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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2012 schedule for evaluating future needs. Evaluating the need to update the plan would similarly benefit from adjusting it to a 6-year frequency rather than a 5-year frequency. The plan appropriately recognizes there may be additional project roads or trails needed during the term of a new license. However, in addition to completing environmental review, as specified in the plan, for any new project road or trail, PCWA would need to file an amendment to the plan and receive Commission approval before construction. Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan The proposed Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan outlines the responsibility of PCWA and its contractor(s) for fire prevention and suppression activities; establishes reporting and attack procedures in the event of a fire in the vicinity of the project; and ensures that fire prevention and suppression techniques are carried out in accordance with applicable regulations. PCWA would consult with the Forest Service: (1) annually to discuss current fire suppression and preparedness; and (2) every 5 years regarding the need to revise the plan. Measures and procedures identified in the plan apply to all lands and facilities within the project boundary. The plan would be implemented after Commission approval. Forest Service preliminary 4(e) condition no. 44 specifies that PCWA finalize the plan and file it with the Commission after Forest Service approval. PCWA would implement this plan after Commission approval. Our Analysis Implementing a Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan as PCWA proposes would improve planning, management and coordination of wildfire protection and prevention measures that could reduce wildfire occurrence in the vicinity of the project. Provisions in the plan and annual consultation with the Forest Service could also improve suppression efforts thereby minimizing damage caused by wildfires that may occur in the project vicinity. Because fire-related circumstances would likely change over the term of a new license, it would be appropriate to periodically review the plan, as PCWA proposes, to determine if the plan should be revised. The proposed plan was developed in consultation with the Forest Service; however, the agency specifies additional consultation and approval before the submitting the plan to the Commission for approval. These additional steps specified in Forest Service condition no. 44 would further improve the benefits that would be realized by implementing PCWA’s proposed plan. 246
20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2012 3.3.6 Cultural Resources 3.3.6.1 Affected Environment Section 106 Section 106 of the NHPA as amended requires the Commission to take into account the effects of licensing a hydropower project on any historic properties and allow the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Advisory Council) a reasonable opportunity to comment if any adverse effects on historic properties are identified within the project’s area of potential effects (APE). Historic properties are defined as any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. In this document, we also use the term “cultural resources” to include properties that have not been evaluated for eligibility for listing in the National Register. In most cases, cultural resources less than 50 years old are not considered eligible for the National Register. Cultural resources need enough internal contextual integrity to be considered historic properties. For example, dilapidated structures or heavily disturbed archaeological sites may not have enough contextual integrity to be considered eligible. Traditional cultural properties (TCPs) are a type of historic property eligible for the National Register because of their association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that: (1) are rooted in that community’s history; or (2) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community (Parker and King, 1998). Section 106 also requires that the Commission seek concurrence with California SHPO on any finding involving effects or no effects on historic properties. If TCPs have been identified, section 106 also requires that the Commission consult with interested Native <strong>American</strong> tribes that might attach religious or cultural significance to such properties. If existing or potential adverse effects have been identified on historic properties, the applicant needs to develop an HPMP to seek to avoid, reduce, or mitigate the effects. Potential effects that may be associated with a hydroelectric project include any projectrelated effects associated with the day-to-day operations and maintenance of the project after issuance of a new license. During development of the HPMP, the applicant should consult with the Commission, Advisory Council, California SHPO, Native <strong>American</strong> tribes, and Forest Service. In most cases, the HPMP would be implemented by execution of a PA that would be signed by the Commission, Advisory Council (if it chooses to participate), California SHPO, and other consulting parties. Area of Potential Effects Pursuant to section 106, the Commission must take into account whether any historic property could be affected by the issuance of a proposed new license within a project’s APE. The APE is determined in consultation with the California SHPO and is 247
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:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
145 Table 3.3.3-5. Special-status w
Page 177 and 178:
147 Species Name Status Habitat Occ
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
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 229 and 230: 20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial)
Page 275: 20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial)
Page 283 and 284: 253 Table 3.3.6-1. Archaeological a
Page 285 and 286: 255 Resource Number Type a Descript
Page 305 and 306: 275 Table 4-2. Summary of annual co
Page 309 and 310: 279 Enhancement/Mitigation Measures
Page 327 and 328:
297 Enhancement/Mitigation Measures
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?