18.08.2013 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2012<br />

Special-status Wildlife<br />

Special-status species include those protected by the state of California as<br />

endangered or threatened, candidate for listing, California species of special concern,<br />

California fully protected species, California Fish and Game special animal, Forest<br />

Service Sensitive and management indicator species, and FWS birds of conservation<br />

concern (table 3.3.3-5). Federally listed threatened or endangered species; candidate<br />

species for listing; and any applicable designated critical habitat for a listed species are<br />

discussed in section 3.3.4, Threatened and Endangered Species. Associated habitat and<br />

occurrence information for special-status species known to occur or with the potential to<br />

occur within the existing project boundary is summarized in table 3.3.3-5 below.<br />

3.3.3.2 Environmental Effects<br />

Vegetation<br />

<strong>Project</strong> operations and maintenance activities can disturb existing vegetation<br />

communities in the project area by removing individuals or degrading habitat. <strong>Project</strong><br />

activities that could affect vegetation include routine maintenance activities, non-routine<br />

recreation maintenance activities, modification of existing project operations,<br />

modification of existing facilities, and construction of new facilities.<br />

PCWA’s proposed VIPMP is intended to address project-related effects on<br />

vegetation as well as nuisance species of wildlife (addressed later in this section under<br />

Wildlife). The Alternative 1 VIPMP modifies some aspects of the proposed plan and<br />

reorganizes some elements into what we find is a more logical sequence than presented in<br />

the proposed VIPMP. Both plans include provisions for annual consultation with the<br />

Forest Service regarding completed and planned vegetation management and pest control<br />

activities. Overall, compared to the proposed plan, the Alternative 1 plan provides much<br />

more detail regarding plan objectives, which establish a solid foundation upon which the<br />

elements of the plan are based. The following subsections address issues in each of the<br />

plans, highlight key differences, and analyze plan elements and their differences.<br />

Following our discussion of VIPMP components, we discuss the effects of proposed<br />

changes in project operations and facilities on vegetation, which are not directly<br />

addressed in either VIPMP plan.<br />

144

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!