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

20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2012
expected long-term aquatic and riparian habitat enhancement from sediment
augmentation would compensate for much of this loss. An additional 0.07 acre of
vegetation would be permanently lost under Alternative 1, the staff alternative, and the
staff alternative with mandatory conditions because of an additional recreational trail
included in these alternatives. Wildlife associated with this habitat would be
permanently displaced, representing a long-term but minor effect. Project modifications
in the vicinity of Hell Hole reservoir would also result in the removal of some
individual Stebbins’ phacelia, a special status plant. This would represent a long-term
but minor effect, and not likely to adversely affect populations because many of the
proposed changes are designed to reduce effects on these populations. Removal of the
upper Hell Hole Campground would permanently displace those few recreational
visitors that used this site, representing a long-term, minor effect. All action alternatives
entail some construction, which would result in minor, short-term increases in traffic,
noise, and visual disturbance during construction.
5.4 SUMMARY OF SECTION 10(j) RECOMMENDATIONS AND 4(e)
CONDITIONS
5.4.1 Fish and Wildlife Agency Recommendations
Under the provisions of section 10(j) of the FPA, each hydroelectric license
issued by the Commission shall include conditions based on recommendations provided
federal and state fish and wildlife agencies for the protection, mitigation, and
enhancement of fish and wildlife resources affected by the project.
Section 10(j) of the FPA states that whenever the Commission believes that any
fish and wildlife agency recommendation is inconsistent with the purposes and the
requirements of the FPA or other applicable law, the Commission and the agency will
attempt to resolve any such inconsistency, giving due weight to the recommendations,
expertise, and statutory responsibilities of such agency. In response to our REA notice,
the following fish and wildlife agencies submitted recommendations for the project:
NMFS (August 1, 2011) and California Fish and Game (August 5, 2011).
Table 5-8 lists the federal and state recommendations filed subject to section
10(j), and whether the recommendations are adopted under the staff alternative.
Environmental recommendations that we consider outside the scope of section 10(j)
have been considered under section 10(a) of the FPA and are addressed in the specific
resource sections of this document and the previous section. All 19 of the
recommendations that we consider to be within the scope of section 10 (j) are included
in the staff alternative. Of the 44 recommendations made by California Fish and Game
pursuant to section 10(j) of the FPA, 25 are not within the scope of section 10(j) and
have been considered under section 10(a) of the FPA. Of those 25, 10 are
administrative recommendations, identical to some of the Forest Service’s 4(e)
conditions that we consider to be administrative. With the exception of California Fish
and Game’s recommendations entitled, condition 1: Consultation, condition 11:
345