DOCSLIB.ORG

Upper Truckee River and Marsh Restoration Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Upper Truckee River and Marsh Restoration Project DRAFT Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Statement Upper Truckee River and Marsh Restoration Project Volume 1 SCH# 2007032099 Lead Agencies: California California Tahoe Regional U.S. Department of Department of Tahoe Conservancy Planning Agency Interior Bureau of General Services Lake Tahoe Reclamation Environmental Improvement Program February 2013 DRAFT Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Impact Statement / Environmental Impact Statement Upper Truckee River and Marsh Restoration Project Volume 1 SCH# 2007032099 Lead Agencies: California Department of California Tahoe Regional Planning U.S. Department of Interior General Services Tahoe Conservancy Agency Lake Tahoe Bureau of Reclamation Environmental Improvement Mailstop 3-509 1061 Third Street Program P.O. Box 5310 P.O. Box 989052 South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Stateline, NV 89449 West Sacramento, CA 95798-9052 Attn: Scott Carroll P.O. Box 5310 Stateline, NV 89449 Attn: Myrnie Mayville Attn: Tiffany Schmid, RESD- Associate Environmental Planner NEPA Coordinator Environmental Services, 3rd floor Watershed/SEZ Restoration Attn: Adam Lewandowski 775/589-5240 Senior Environmental Planner Program TRPA Project Manager 916/376-1609 530/543-6062 775/589-5233 Prepared by: 775/589-5233 2020 L Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95811 Contact: Danielle Hughes 916/414-5809 295 U.S. Highway 50, Suite 1 Zephyr Cove, NV 89448 Contact: Virginia Mahacek 775/588-9069 P 00110066.04 February 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Volume 1 ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. ES-1 ES.1 Project Location and Setting ................................................................................................... ES-1 ES.2 Overview of the EIR/EIS/EIS Process .................................................................................... ES-1 ES.3 Summary Description of the Project Alternatives ................................................................... ES-2 ES.4 Key Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, Issues to be Resolved, and Areas of Controversy ............................................................................................................................. ES-6 1 INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND NEED ................................................ 1-1 1.1 Project Requiring Environmental Analysis ............................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Project History and Planning Context ....................................................................................... 1-4 1.3 Purpose and Need, and Project Objectives ................................................................................ 1-5 1.4 Intended Uses and Type of EIR/EIS/EIS (CEQA/NEPA/TRPA) ............................................. 1-7 1.5 Scope and Focus of the EIR/EIS/EIS ........................................................................................ 1-9 1.6 Agency Roles and Responsibilities ......................................................................................... 1-11 1.7 Public Participation and Additional Steps in the CEQA/NEPA/TRPA Review Process ........ 1-14 1.8 Organization of this EIR/EIS/EIS ........................................................................................... 1-14 1.9 Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................. 1-16 2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Alternatives Development ....................................................................................................... 2-13 2.3 Elements of the Alternatives ................................................................................................... 2-14 2.4 Resource Management ............................................................................................................ 2-41 2.5 Monitoring .............................................................................................................................. 2-42 2.6 Construction ............................................................................................................................ 2-43 2.7 Environmental Commitments ................................................................................................. 2-46 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................. 3-1 3.1 Approach to the Environmental Analysis ................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Air Quality and Climate Change ............................................................................................ 3.2-1 3.3 Archaeological and Historical Resources .............................................................................. 3.3-1 3.4 Biological Resources: Vegetation and Wildlife ..................................................................... 3.4-1 3.5 Fisheries ................................................................................................................................. 3.5-1 3.6 Geology and Soils, Mineral Resources, and Land Capability and Coverage ......................... 3.6-1 3.7 Human Health/Risk of Upset ................................................................................................. 3.7-1 3.8 Hydrology and Flooding ........................................................................................................ 3.8-1 3.9 Geomorphology and Water Quality ....................................................................................... 3.9-1 Volume 2 3.10 Land Use .............................................................................................................................. 3.10-1 3.11 Noise .................................................................................................................................... 3.11-1 3.12 Public Services ..................................................................................................................... 3.12-1 3.13 Recreation ............................................................................................................................ 3.13-1 3.14 Scenic Resources .................................................................................................................. 3.14-1 3.15 Socioeconomics, Population and Housing, and Environmental Justice ............................... 3.15-1 3.16 Transportation, Parking, and Circulation ............................................................................. 3.16-1 3.17 Utilities ................................................................................................................................. 3.17-1 3.18 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................. 3.18-1 UTR and Marsh Restoration Project DEIR/DEIS/DEIS AECOM and Cardno ENTRIX California Tahoe Conservancy/DGS, Reclamation, and TRPA i Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 4 OTHER REQUIRED SECTIONS ......................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Significant Environmental Effects That Cannot Be Avoided ................................................... 4-1 4.2 Significant and Irreversible Environmental Changes ................................................................ 4-2 4.3 Relationship between Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity................................................................................. 4-3 4.4 Growth-Inducing Impacts ......................................................................................................... 4-4 4.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative/Environmentally Preferred Alternative........................ 4-5 4.6 Consequences for Environmental Threshold Carrying Capacities ............................................ 4-6 5 COMPLIANCE, CONSULTATION, AND COORDINATION ......................................................... 5-1 5.1 Federal ....................................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 State ......................................................................................................................................... 5-11 5.3 Consultation and Coordination ............................................................................................... 5-15 6 LIST OF PREPARERS .......................................................................................................................... 6-1 7 REFERENCES CITED .......................................................................................................................... 7-1 8 INDEX ...................................................................................................................................................... 8-1 AECOM and Cardno ENTRIX UTR and Marsh Restoration Project DEIR/DEIS/DEIS Table of Contents ii California Tahoe Conservancy/DGS, Reclamation, and TRPA TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Exhibits 1-1 Regional Location ...........................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Eight Eastside Rivers Wild and Scenic River Study Report, Record Of
    USDA Record of Decision ~ United States Eight Eastside Rivers Department of Agriculture Wild and Scenic River Study Report Forest Service PacifIC Southwest And Final Environmental Impact Statement Region ~t;k:nal Fores and Tahoe National Forest and lake Tahoe Basin L k To h B - M t U -t Management Unit a e.8 oe aSln anagemen nl m February 1999 CONTENTS Page I. Decision I II. Alternatives Considered 3 III. Public Participation 4 IV. Rationale for the Decision 6 Rationale for Selecting Two Rivers 7 Rationale for Not Selecting Rivers 10 V. EnvironmentaHy Preferable Alternative 12 VI. Compatibility with Goals and Plans ofOther Agencies and Organizations 13 VII. Implementation 13 VIII. Findings Required By Law 14 IX. Administrative Review 15 X. Contact Persons 16 XI. Signature Page 17 Exhibit A Response to comments on the Final EIS Friends ofthe River and associated groups comments A-I Loree Joses comments A-6 Chris Gansberg, Jr. Chair, Alpine County Board ofSupervisors comments A-7 Derrick Adamache comments A-8 John R. Swanson comments A-9 Kenneth W. Holt, MSEH, National Center for Environmental Health comments A-9 Record of Decision Eight Eastside Rivers Wild and Scenic River Study Report and Final Environmental Impact Statement USDA FOREST SERVICE TAHOE NATIONAL FOREST and LAKE TAHOE BASIN MANAGEMENT UNIT Sierra, Nevada, Placer, EI Dorado, and Alpine Counties, California I. DECISION It is our decision to adopt the Preferred Alternative, Alternative E, as presented in the Eight Eastside Rivers Wild and Scenic River Study Report and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The heart of this decision is our recommendation that Sagehen Creek and the Upper Truckee River be designated Wild and Scenic Rivers pursuant to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.s.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Truckee River Restoration and Golf Course Reconfiguration Project
    DRAFT Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Statement Upper Truckee River Restoration and Golf Course Reconfiguration Project Volume III Appendices SCH# 2006082150 Lead Agencies: California State Parks Lake Tahoe Bureau of Reclamation Environmental Improvement Program August 2010 DRAFT Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Statement Upper Truckee River Restoration and Golf Course Reconfiguration Project Volume III Appendices SCH# 2006082150 Lead Agencies: California State Parks Lake Tahoe Environmental Bureau of Reclamation Improvement Program P.O. Box 16 P.O. Box 5310 2800 Cottage Way, Room E-2606 Tahoe City, CA 96145 Stateline, NV 89449 Sacramento, CA 95825 Attn: Cyndie Walck Attn: Mike Elam Attn: Myrnie Mayville CEQA Coordinator TRPA Project Manager NEPA Coordinator (530) 581-0925 (775) 588-4547 (916) 978-5037 P 05110049.01 August 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Volume III Appendices A Public Scoping Report B Proposed River and Floodplain Treatments by Alternative C Conceptual Treatment Descriptions and Typical Sketches D Upper Truckee LVSRA WMSP Bridge Report E Lake Tahoe Golf Course Economic Feasibility Analysis F Water Quality Data Tables G Aquatic Resources Technical Memorandum H Native American Contacts I Air Quality Modeling Data J Noise Modeling Data Upper Truckee River Restoration and State Parks/Reclamation/TRPA Golf Course Reconfiguration Draft EIR/EIS/EIS i Table of Contents This page intentionally left blank. State Parks/Reclamation/TRPA
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Projects and Environmental Improvement Projects (Eips) in the Upper Truckee Meadows Community Watershed
    Conservation Projects and Environmental Improvement Projects (EIPs) in the Upper Truckee Meadows Community Watershed: General Background The Upper Truckee River Community Watershed (UTRCW) is located in the southern side of the Lake Tahoe Basin primarily in eastern El Dorado County and partially in northern Alpine County. The UTRCW contains the subwatersheds of Camp Richardson (2,652 acres) as well as the Upper Truckee River (36,224 acres), of which is the largest watershed in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The total drainage area of the UTRCW is 69.7 square miles, and the main drainages are The Upper Truckee River, Angora Creek, Sawmill Pond Creek, Big Meadow Creek, and Grass Lake Creek. The northern portion of the watershed consists of the urban areas of South Lake Tahoe and Meyers, whereas the southern portion is primarily US Forest Service land managed by the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. The main channel of the Upper Truckee River is 21.4 miles long and originates in the volcanic bluffs surrounding Meiss Meadow near Carson Pass. The river then flows northward through a series of meadows and lakes until it reaches an 800-foot glacial step over, where it enters the head of Christmas Valley. The river flows through Christmas Valley until is it met by Angora Creek, downstream of the present-day Lake Tahoe Golf Course (LTGC). After converging with another unnamed tributary near the tenth hole of the LTGC, the UTR continues to flow northward through Sunset Ranch, the Lake Tahoe Airport, and to the eastern side of the Tahoe Keys through Cove East where it drains to Lake Tahoe.
    [Show full text]
  • 4 Water Quality
    Indicator Name of Adopted TRPA Threshold Applicable State and Unit of Standard Type TRPA Indicator Category Standard Standard (Resolution 82-11) Federal Standards Measure Concentration: Reduce dissolved inorganic Annual Mean Total Nitrogen milligrams/liter Nitrogen nitrogen (N) loading from all Concentration < 0.15 - 0.23 Numerical Total annual load (mg/L) Load: loading sources by 25% of 1973-81 mg/L depending on the kilograms/year annual average water body. (kg/yr) Achieve the following long-term Phytoplankton water quality standard: Annual grams primary Numerical None grams/m2/yr. mean phytoplankton primary Carbon/m2/yr. productivity productivity: 52gmC/m2/yr. Transparency - Annual Pelagic Lake mean Secchi disk Achieve the following long-term Tahoe transparency: 29.7m (CA Secchi disk water quality standard: Winter Numerical State standard) Clarity- Secchi disc depth Meters (m) transparency (December - March) mean Secchi Vertical Extinction disk transparency: 33.4m. Coefficient (NV State Standard) This threshold [numeric standard] is currently being Recognition of exceeded and will likely continue Threshold Policy to be exceeded until sometime N/A N/A N/A Standard after full implementation of the exceedance loading reductions prescribed by the thresholds. Indicator Name of Adopted TRPA Threshold Applicable State and Unit of Standard Type TRPA Indicator Category Standard Standard (Resolution 82-11) Federal Standards Measure Annual mean total Reduce the loading of dissolved phosphorus concentration < phosphorus, iron, and other algal 0.005-0.015 mg/L, Concentration: Pollutant nutrients from all sources as depending on the water Management Total annual load mg/L Load loading required to achieve ambient body. Annual mean iron kg/yr standards for primary concentration < 0.01-0.03 productivity and transparency.
    [Show full text]
  • Tahoe Sierra Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
    TAHOE SIERRA INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Originally developed June 2006 Revised version adopted July 19, 2007 A coordinated effort towards the protection and enhancement of water resources throughout Alpine County, California-Tahoe, and Truckee. Prepared in partnership by: Contributors to this Plan The Tahoe Sierra Plan was developed in cooperation by the following partners: Alpine County Alpine County Watershed Group California Tahoe Conservancy City of South Lake Tahoe El Dorado County Lake Tahoe Unified School District Markleeville Water Company Sierra Watershed Education Partnerships South Tahoe Public Utility District Squaw Valley Public Service District Tahoe City Public Utility District Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Tahoe Resource Conservation District Tahoe Truckee Unified School District Town of Truckee Truckee River Watershed Council UC Davis Tahoe Environmental Research Center For more information regarding this Tahoe Sierra Integrated Water Management Plan, please contact: Tahoe Resource Conservation District 870 Emerald Bay Road, Ste 108 South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Office: (530) 543-1501 ext. 100 Fax: (530) 543-1660 Email: [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction……...………………………………………………………………. 1 A. Regional Water Management Group………………………………………… 5 B. Regional Description..……………………………………………………….. 10 C. Objectives....…………………………………………………………………. 16 D. Water Management Strategies……………………………………………….. 20 E. Integration.………………………………………………………………….... 38 F. Regional Priorities.…………………………………………………………... 42 G. Implementation……………………………………………………………....
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Truckee River Sunset Stables Reach Restoration Project Upper Truckee River Between Meyers and South Lake Tahoe, California
    LTBMU Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation February 2, 2010 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-FOREST SERVICE LAKE TAHOE BASIN MANAGEMENT UNIT Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation Aquatic and Terrestrial Species Upper Truckee River Sunset Stables Reach Restoration Project Upper Truckee River between Meyers and South Lake Tahoe, California Prepared by: _______________________________________ Date: _______________ California Tahoe Conservancy (with assistance from ENTRIX, Inc.) Reviewed by: _______________________________________ Date: _______________ Sarah Muskopf/Aquatic Biologist Reviewed by: _______________________________________ Date: _______________ Richard Vacirca/LTBMU Journey Level Aquatic Biologist Reviewed by: _______________________________________ Date: _______________ Shay Zanetti/LTBMU Journey Level Wildlife Biologist Approved by: _______________________________________ Date: _______________ Journey-level Fish/Wildlife Biologist Upper Truckee River Sunset Stables Reach Restoration Project 1 LTBMU Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation February 2, 2010 I. INTRODUCTION The Upper Truckee River is the largest source of sediment and nutrients to Lake Tahoe. The USDA Forest Service, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) and the California Tahoe Conservancy (Conservancy) own and manage land along the Sunset Stables Reach of the Upper Truckee River. The Sunset Stables Reach has experienced active bank failures, channel widening, and degraded aquatic, riparian and meadow habitat. As a result, the
    [Show full text]
  • 3.8 Recreation
    3.8 RECREATION This chapter summarizes the regulatory and planning processes for recreation in the Tahoe Basin, describes existing recreation uses and facilities in the project vicinity, and presents an analysis of potential impacts of the proposed alternatives. It addresses impacts on recreation uses and facilities located in the study area and surrounding area of South Lake Tahoe. Consistency with TRPA goals and policies is presented in Section 3.2, Land Use,” Table 3.2-1. Cumulative recreation impacts are discussed in Section 3.16, “Cumulative Impacts.” The project effects on thresholds are described in Chapter 4, Section 4.6, “Consequences for Environmental Threshold Carrying Capacities.” 3.8.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT REGULATORY SETTING Federal No Federal plans, policies, ordinances, laws, regulations, or executive orders related to recreation are applicable to the project. State Lake Valley State Recreation Area General Plan State Parks manages more than 270 park units, which contain the “finest and most diverse collection of natural, cultural, and recreational resources to be found within California” (State Parks 2008). The mission of California State Parks is “…to preserve the state’s extraordinary biological diversity, protecting its most valued natural and cultural resources, and creating opportunities for high-quality outdoor recreation” (State Parks 2001:11). The study area includes Lake Valley SRA and a portion of Washoe Meadows SP; the area was divided into two units to allow for different management goals, including recreation. The Lake Valley SRA General Plan (General Plan) was prepared by State Parks to satisfy requirements of Public Resources Code Section 5002.2 and provide guidelines for long-term management and development of Lake Valley SRA (State Parks 1988).
    [Show full text]
  • Hiking Trails: Meiss Country Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit
    Hiking Trails: Meiss Country Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit UnitedForest StatesService DepartmentPacific ofSouthwest AgricultureRegion The information below describes several trails located in Meiss (pronounced "Mice") Country, located between Luther Pass (Highway 89) and Carson Pass (Highway 88). Information regarding distance and difficulty is provided, as well as an orientation map. A topo­ graphic map and compass are recommended. Weather conditions can change rapidly. Be prepared with the proper clothing and equipment. Always carry extra water. Hiking permits are not required for Meiss Country. Campfires are not allowed, camp stoves are permitted with a California campfire permits which may be obtained in person from any Forest Service office or fire station. Hikers, mountain bikes and horses are allowed on all trails in Meiss Country, however, mountain bikes are not allowed on the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT). Parking for horse trailers is available at both trail heads. Remember, trails are enjoyed by many different types of users. Please show respect 1. Big Meadows To Round Lake: Moderate 3. Big Meadows To Dardanelles Lake: As­ 2.7 miles one way. Take Hwy 50 west to Hwy pen trees and wildflowers along the trail make 89, 4 miles to the Big Meadows parking lot on this an exceptionally scenic hike during the the left. Follow the trail at the lower end of the spring and fall. Follow directions from the previ­ parking lot approximately 200 yards, where it ous hike to the trailhead. When the trail forks approximately 1-1/2 miles past Big Meadow, intersects with the highway. Look for the take the right fork.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix C: Accounts of Focal Aquatic Ecosystems And
    APPENDIX C ACCOUNTS OF FOCAL AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS AND ECOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS APPENDIX C ACCOUNTS OF FOCAL AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS AND ECOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS Matthew D. Schlesinger and Erik M. Holst, editors Focal Aquatic Ecosystem: Upper Truckee River Upper Truckee River watershed, harvested land was By Erik M. Holst being grazed by dairy cattle, and indiscriminate, unregulated sheep grazing was occurring in those General areas not suitable for cattle (see Chapter 2; From its headwaters at approximately 2,804 Supernowicz pers. comm.). During this same period, m (9,200 ft), near Red Lake Peak, the Upper Truckee land use activities in the headwaters of the Upper River flows north for a distance of 34.6 km (21.5 mi) Truckee River were primarily limited to grazing; no into Lake Tahoe (CDFG 1987). Within the 146.6 commercial logging occurred. By the 1910s, the km2 (56.6 mi2) drainage, 24 tributaries flow into the development of a seasonal grazing allotment system Upper Truckee River (CDFG 1987). The Upper throughout the watershed dedicated land to specific Truckee River and the tributaries which make up the uses and limitations. The allotment system attempted Upper Truckee River Watershed comprise the to reduce the previous levels of resource damage and largest contribution to the waters of Lake Tahoe essentially eliminated indiscriminate sheep grazing (CWQCB 1999). (Supernowicz pers. comm.). However, four decades Using Moyle’s (1996) aquatic habitat later the California Department of Fish and Game classification, the Upper Truckee River can be noted the Upper Truckee River was experiencing divided into two aquatic habitat types: alpine streams erosion problems due to past cattle grazing (CDFG and mainstem rivers and their larger tributaries.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Watershed Partnership
    Tahoe Valley and Meyers, CA Community Watershed Partnership 1 | Tahoe Resource Conservation District Final Watershed Strategy Meyers – Community WatershedReport Partnership - November 2015 This Page Intentionally Left Blank TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYM LIST ................................................................................................................................. iv INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................1 PROJECT BACKGROUND .....................................................................................................................1 MEYERS PROJECT SCOPE ....................................................................................................................5 HISTORICAL INFLUENCES ....................................................................................................................6 CURRENT COMMUNITY CONTEXT .......................................................................................................7 MEYERS – A CASE STUDY ....................................................................................................................9 Project Critical Success Factors ................................................................................................................. 9 Project Summary Information ................................................................................................................ 11 Area-wide Stormwater Concept Plans ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Truckee River | El Dorado County | Tahoe Rim Trail
    4/2/2020 Upper Truckee River | El Dorado County | Tahoe Rim Trail Facebook Twitter Instagram DFW Fishing Guide DFW Fish Plants E. Sierra Fishing Guide Sierra Web Cams Sierrash.com HOME ABOUT LAKES STREAMS CONTACT SUBMIT REPORT Smalll Lahontan Cutthroat from the Upper Truckee Riiver sierrafish.com/streams/upper-truckee-river-ec/upper-truckee-river-ec.php 1/3 4/2/2020 Upper Truckee River | El Dorado County | Tahoe Rim Trail Fishing: Upper Truckee River - (El Dorado County) 6/10 Tahoe Rim Trail Hiking: July 7, 2018 3/10 Scenery: 7/10 Getting There Solitude: To reach The Upper Truckee River in El Dorado County (Tahoe Rim Trail), drive to the 9/10 Big Meadow Tahoe Rim trailhead by taking Highway 89 towards Luther Pass. The trailhead parking lot is situated roughly 60 yards uphill from the actual trailhead. So Distance: park and walk down 89 until you see the sign on the lefthand side of the road. The 4 mi 1-way parking can be sparse on weekends and holidays due to the trailhead being very popular. Map: The Hike We chose to make camp at Round Lake ont his trip although if you are solely Elevation Profile: focused on the Upper Truckee then more secluded campsites can be found some of the Four Lakes. The hike begins as a hike to Round Lake which is a moderate trek with a quick uphill, switchbacked section at the start. Once you have zigzagged up the intitial hill, you will be rewarded with some easy hiking through the ats of Big Gallery: Meadow.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Truckee River Reach 5 Restoration Project Effectiveness Monitoring Report
    Upper Truckee River Reach 5 Restoration Project Effectiveness Monitoring Report April 3, 2019 By: Theresa Cody Table of Contents Page # Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4 Project Effectiveness Monitoring…………….…………………………………………………………………………………… 5 Section 1: Physical Attributes………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 5 a. As-Built Survey………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5 b. Stream Condition Inventory Monitoring…………………………………………………………………………. 7 c. Bank Stability………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 9 d. Groundwater Monitoring……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 9 e. Physical Habitat using SWAMP……………………………………………………………………………………….. 11 Section 2: Biological Attributes……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 11 a. Macroinvertebrate Monitoring………………………………………………………………………………………. 11 b. Western Pearlshell Mussel Monitoring…………………………………………………………………………… 12 c. Bat Monitoring……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 13 Section 3: Photos, Inspections, and Adaptive Management………………………………………………………… 13 a. Photo Points and other Representative Photos………………………………………………………………. 13 b. Aerial Imagery………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 14 c. Visual Observations During Flood Events……………………………………………………………………….. 16 d. Adaptive Management…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 16 References Cited…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 17 List of Tables Table 1: Summary of groundwater data for summer months……………………………………………………… 10 List of Figures
    [Show full text]