DOCSLIB.ORG

Overview of Existing Resources

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Overview of Existing Resources M I dd L E F O R K 80 A M E R I C A N FRENCH MEADOWS RESER VOIR HELL HOLE R LAKE RESER IVERTAHOE PROJECT VOIR MIDDLE FORK INTERBAY RALSTON AFTERBAY FORESTHILL RUBICON 49 MIDDLE FORK RIVER AMERICAN RIVER 80 AUBURN 50 The Middle Fork 49 River watershed rests in the heartAmerican of the Sierra Nevada, between the Sacramento V Lake alley to the west and Tahoe to the east. S FOLSOM u p p RESER o r t VOIR i n g D SD E o Existing c u Relevant S m u p e p n Comprehensive o t r E Plans & t i n g Resource D SD F o Resources Mgmt. Plans HE MFP IS SITUATED IN THE FOOTHILLS AND c u Existing m e n Resource mountainous uplands of the western slope of the Sierra Nevada t S F u p Information p WatershedT (totaling 616 square miles) is characterized by hot, dry range, northeast of Auburn, California. The surrounding o r Report t i n g summers and mild, wet winters, with most of the precipitation falling D SD G o c S u 00/00 between October and March. Precipitation primarily falls as rain in the u m p p e n Technical o t r lower elevations and snow at elevations greater than 5,000 feet above t G i Study Plans n g D SD J mean sea level (msl). Elevations higher than about 6,000 feet msl are & Reports o c u Confi dential m e typically covered by snow until May. Mean annual precipitation and n Information t J runoff in the Watershed ranges from approximately 35 inches (308,500 ac-ft) in dry years to 94 inches (1,218,000 ac-ft) in wet years. Total MFP inflow has averaged approximately 375,000 ac-ft from 1967-2003 and ranged from approximately 62,000 ac-ft to more than 783,000 ac-ft. The Watershed is heavily forested, rural, and sparsely populated. There are no residential or commercial developments in the immediate vicinity of the MFP. Several paved roads provide the primary access to the MFP. Access to more remote locations in the Watershed is possible using ancillary roads and trails associated with either the 0 Forest Service Transportation System or the Auburn State Recreation Area (ASRA), located downstream of Ralston Afterbay. M I dd L E F O R K A M E R I C A N R IVER PROJECT Water Use 1600 Large River Surface water uses in the Watershed include 1200 Bypass Reach municipal, industrial, and agricultural , and non- River Flow consumptive use for hydroelectric generation Immediately 800 Downstream of and recreation. Other water projects in the Project Reservoir Watershed include Sacramento Municipal Utility Discharge (cfs) District’s (SMUD’s) Upper American River 400 Project (UARP) (FERC Project No. 2101) and Georgetown Divide Public Utility District’s 0 (GDPUD’s) Stumpy Meadows Project. The t v c n b r r y n ul g p Oc No De Ja Fe Ma Ap Ma Ju J Au Se SMUD’s UARP influences the Rubicon River Streamflow with MFP upstream of Hell Hole Reservoir and the South Streamflow without MFP Fork Rubicon River, a tributary to the Rubicon 1600 River entering downstream of Hell Hole Reservoir. GDPUD’s Stumpy Meadows Project affects flows Large River on Pilot Creek, a tributary to the Rubicon River 1200 Bypass Reach River Flow 20 entering downstream of Hell Hole Reservoir. Miles Downstream 800 of Project Hydrology Reservoir Discharge (cfs) The MFP diverts water from the Middle 400 Fork American River, Rubicon River, Duncan Creek and North and South Fork Long Canyon 0 creeks for power generation and water supply. t v c n b r r y n ul g p Oc No De Ja Fe Ma Ap Ma Ju J Au Se These diversions alter natural flows in the rivers Project diversions and reservoirs modify flows in the Middle and streams downstream of MFP facilities. Two Fork and Rubicon rivers. These effects are most evident categories of river reaches result from the operation of immediately downstream of Project facilities. the MFP-bypass and peaking reaches. A bypass reach is a segment of a river or stream downstream of a diversion during the spring runoff season are typically captured in facility or reservoir where Project operations result in the larger reservoirs (French Meadows and Hell Hole). the diversion of a portion of the water from that reach. Currently, high flows in these river reaches generally only Bypass reaches associated with the MFP include: the occur when the reservoirs are spilling. Under current Middle Fork American River between French Meadows MFP operations these high flows primarily occur in the Dam and Ralston Afterbay; the Rubicon River between wettest years and are of shorter duration and magnitude Hell Hole Dam and Ralston Afterbay; Duncan Creek than natural flows. However, during the summer and between the diversion dam and its confluence with fall season, flows in these rivers are typically equal to or the Middle Fork American River; and the North slightly higher than under natural conditions as water and South Forks of Long Canyon Creek and the is released from storage to meet minimum instream mainstem of Long Canyon Creek from the diversion flow requirements mandated in the FERC License. dams to the confluence with the Rubicon River. In the smaller stream bypass reaches (Duncan, North In the bypass reaches, operations of the MFP produce and South Fork Long Canyon, and Long Canyon creeks) two general patterns of flow alteration from unimpaired flows typically are altered only during the winter/spring (natural) patterns, depending on the size of the streams. season. During these seasons, a portion of the flow is In the large river bypass reaches (Middle Fork American diverted for storage and power generation during most River and Rubicon River) flows are altered all year long. water year types. Therefore, flows in the streams are Flows are typically reduced and more stable during the typically much lower and more stable (less variation in winter/spring season as water is diverted into storage or flow volume) than natural flows. The exception occurs for power generation. High flows in the large river bypass during wet water years, when high flows during winter reaches that naturally occurred during storm events and storm events or spring runoff often exceed the capacity 1 M I dd L E F O R K A M E R I C A N R IVER PROJECT demand and is not operated 24 hours per day (except 140 Small Stream in the wettest of water years) leading to considerable 120 Bypass Reach River Flow daily and within-daily flow fluctuations in the reach. 100 Downstream of Small Diversions 80 Water Quality 60 MFP operations have also altered the temperature Discharge (cfs) 40 regimes in the large bypass and peaking reaches, especially 20 during the summer and early fall. In particular, the storage of cool water in French Meadows and Hell 0 Hole reservoirs during the spring runoff period and its ct v c n b ar r ay n ul g p O No De Ja Fe M Ap M Ju J Au Se subsequent release from low-level outlets throughout Streamflow with MFP the summer and fall have substantially reduced water Streamflow without MFP temperatures in the upper reaches of the Middle Fork Diversions at Duncan Creek and North and South Fork Long Canyon creeks are operated seasonally and primarily reduce American and Rubicon rivers by as much as 22-25°F spring flows. (from low 70’s to high 40’s). Although substantial thermal warming occurs in these bypass reaches during of the diversion facilities, which result in a large portion the summer as a result of high ambient temperatures of the flow passing downstream. During the summer/fall and low flows, the magnitude of warming is similar season, the diversions are not operated because of low to pre-Project conditions since minimum instream inflow. Therefore, natural flow entering the diversion flow releases are currently equal to or slightly higher facilities are passed downstream into the bypass reaches. than under unimpaired conditions. Mean daily water temperatures in the lower portions of these bypass reaches The MFP has a single peaking reach, which extends currently exceed 72-77°F during the warmest part of the from Oxbow Powerhouse to the high-water mark of year. Stream temperatures in the smaller bypass reaches Folsom Reservoir. In this reach, flows fluctuate during the summer and fall are unaffected by the MFP, substantially to meet power demands or to support because water is not diverted during this time period. whitewater recreation. MFP operations also cause summer and fall instream Operations of the MFP also result in considerable daily temperature in the upper portions of the Middle Fork fluctuations in flow in the peaking reach between the American River below Middle Fork Interbay and in minimum flow requirement (75 cfs) and the capacity of the peaking reach downstream of Ralston Afterbay the Oxbow Powerhouse (approximately 1,080 cfs). The (Oxbow Powerhouse) to be substantially cooler than powerhouse is typically operated to follow daily power natural conditions. This temperature reduction is caused by the release of water into these reaches from Project 3200 facilities (Middle Fork Interbay and Ralston Afterbay Peaking via Oxbow Powerhouse) that receive the majority of 2400 Reach water from the cool depths of Hell Hole Reservoir. River Flow Downstream While limited water quality information is 1600 of Oxbow available for waters directly affected by the MFP, Powerouse the existing data does not identify any widespread, Discharge (cfs) 800 persistent water quality issues.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Emergency Preparedness and Evacuation Plan
    Squaw Valley Real Estate, LLC Emergency Preparedness and Evacuation Plan THE VILLAGE AT SQUAW VALLEY 6/28/2016 This Emergency Preparedness and Evacuation Plan (EPEP) has been prepared for The Village at Squaw Valley Specific Plan (VSVSP) project under the supervision of Placer County and in coordination with Pete Hnat, Chief Executive Officer, Emergency Management Consultants. The focus of the EPEP is primarily on emergency preparedness and evacuation protocols as related to emergency events, such as fire. However, other hazards are addressed as well, including avalanche, seismic and flood protection measures. Emergency Preparedness and Evacuation Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 4 1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Purpose .............................................................................................................................................. 4 1.3 Project Summary .............................................................................................................................. 4 1.3.1 Location .................................................................................................................................. 4 1.3.2 Project Description ................................................................................................................ 6 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Squaw Valley |Alpine Meadows Base-To-Base Gondola Project Draft EIS/EIR 4.3-1 Wilderness SE Group & Ascent Environmental
    SE Group & Ascent Environmental Wilderness 4.3 WILDERNESS This section includes discussion of potential impacts of the proposed Base-to-Base Gondola project on the National Forest System-Granite Chief Wilderness (GCW), which is adjacent to the project area (i.e., the area generally encompassed by all three action alternatives). No construction, and therefore no direct effects, would occur on National Forest System (NFS) lands within the GCW. However, indirect impacts on its wilderness character and wilderness users could occur, as described below. This section additionally assesses impacts associated with a portion of privately owned land that was included within the area mapped by Congress as part of the GCW within the 1984 California Wilderness Act. For clarity, this section references the NFS lands within the GCW as “National Forest System-GCW” and refers to the privately owned land included within the congressionally mapped wilderness boundary as “private lands within the congressionally mapped GCW.” In accordance with the Wilderness Act of 1964, federally-managed Wilderness areas, like the National Forest System-GCW, are defined as follows: (c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without
    [Show full text]
  • Bear Creek Watershed Assessment Report
    BEAR CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT PLACER COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Prepared by: PO Box 8568 Truckee, California 96162 February 16, 2018 And Dr. Susan Lindstrom, PhD BEAR CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT – PLACER COUNTY – CALIFORNIA February 16, 2018 A REPORT PREPARED FOR: Truckee River Watershed Council PO Box 8568 Truckee, California 96161 (530) 550-8760 www.truckeeriverwc.org by Brian Hastings Balance Hydrologics Geomorphologist Matt Wacker HT Harvey and Associates Restoration Ecologist Reviewed by: David Shaw Balance Hydrologics Principal Hydrologist © 2018 Balance Hydrologics, Inc. Project Assignment: 217121 800 Bancroft Way, Suite 101 ~ Berkeley, California 94710-2251 ~ (510) 704-1000 ~ [email protected] Balance Hydrologics, Inc. i BEAR CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT – PLACER COUNTY – CALIFORNIA < This page intentionally left blank > ii Balance Hydrologics, Inc. BEAR CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT – PLACER COUNTY – CALIFORNIA TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Project Goals and Objectives 1 1.2 Structure of This Report 4 1.3 Acknowledgments 4 1.4 Work Conducted 5 2 BACKGROUND 6 2.1 Truckee River Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) 6 2.2 Water Resource Regulations Specific to Bear Creek 7 3 WATERSHED SETTING 9 3.1 Watershed Geology 13 3.1.1 Bedrock Geology and Structure 17 3.1.2 Glaciation 18 3.2 Hydrologic Soil Groups 19 3.3 Hydrology and Climate 24 3.3.1 Hydrology 24 3.3.2 Climate 24 3.3.3 Climate Variability: Wet and Dry Periods 24 3.3.4 Climate Change 33 3.4 Bear Creek Water Quality 33 3.4.1 Review of Available Water Quality Data 33 3.5 Sediment Transport 39 3.6 Biological Resources 40 3.6.1 Land Cover and Vegetation Communities 40 3.6.2 Invasive Species 53 3.6.3 Wildfire 53 3.6.4 General Wildlife 57 3.6.5 Special-Status Species 59 3.7 Disturbance History 74 3.7.1 Livestock Grazing 74 3.7.2 Logging 74 3.7.3 Roads and Ski Area Development 76 4 WATERSHED CONDITION 81 4.1 Stream, Riparian, and Meadow Corridor Assessment 81 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • French Meadows Forest Restoration Project February 2019
    French Meadows Forest Restoration Project February 2019 The 28,000-acre French Meadows Forest Restoration Project is using a collaborative, all-lands approach to restore forest health and resilience and reduce the risk of high-severity wildfire in the headwaters of the Middle Fork of the American River, a critical municipal watershed located on the Tahoe National Forest in California’s Sierra Nevada. The Project was developed by a diverse partnership, including the U.S. Forest Service, which manages most of the land within the project area; Placer County Water Agency, which manages two reservoirs downstream of the project for municipal water and hydropower; The Nature Conservancy, one of the world’s largest conservation organizations; the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, a state agency and funder; Placer County, a business partner in the hydropower project; the American River Conservancy, an adjacent private landowner; and the Sierra Nevada Research Institute at UC Merced. The French Meadows Project aims to accelerate ecologically-based forest and watershed restoration on the Tahoe National Forest through a shared stewardship approach involving: • Collaborative Management. The partners co-led development of the project and hired consultants to undertake planning and environmental analysis, substantially reducing the planning time for similar Forest Service projects. • Diverse Fundraising. The partners raised funds from a wide variety of federal, state, local, and private sources, including significant investment from downstream water beneficiaries like the water utility and private beverage companies. • Innovative Project Implementation. Placer County will hire contractors to implement thinning and other mechanical treatments, under a Master Stewardship Agreement with the Forest Service. The Nature Conservancy and the Forest Service will work together to develop and implement a prescribed burn plan.
    [Show full text]
  • UPDATE VOL 23 NO 4 AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2009 PLACER COUNTY WATER AGENCY Water • Energy • Stewardship
    UPDATE VOL 23 NO 4 AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2009 PLACER COUNTY WATER AGENCY water • energy • stewardship IN THIS ISSUE: Helping to Plan Tahoe Water Supplies... Page 2 Placer Students Are Water Aware... Page 3 Update for an Old Dam Two-Year Project to Improve Spillway at French Meadows ollowing eight years of studies, planning and design, PCWA is preparing to rebuild key sec- tions of the almost 50-year-old dam that holds back water at French FMeadowsF Reservoir. L.L. Anderson Dam, named for the late Foresthill Divide community leader, and District 5 county supervisor and PCWA director, was built in 1963-66 as a key feature of PCWA’s Middle Fork Regulatory Commission confirmed the Mountain Waterworks American River Project. Corps’ conclusion. The spillway at French Meadows, above, French Meadows Reservoir holds Probable Maximum Flood at left, will be upgraded after studies 136,400 acre-feet of water and is situated Using modern hydrometerological showed that it is too small to handle a at 5200 feet on the western slope of the data, the Corps developed a 72-hour maximum probable flooding event. Sierra Nevada. Lake Tahoe lies about 18 Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) miles to the east. Donner Summit is depth of 46 inches for the French about 15 miles north. Meadows watershed. This computed to a be overtopped,” said PCWA Hydroelectric In 2001, the U.S. Army Corps of French Meadows inflow of 66,700 cubic Engineer Jon Mattson. “This could cause Engineers first released hydrologic studies feet per second, which could overtop the failure of the dam and significant down- showing that the existing L.L.
    [Show full text]
  • The Genesis of the Placer County Water Agency
    a Heritage of Water: The Golden Anniversary of the Placer County Water Agency 1957-2007 Prepared by the Water Education Foundation Placer County History Book WEB1 9/10/2007, 3:08 PM Credits This book was prepared and published by the Water Education Foundation in conjunction with the Placer County Water Agency. The book tells the story of Placer County water from its role in the Gold Rush to the formation of the Placer County Water Agency, which has managed the county’s water resources for 50 years. Editor: Sue McClurg Authors: Ryan McCarthy, Janet Dunbar Fonseca, Ed Tiedemann, Ed Horton, Cheri Sprunck, Dave Breninger and Einar L. Maisch Design and Layout: Graphic Communications Printing: Paul Baker Printing Photos: Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley • William Briner • California State Archives (F3757:3) • California State Library • California State Parks – Auburn State Recreation Area Collection • Dave Carter • City of Rocklin • Placer County Water Agency • Ryan Salm/Sierra Sun • Special Collections, University of California, Davis • U.S. Bureau of Reclamation • USDA NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service) • U.S. National Forest Campground Guide • Karina Williams/Lincoln News Messenger • Bill Wilson On the cover: Hell Hole Reservoir (top) and building the Middle Fork Project PLACER COUNTY WATER AGENCY P.O. Box 6570 717 K Street, Suite 317 144 Ferguson Road Sacramento, CA 95814 Auburn, CA 95604 (916) 444-6240 (530) 823-4850 www.watereducation.org www.pcwa.net Copyright 2007 by Water Education Foundation • All rights reserved ISBN 1-893246-97-3 2 Placer County History Book WEB2 9/10/2007, 3:09 PM Foreword by David A.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper American River Hydroelectric Project (P-2101)
    Hydropower Project Summary UPPER AMERICAN RIVER, CALIFORNIA UPPER AMERICAN RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (P-2101) South Fork of the American River Slab Creek Dam Canyon Photo Credit: Sacramento Municipal Utility District This summary was produced by the Hydropower Reform Coalition and River Management Society Upper American, CA UPPER AMERICAN RIVER, CA UPPER AMERICAN RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (P-2101) DESCRIPTION: The Upper American River Project consists of seven developments located on the Rubicon River, Silver Creek, and South Fork American River in El Dorado and Sacramento Counties in central California. These seven developments occupy 6,190 acres of federal land within the Eldorado National Forest and 54 acres of federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The proposed The Iowa Hill Development will be located in El Dorado County and will occupy 185 acres of federal land within the Eldorado National Forest. Due to the proximity of the Chili Bar Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2155) under licensee Pacific Gas & Electric Company(PG&E) located immediately downstream of the Upper American Project on the South Fork American River (and also under-going re-licensing), both projects were the subject of a collaborative proceeding and settlement negotiations. The current seven developments include Loon Lake, Robbs Peak, Jones Fork, Union Valley, Jaybird, Camino, and Slab Creek/White Rock. White Rock Powerhouse discharges into the South Fork American River just upstream of Chili Bar Reservoir. In addition to generation-related facilities, the project also includes 47 recreation areas that include campgrounds, day use facilities, boat launches, trails, and a scenic overlook. The 19 signatories to the Settlement are: American Whitewater, American River Recreation Association, BLM, California Parks and Recreation, California Fish and Wildlife, California Outdoors, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Camp Lotus, Foothill Conservancy, Forest Service, Friends of the River, FWS, Interior, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons Learned from the French Meadows Project Citation: Edelson, David and Hertslet, Angel
    Restoring Forests through Partnership: Lessons Learned from the French Meadows Project Citation: Edelson, David and Hertslet, Angel. 2019. Restoring Forests through Partnership: Lessons Learned from the French Meadows Project. Unpublished report of The Nature Conservancy, Placer County Water Agency, Sierra Nevada Conservancy, Placer County, American River Conservancy, and Sierra Nevada Research Institute at the University of California, Merced. San Francisco, California. 16 pp. May 2019 Contributors: This paper benefitted from thorough review, edits and contributions from Ed Smith, Andy Fecko, Marie Davis, Brett Storey, Andy Fristensky, Chris Dallas, Roger Bales, Elena DeLacy, Eli Ilano, Michael Woodbridge, Victor Lyon, Karen Walden, Laurie Perrot, Robert Galiano, Pat Farrell, Karen Quidichay, Susan Dewar, Sara Reese and Janelle Nolan. David Edelson, The Nature Conservancy, [email protected] Angel Hertslet, The Nature Conservancy, [email protected] Andy Fecko, Placer County Water Agency, [email protected] Andy Fristensky, Sierra Nevada Conservancy, [email protected] Brett Storey, Placer County, [email protected] Elena DeLacy, American River Conservancy, [email protected] Roger Bales, Sierra Nevada Research Institute, [email protected] Acknowledgments: The Nature Conservancy appreciates the generous support of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Northern Sierra Partnership, and contributors to TNC’s Sierra Forest and Water Challenge, which helped make this report possible. COVER: The French Meadows Project area, including the French Meadows Reservoir. © David Edelson/TNC Restoring Forests through Partnership: Lessons Learned from the French Meadows Project ealthy forests provide important benefits to people California’s northern Sierra Nevada (see map). The Project and nature, including clean water, clean air, carbon area includes 27,623 acres, of which 22,152 acres are national Hstorage, wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix C: Evaluation of Areas for Potential Wilderness
    Appendices for the FEIS Appendix C: Evaluation of Areas for Potential Wilderness Introduction This document describes the process used to evaluate the wilderness potential of areas on the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU). The March 2009 inventory conducted according to Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, Chapter 70, 2007 is the basis for this evaluation. The LTBMU was evaluated to determine landscape areas that exhibited inherent basic wilderness qualities such the degree of naturalness and undeveloped character. In addition to the wilderness qualities an area might possess, the area must also provide opportunities and experiences that are dependent on and enhanced by a wilderness environment and area boundaries that could be managed as wilderness. It was determined that areas adjacent to existing wilderness and existing Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) were areas were most likely to have the characteristics described above. Other areas around the basin exhibited some of the required characteristics but not enough to be qualified for a congressional wilderness designation. Six areas were identified and evaluated. The analysis is based on GIS mapping of existing wilderness and inventoried roadless area polygon data, adjusted based on local knowledge. Three tests were used—capability, availability, and need—to determine suitability as described in Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, Chapter 70, 2007. In addition to the inherent wilderness qualities an area might possess, the area must provide opportunities and experiences that are dependent on and enhanced by a wilderness environment. The area and boundaries must allow the area to be managed as wilderness. Capability is defined as the degree to which the area contains the basic characteristics that make it suitable for wilderness designation without regard to its availability for or need as wilderness.
    [Show full text]
  • 2040 Placer County Regional Transportation Plan
    INITIAL STUDY AND NOTICE OF PREPARATION FOR THE 2040 PLACER COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN JUNE 6, 2019 Prepared for: Placer County Transportation Planning Agency 299 Nevada St. Auburn, CA 95603 (530) 823-4032 Prepared by: De Novo Planning Group 1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106 El Dorado Hills CA 95762 (916) 580-9818 De Novo Planning Group A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental Firm INITIAL STUDY AND NOTICE OF PREPARATION FOR THE 2040 PLACER COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN JUNE 6, 2019 Prepared for: Placer County Transportation Planning Agency 299 Nevada St. Auburn, CA 95603 (530) 823-4030 Prepared by: De Novo Planning Group 1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106 El Dorado Hills CA 95762 (916) 580-9818 2040 PLACER COUNTY RTP NOP NOTICE OF PREPARATION TO: FROM: EIR Consultant: State Clearinghouse Placer County Transportation Planning Steve McMurtry, Principal Planner State Responsible Agencies Agency De Novo Planning Group State Trustee Agencies Aaron Hoyt, Associate Planner 1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106 Other Public Agencies 299 Nevada St. El Dorado Hills, Ca 95762 Interested Organizations Auburn, CA 95603 (530) 823-4032 SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation – 2040 Placer County Regional Transportation Plan Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA) is in the process of updating the Placer County Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and has determined that the update is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA requires the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR) prior to approving any project that may have a significant impact on the environment. The CEQA Guidelines identify several types of EIRs, each applicable to different project circumstances. The PCTPA intends to prepare a Program EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168.
    [Show full text]
  • Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement – September 2008 Chapter 3: Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences – 3.08
    Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement – September 2008 Chapter 3: Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences – 3.08. Transportation 3.08. Transportation _____________________________________ Affected Environment Introduction This section of the environmental analysis examines the extent to which alternatives respond to transportation facilities direction established in the Tahoe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. The Forest Plan transportation facilities direction was established under the implementing regulations of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and the National Forest Roads and Trails Act (FRTA). The National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) consists of roads, trails, airfields, and areas. The NFTS provides for protection, development, management, and utilization of resources on the National Forests. There are other roads and trails existing on the Forest that are not currently part of the NFTS. Transportation facilities considered in this analysis include roads and trails that are suitable for motor vehicle use. This analysis considers changes needed to the NFTS to meet the purpose and need of this analysis. Decisions regarding changes to the transportation facilities must consider: 1) providing for adequate public safety, and 2) providing adequate maintenance of the roads and trails that will be designated for public use. The analysis in this section primarily focuses on these two aspects of the NFTS. Background A majority of national forest visitors travel on national forest system roads. Roads have opened the Tahoe National Forest to millions of national and international visitors. Forest roads are also an integral part of the transportation system for rural counties. They provide access for research, fish and wildlife habitat management, grazing, timber harvesting, fire protection, mining, insect and disease control, and private land use.
    [Show full text]
  • Biggie Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment
    United States Department Biggie Vegetation Management of Agriculture and Fuels Reduction Project Fore st Service Environmental Assessment Pacific Southwest Region June 2016 Tahoe National Forest American River Ranger District Biggie Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992.
    [Show full text]