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

20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2012
the subject. The absence of literature on documented adverse water quality effects and
the presence of apparently healthy western pond turtles in wastewater treatment ponds in
the Central Valley (Germano and Bury, 2001), suggest that water quality may not be a
key limiting factor for western pond turtle survival. Neither the proposed nor the
Alternative 1 VIPMP has any pesticide buffers specific to western pond turtles.
Incidental observations during relicensing studies documented western pond turtle in the
Middle Fork American River and peaking reach, and suitable nesting habitat was
identified along the bypassed and peaking reaches. Basking and egg-laying sites for
western pond turtles include suitable upland habitat up to 1,640 feet from water.
Although both VIPMPs include protective buffers for rivers and streams, the Alternative
1 VIPMP identifies pesticide buffers that are generally equal to or greater than buffers
identified in the proposed VIPMP. The generally more expansive pesticide buffers
identified in the Alternative 1 VIPMP would be protective of western pond turtles by
minimizing potential effects on water quality and suitable basking and nesting habitat.
The proposed Western Pond Turtle Monitoring Plan includes provisions that
would enable identification of the need to consider additional protective measures in most
cases. The exception is discussed in the previous paragraph. The proposed plan includes
provisions for agency consultation and plan modification in response to conditions that
may change during the term of a new license. Implementation of PCWA’s monitoring
plan, in conjunction with other protective measures discussed earlier in this section,
would ensure the species would continue to be adequately monitored over time and the
need for adjustments in protective measures identified.
We identified an inconsistency in the Western Pond Turtle Monitoring Plan in
relation to the extent of monitoring at the bypassed and peaking reach sites. The distance
to sample described in the methods text is 250 m, whereas in a footnote to table 1 in the
plan it is given as 1,000 m. We assume the intended survey distance is 250 m, which is
consistent with the visual survey technique protocol referenced in the plan (USGS, 2006).
Protection of the Bald Eagle and Other Raptors
Recreation, routine maintenance, and non-routine recreation facility activities have
the potential to affect bald eagles and other raptors. Increased noise or increased human
presence within 0.25 mile of an active nest or roost could affect reproduction during the
nest building and breeding season (January through July). Foraging habitat may be
affected by modifying minimum instream flows and pulse flows in the bypassed and
peaking reaches, modifying reservoir water surface elevations and diversion pools, and
reservoir stocking of fish. In addition, effects on the bald eagle and other raptors could
occur as a result of electrocution at power lines and removal of active nests during power
line maintenance activities, use of herbicides, surfactants, and fungicides, and secondary
poisoning as a result of rodent control.
178