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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2012 No specific PCWA measure or agency condition has been developed for the California red-legged frog. Our Analysis Potential California red-legged frog breeding habitat has been identified in only one area, and no California red-legged frogs were observed at that site during species surveys following the FWS survey protocol. Because no project activities would affect the California red-legged frog breeding habitat, it is unlikely that the species, if it occurs at the site in the future, would be affected by the project. Pacific Fisher The Pacific fisher is thought to be absent from the central Sierra, and as a result would unlikely be present at and affected by the project. In the event that the species does occur, under the proposed action (including construction of new facilities, routine maintenance, and/or non-routine recreation facility activities), the Pacific fisher would have the potential to be affected by noise and habitat loss or degradation from vegetation removal and by secondary poisoning as a result of rodent control measures. Facility modification and construction activities (e.g., small diversion and outlet works modifications, new gages and weirs, and new facilities associated with the Hell Hole reservoir seasonal storage increase improvement) have the potential to create noise. PCWA proposes to minimize effects on wildlife by conducting activities outside the raptor breeding season (March 1 through August 31) to the extent possible. (The raptor breeding seasons almost entirely overlaps with the Pacific fisher breeding season, which is late February through mid-April.) Routine maintenance and non-routine recreation (e.g., road maintenance, noxious weed management, vegetation management [i.e., trimming by hand and with equipment, and use of herbicides and surfactants]) also has the potential to result in noise and habitat removal. PCWA proposes to incorporate protection measures associated with sediment and recreation activities, which would also minimize the risk of effects on Pacific fishers, should they occur. Protection measures in the Sediment Management Plan include specifications that all sediment management activities would be conducted from September 15 to February 15, which is outside of the fisher breeding season. Protection measures in the Recreation Plan include conducting ground-disturbing and construction activities outside of the raptor breeding season (which is similar to the Pacific fisher breeding season) when feasible. PCWA proposes to implement vegetation management and rodent control measures that include protection measures and monitoring as described previously in the bald eagle section. No specific PCWA measure or agency condition has been developed for the Pacific fisher. 192
20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2012 Our Analysis Measures for pesticide and fumigant application and implementation of monitoring measures for rodent control, as described previously for bald eagle, would protect the Pacific fisher, a mammal that preys on other small mammals. When possible, conducting activities that result in noise or habitat removal outside of the raptor breeding seasons would also reduce the risk of effects on breeding Pacific fishers, should they occur. It is unlikely that a significant loss to Pacific fisher populations or suitable habitat would occur from habitat removal associated with vegetation management near facilities and hazard tree removal. Pacific fishers tend to occur in mature forest habitat and avoid edges where there is human activity. Vegetation management at project facilities, features, and recreation areas are limited to trimming of shrubs and herbaceous vegetation and cutting of overhanging limbs to provide safe access and maintain efficient operation. Hazard tree removal and fuels reduction (brushing and thinning) conducted as part of heavy recreation facility maintenance are restricted to the perimeter of facilities, features, and recreation areas and would be limited to removal of vegetation necessary to provide safe recreation opportunities and reduce fire risk. Construction and staging areas for modification or construction of existing facilities are located in already disturbed, graveled, or paved areas. Implementation of these activities is unlikely to result in a significant loss or degradation of habitat for the Pacific fisher. If a new Pacific fisher sighting occurs near the project, further coordination with FWS to identify further minimization measures (e.g., pre-activity survey) would be most protective. 3.3.5 Recreation and Land Use 3.3.5.1 Affected Environment Recreation Regional Recreation Resources Recreational resources in the region provide for a full range of activities, from tourist-based recreation associated with historical mining towns in the region, to rural and wilderness activities, such as hiking, fishing, and boating. The primary recreational sites in the <strong>American</strong> <strong>River</strong> drainage include the Forest Service lands, the towns of Auburn, Foresthill, and Georgetown and Folsom Lake. The numerous lakes and reservoirs in the eastern part of the region, which includes the project reservoirs, provide a variety of recreational opportunities and varying levels of developed facilities for camping and dayuse activities. Paved roads and boat launches at the larger water bodies in the area provide opportunities for motorized boating use. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use is also popular in the region. There are 12 designated routes or areas for OHV use in the region, most of which are on NFS lands or state lands. 193
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:
Page 171 and 172: 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 221: 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 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?