusk species were found in the study area including: (1) four bivalves—the freshwater mussel (Margaritifera falcata) and three peaclams (Pisidium casertanum, Pisidium walkeri, and an unidentified Pisidium spp.); and (2) five gastropods—Ferrissia rivularis, Fossaria obrussa, Juga (Oreobasis) nigrina, Menetus opercularis, and Physella gyrina. The peaclams and most of the aquatic gastropods identified in the study area are common native species that occur throughout most of North America. Fisheries No migratory fish species are present in the project vicinity. Three native anadromous species (steelhead, Pacific lamprey, and Chinook salmon) historically migrated into the Middle Fork American River watershed. Both steelhead and Chinook salmon reportedly ascended the Middle Fork American River past the Rubicon River confluence and the Rubicon River as far as the Pilot Creek confluence (about 5 miles upstream of the Middle Fork American River confluence) (Yoshiyama et al., 2001; Lindley et al., 2006). 13 Impassable dams on the lower American River, including Nimbus and Folsom dams completed in 1955 and 1956, respectively, by Reclamation, prevent anadromous fish passage into the project’s bypassed and peaking reaches. Potential fish passage barriers (natural barriers, project infrastructure barriers, and other man-made barriers) were mapped along project-affected rivers and streams to determine their potential effects on fish distribution. Many natural and man-made fish barriers unrelated to the project (e.g., Tunnel Chute) are present throughout the peaking and bypassed reaches (figure 3.3.2-6). Barriers to upstream movement are numerous in nearly all river reaches; little opportunity exists for fish to move long distances upstream in the bypassed reaches due to the presence of barriers. Project facilities (four large dams, three small diversion structures, one tunnel stream crossing, one road crossing, and three gage weirs) create additional barriers to upstream fish movement. However, because these barriers are located in reaches already containing natural barriers, the project facilities have little effect on habitat access or upstream distribution above and beyond that found under pre-dam conditions. Barriers, especially project facilities, may also limit downstream movement by fish in the project area. However, because the distribution of resident fish in a watershed is largely regulated by upstream passage rather than downstream passage, the description of fish distribution and passage herein is focused on constraints to upstream movement. 13 Resident rainbow trout is a catchall designation for hundreds of nonanadromous wild rainbow trout populations that exist throughout California that are either derived naturally from steelhead or, more likely, are of mixed hatchery and native origin (Moyle, 2002). 90
91 Figure 3.3.2-6. Fish passage barrier locations and frequency (Source: PCWA, 2010b).
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: 20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial)
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 99 and 100: 69 Table 3.3.2-3. Hydrology for sel
Page 101 and 102: 71 Exceedances and Summary Statisti
Page 119: 20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial)
Page 135 and 136: 105 Location American River below M
Page 165 and 166: 135 Species Name Status a Butte Cou
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:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
303 c Base 2010 costs were provided
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
307 Resource No-Action Alternative
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
319 Table 5-2. Staff-recommended mi
Page 351 and 352:
321 Location Middle Fork American R
Page 353 and 354:
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363 and 364:
Page 365 and 366:
Page 367 and 368:
Page 369 and 370:
Page 371 and 372:
Page 373 and 374:
Page 375 and 376:
Page 377 and 378:
Page 379 and 380:
Page 381 and 382:
Page 383 and 384:
Page 385 and 386:
Page 387 and 388:
Page 389 and 390:
Page 391 and 392:
Page 393 and 394:
Page 395 and 396:
Page 397 and 398:
Page 399 and 400:
Page 401 and 402:
Page 403 and 404:
A-1
Page 405 and 406:
A-3
Page 407 and 408:
Page 409 and 410:
Page 411 and 412:
Page 413 and 414:
Page 415 and 416:
Page 417 and 418:
Page 419:
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?