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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2012 Our Analysis The proposed reduction and removal of the two recreational facilities at Hell Hole reservoir would reduce the potential for disturbance of nearby populations of Stebbins’ phacelia, and would enable sites that were disturbed by recreational facilities to eventually revegetate with native vegetation. PCWA’s proposed reduction in the recreation area at Hell Hole Vista that would undergo vegetation management and maintenance would reduce the project-related effects on this population by about 80 percent, removing about 38,300–76,600 individual Stebbins’ phacelia plants from potential project-related effects. This would represent a substantial protective measure for this special status species population compared to existing conditions. The Alternative 1 VIPMP does not specify surveys for a portion of the French Meadows Campground Water Supply Facility Access Road that was not included in PCWA’s special-status plant surveys conducted for the relicensing of the project, but that could be affected by project activities. Routine maintenance along this road could potentially affect special-status plants, if present, and surveys in this area would address any potential effects from project activities. Wildlife For wildlife species for which a species-specific management plan has been developed (foothill yellow-legged frog, western pond turtle, and bald eagle), potential effects on the species are described below by species. Effects on other special-status wildlife species are organized by type of potential effects. Protection of Foothill Yellow-Legged Frogs Foothill yellow-legged frogs could be affected by project operations such as sediment augmentation; use of pesticides as part of routine vegetation and noxious weed management; and changes to minimum instream flows, pulse flows, spill flows, or water temperature. These activities could affect foothill yellow-legged frog distribution, abundance, and timing of breeding. Modifying hydrology has the potential to affect temperature and affect the timing of foothill yellow-legged frog breeding. Spill flows from reservoirs could disrupt breeding, destroy egg masses, and flush tadpoles downstream and during the recession of these flows, tadpoles could be stranded. Excessive mercury may reduce survival, inhibit growth, modify behavior, impair reproduction, or result in various sublethal effects (Zillioux et al., 1993, as cited in USGS 2008), including malformations in amphibian larvae (Unrine et al., 2004, as cited in USGS, 2008). PCWA proposes to implement a Sediment Management Plan, discussed in more detail in section 3.3.1.2, Geologic and Soils Resources. Under this plan, gravel augmentation on Indian and Junction bars in the peaking reach would not occur during the foothill yellow-legged frog breeding season (May 15 to June 15). Also, prior to activities at these bars, foothill yellow-legged frog surveys would be conducted on the 172
20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2012 bars and within 100 meters of any sediment management activity; any foothill yellowlegged frogs located and captured would be translocated downstream. Methylmercury has the potential to be released during sediment management activities. To determine if this is a concern that needs to be addressed, the Sediment Management Plan includes provisions for monitoring methylmercury levels in Ralston afterbay and in the peaking reach. Alternative 1 includes PCWA’s proposed Sediment Management Plan. PCWA proposes to manage vegetation in the project by using pesticides, and includes protective measures in its proposed VIPMP to minimize the potential entry of potentially harmful chemicals into water bodies. These include adhering to Forest Service BMPs that pertain to pesticide use and maintaining designated streamside protective buffers for pesticide applications. In addition, pesticides would not be applied within 500 feet of known occupied sites for the foothill yellow-legged frog. The Alternative 1 VIPMP, discussed in more detail under Vegetation, includes the same BMPs and restriction of pesticide use within 500 feet of known occupied foothill yellowlegged from habitat, but includes much more expansive pesticide buffer zones and more details regarding resources to be protected. PCWA proposes to modify hydrologic conditions by (1) initiating higher minimum instream flows in all bypassed and peaking reaches (compared with current operations); (2) implementing environmental pulse flows in all the bypassed reaches and downramping of spill flows in the bypassed reaches below French Meadows and Hell Hole reservoirs; and (3) reducing flow fluctuations in the peaking reach. Higher minimum instream flows in the bypassed reaches were specifically designed to maintain the current distribution of the upstream distribution and abundance of foothill yellowlegged frogs. During critical, dry, and below normal water year types when water temperature modeling showed that changes to minimum flows could affect water temperature, the summer minimum flows were set to approximately maintain the current location of the point at which water temperature would be at or above 17°C (foothill yellow-legged frog lower optimum temperature) in the Middle Fork American River downstream of Middle Fork interbay and the Rubicon River downstream of Hell Hole reservoir. Pulse flows (wet and above normal water year types) are timed to start in early May (prior to the initiation of foothill yellow-legged frog breeding) and include a down ramp recession designed to the extent practicable to mimic a snowmelt run-off hydrograph. Spill flows from the reservoirs would continue to occur under ongoing operations, except that the proposed action includes provisions for down ramping of the spills in May through July. The Alternative 1 hydrologic modifications, discussed in more detail in sections 3.3.1.2, Geologic and Soils Resources, and 3.3.2.2, Aquatic Resources, are slightly different from PCWA’s proposed flow regime, but for factors that could influence foothill yellow-legged frogs, they are essentially the same. PCWA proposes to implement its Foothill Yellow-legged Frog Monitoring Plan, which includes general and special-purpose monitoring. General monitoring would determine species abundance (egg masses, tadpoles, and YOY) in select locations in the bypassed and peaking reaches, including tributaries; document the approximate upstream 173
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:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
91 Figure 3.3.2-6. Fish passage bar
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
105 Location American River below M
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152: 20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial)
Page 165 and 166: 135 Species Name Status a Butte Cou
Page 175 and 176: 145 Table 3.3.3-5. Special-status w
Page 177 and 178: 147 Species Name Status Habitat Occ
Page 201: 20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial)
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 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 ...

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

Delete template?

Save as template?