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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2012 Table 3.3.3-3. Project priority noxious weeds list (Source: PCWA, 2011a, as modified by staff). Tahoe Eldorado National National Forest Forest Acres in Priority Priority the Scientific Name Common Name Species Level Project Ailanthus altissima Chinese tree of heaven 2 2.7 Bromus diandrus Ripgut brome 4 97.2 Bromus tectorum Cheat grass X 2 246.8 Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle 3 18.3 Centaurea melitensis Tocalote X 2 18.9 Centaurea solstitialis Yellow starthistle X 2 6.67 Chondrilla juncea Rush skeletonweed X 2 75.9 Cirsium arvense Canada thistle X 1 0.05 Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle 3 103.8 Cynosurus echinatus Hedgehog dogtailgrass 4 81.4 Hirschfeldia incana Shortpod mustard 4 43.8 Hypericum perforatum Klamathweed Tall whitetop X 3 125.1 Lepidium latifolium (pepperweed) X 1 8.9 Melilotus officinalis, Yellow sweet clover, M.albus white sweet clover 3 57.9 Rubus discolor Himalayan blackberry X 3 32.1 Rumex acetosella Taeniatherum caput- Red (sheep) sorrel 4 189.5 medusae Medusahead X 2 21.2 Torilis arvensis Spreading hedgeparsley 4 84.4 Verbascum thapsus Woolly mullein X 4 318.7 Vulpia myuros Rattail fescue 4 225.3 138
20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2012 Additionally, algae abundance surveys conducted within the study area identified Didymosphenia geminata, a nuisance algae species. Based on the summer algae abundance surveys, algae coverage was sparse at most of the instream flow sites but was relatively dense at the top of the peaking reach. Cumulative filamentous macroalgae and microalgae coverage ranged from a low of 11 percent at the Rubicon River near Ellicott Bridge to a high of 86 percent at Middle Fork American River downstream of Ralston afterbay. The only project-affected streams and rivers where Didymosphenia geminata was not documented was North Fork Long Canyon Creek. Riparian Vegetation To characterize riparian vegetation in the vicinity of the project, riparian vegetation around the project reservoirs and diversion pools and along the bypassed and peaking reaches was mapped from helicopter and ground surveys during the relicensing effort and information on the distribution, composition, and age classes of existing woody riparian vegetation was collected. These attributes of the riparian vegetation on the bypassed and peaking reaches were then compared with the riparian vegetation at unregulated river reaches (North Fork American and North Fork of the Middle Fork American Rivers) and upstream of project diversions (South Fork Long Canyon and Duncan Creeks). Project Impoundments PCWA found that riparian vegetation was generally sparse along all the reservoirs and diversion pools, with a total of 16.9 acres and 5.0 miles mapped along the impoundment shorelines. The large and medium project reservoirs (Hell Hole and French Meadows reservoirs, Middle Fork interbay, and Ralston afterbay) are generally surrounded by rock outcrops and steep slopes, and the shorelines are primarily composed of bedrock or coarse substrates that are not suitable for riparian vegetation establishment. The riparian communities around the reservoirs were composed of primarily native riparian and wetland species, including willows, alders, and cottonwoods. Sedges and other herbaceous species were also present along the shorelines. Table 3.3.3-4 provides a summary of riparian vegetation around project reservoirs and diversion pools. Riparian Vegetation along Project-Affected Reaches Riparian habitat occurred along about 93 linear miles (i.e., total linear miles includes vegetation established along both stream banks) or 42 percent of the total river miles along the bypassed and peaking reaches and was discontinuously distributed along another 30 linear miles of stream (14 percent of total river miles). The abundance and distribution patterns of riparian vegetation along the bypassed reaches were largely influenced by the geology of the site (i.e., confined valley walls and bedrock or coarse substrate) and historical land use activities (in particular mining). 139
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:
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 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
69 Table 3.3.2-3. Hydrology for sel
Page 101 and 102:
71 Exceedances and Summary Statisti
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118: 20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial)
Page 121 and 122: 91 Figure 3.3.2-6. Fish passage bar
Page 135 and 136: 105 Location American River below M
Page 165 and 166: 135 Species Name Status a Butte Cou
Page 167: 20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial)
Page 175 and 176: 145 Table 3.3.3-5. Special-status w
Page 177 and 178: 147 Species Name Status Habitat Occ
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?