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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2012 Potential California red-legged frog upland habitats in the project include riparian areas, grasslands that contain seeps and springs, or deeply shaded forest streams immediately adjacent to aquatic breeding. However, any upland habitat that does not contain significant barriers to dispersal may potentially be used by California red-legged frog. Based on the site assessments, field surveys, and consultation with FWS, it was determined that rivers and reservoirs associated with the project do not represent California red-legged frog aquatic breeding habitat. As defined by FWS, these large rivers and reservoirs (e.g., the Middle Fork American River, Rubicon River, Hell Hole reservoir, and Ralston afterbay) represent barriers that would restrict the northward and/or southward movement of California red-legged frog throughout the study area. FWS identified potential aquatic breeding habitat at three off-channel ponds at Horseshoe Bar. As requested by FWS, protocol-level surveys were completed at these sites. No California red-legged frogs were observed. There is one known California redlegged frog record within 1 mile of the project study area. This record is a single adult California red-legged frog that was observed in a pond on the western end of Ralston Ridge in the right-of-way below a Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) transmission line. No individuals have been observed at this location since 2001. Pacific Fisher The Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti [pacifica]) is a federal candidate for listing under the ESA, as well as a Forest Service sensitive species, a candidate for listing as California threatened, and a California species of special concern. As a candidate for listing, no FWS critical habitat has been designated. Suitable habitat consists of large areas of mature, dense forest such as red fir, lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, and Jeffery pine forests with snags and greater than 50 percent canopy closure. The range of the species extends from 4,000 to 8,000 feet in the Sierra National Forest. The study area is within the known geographic and elevational range for this species. While potential forest habitat for these species is present in the vicinity of the project, there are no documented mesocarnivore dens and no Forest Service buffer areas near the project. There are two historical records of individuals in the vicinity of French Meadows reservoir, including one occurrence about 1 mile east of French Meadows reservoir, near the Forest Service station. However, this species is now thought to be absent from the central Sierra Nevada. No species-specific relicensing surveys were conducted for the Pacific fisher, the species was not documented during wildlife surveys, and there were no incidental sightings. 190
20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2012 3.3.4.2 Environmental Effects Layne’s Ragwort No federal or state listed plants species were identified in areas affected by operation and maintenance of the project during PCWA’s special status plant surveys. However, the potential exists that populations of Layne’s ragwort could become established during the term of a new license. Both the proposed and the Alternative 1 VIPMPs include provisions for surveying for special-status plants, which would include Layne’s ragwort, at 5-year intervals. PCWA’s and the Alternative 1 VIPMP also include avoidance and protection measures for any special-status plants that are detected. Our Analysis The measures proposed in PCWA’s and the Alternative 1 VIPMP would enable any new populations of Layne’s ragwort to be detected and appropriate avoidance and protective measures taken. Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Elderberry plants, the host to the valley elderberry longhorn beetle, were only documented above 3,000 feet in elevation in the project vicinity; therefore, the valley elderberry longhorn beetle is unlikely to occur within the project. In the event that elderberry plants are documented within the project area in the future, the activities that have the potential to adversely affect the elderberry habitat include vegetation trimming or clearing and herbicide application. No specific PCWA measure or agency condition has been developed for the valley elderberry longhorn beetle. Our Analysis Because the project area is unlikely to support elderberry plants, the valley elderberry longhorn beetle is unlikely to be present at or affected by the project. If elderberry plants are identified in the project, further coordination with FWS to identify further minimization measures (e.g., pre-activity survey, buffers) would be most protective for the valley elderberry longhorn beetle. California Red-legged Frog Based on the site assessments, field surveys, and consultation with FWS, it was determined that the rivers and reservoirs associated with the project do not represent California red-legged frog aquatic breeding habitat; however, suitable breeding habitat was identified by FWS at three off-channel ponds at Horseshoe Bar. No California redlegged frogs were identified during protocol-level surveys at the Horseshoe Bar offchannel ponds. No project activities are anticipated to occur near the off-channel ponds at Horseshoe Bar; therefore, the project is unlikely to affect the species or its habitat. 191
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:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
135 Species Name Status a Butte Cou
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170: 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: 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 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?