DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Assessment Draft

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Assessment Draft RECREATION OUTGRANT AT LOPEZ DEBRIS BASIN FOR LOS ANGELES MISSION COLLEGE ATHLETIC FIELDS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DRAFT State Clearinghouse No. 2002091071 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 915 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90017 Applicant: Los Angeles Community College District 770 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90017 September 2009 915 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Tel: 213.996.2200 Fax: 213.996.2290 URS Project No. 29405396 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.......................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Description of the Project and Proposed Action................................................................. 1-1 1.1.1 Proposed Action and Federal Scope of Analysis .................................................. 1-2 1.1.2 Description of the Project ........................................................................................ 1-2 1.1.3 Habitat Protection and Enhancements................................................................... 1-9 1.1.4 Construction .............................................................................................................1-10 1.1.5 Operations.................................................................................................................1-13 1.1.6 Relationship with other LAMC Projects ..............................................................1-13 1.1.7 Source of Funding....................................................................................................1-13 1.2 Purpose and Need...................................................................................................................1-13 1.2.1 Purpose of the Proposed Action ...........................................................................1-13 1.2.2 Need...........................................................................................................................1-14 1.3 Background Information........................................................................................................1-17 1.3.1 Project Location and Boundaries ..........................................................................1-17 1.3.2 Project Site ................................................................................................................1-17 1.3.3 ACOE Lopez Dam Basin Master Plan.................................................................1-18 1.3.4 LAMC 2007 Facilities Master Plan........................................................................1-18 1.3.5 LAMC’s Proposed 2009 Facilities Master Plan ...................................................1-18 1.4 Procedures to Protect Pacoima Reservoir ...........................................................................1-33 1.4.1 Real Estate Requirements .......................................................................................1-33 1.4.2 Reservoir Storage .....................................................................................................1-34 1.4.3 Flood Damage to Property.....................................................................................1-34 1.4.4 Flood Damage to Reservoir ...................................................................................1-37 1.4.5 Existing and Planned Project Use .........................................................................1-38 1.4.6 Induced Constraints to System Flexibility............................................................1-38 1.4.7 Constraints to Future System Flexibility...............................................................1-38 1.4.8 Public Safety..............................................................................................................1-38 1.4.9 Environmental Stewardship ...................................................................................1-39 1.4.10 Contingency Plan .....................................................................................................1-39 1.4.11 Reporting...................................................................................................................1-40 2.0 ALTERNATIVES..........................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Alternatives Considered and Not Carried Forward for Analysis ....................................... 2-1 2.2 Alternatives Analyzed ............................................................................................................... 2-5 2.2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative (No Lease of ACOE Property and No Development of Either ACOE or LACCD Properties)...................................... 2-5 2.2.2 Alternative 2 – Development of the LACCD Property Only............................. 2-6 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, PROJECT SETTING, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.......................................................................................................................3-1 3.1 Vegetation and Habitat............................................................................................................. 3-3 3.1.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................................. 3-3 3.1.2 Environmental Consequences.................................................................................. 3-3 3.2 Wildlife........................................................................................................................................ 3-9 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers i Recreation Outgrant for LAMC Athletic Fields DEA September 2009 Table of Contents 3.2.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................................. 3-9 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences.................................................................................. 3-9 3.3 Natural Drainage .....................................................................................................................3-13 3.3.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-13 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................................3-13 3.4 Riparian and Wetland Resources...........................................................................................3-15 3.4.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-15 3.4.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................................3-15 3.5 Endangered and Threatened Species....................................................................................3-19 3.5.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-19 3.5.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................................3-20 3.6 Cultural Resources...................................................................................................................3-23 3.6.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-23 3.6.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................................3-35 3.7 Water Quality and Supply ......................................................................................................3-45 3.7.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-45 3.7.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................................3-50 3.8 Flood Control and Hydrology...............................................................................................3-55 3.8.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-55 3.8.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................................3-55 3.9 Recreation.................................................................................................................................3-59 3.9.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-59 3.9.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................................3-60 3.10 Air Quality................................................................................................................................3-65 3.10.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-65 3.10.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................................3-70 3.11 Soils and Geology....................................................................................................................3-79 3.11.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-79 3.11.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................................3-83 3.12 Erosion and Sedimentation....................................................................................................3-89 3.12.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-89 3.12.2 Environmental
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Santa Ana Speckled Dace
    Petition to List the Santa Ana Speckled Dace (Rhinichthys osculus subspecies) as Endangered or Threatened under the Endangered Species Act May 11, 2020 1 Notice of Petition Submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on May 11, 2020: Aurelia Skipwith, Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1849 C Street NW, Room 3331 Washington, DC 20240-0001 [email protected] Carlsbad Fish & Wildlife Office 2177 Salk Avenue, Suite 250 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Petitioner Center for Biological Diversity formally requests that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) list the Santa Ana speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus subspecies) as an endangered or threatened Distinct Population Segment under the federal Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1544. Alternatively, Petitioner requests that the USFWS determine that the Santa Ana speckled dace is a valid species, which should be listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA. The Center requests that critical habitat for the Santa Ana speckled dace be designated concurrent with listing. This petition is filed under §553(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA” - 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-559), §1533(b)(3) of the ESA, and 50 C.F.R. §424.14(b). This petition sets in motion a specific administrative process as defined by §1533(b)(3) and 50 C.F.R. §424.14(b), placing mandatory response requirements on the USFWS. Because the Santa Ana speckled dace is exclusively a fresh water fish, the USFWS has jurisdiction over this petition. The Center for Biological Diversity is a nonprofit environmental organization dedicated to the protection of native species and their habitats.
    [Show full text]
  • Big Tujunga-PD 102714
    CANYON PARK HOMES PROJECT 12400 North Big Tujunga Canyon Road INITIAL STUDY Case No. ENV-2014-3225-EIR Prepared for: THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING 6262 Van Nuys Blvd., Room 351 Van Nuys, CA 91401 Contact: Mr. Nick Hendricks, City Planner Prepared by: ENVICOM CORPORATION 4165 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd. Westlake Village, California 91362 Contact: Mr. Charles Cohn (818) 879-4700 Applicant: Big Tujunga Villas, LLC November 5, 2014 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Canyon Park Homes Project (Project), previously referred to as Big Tujunga Villas, would develop 242 single-family residences on a vacant 78.04-acre site at 12400 North Big Tujunga Canyon Road in the City of Los Angeles community of Tujunga. The Project would include associated infrastructure including streets and utilities to serve the proposed residences, which would be constructed on individual lots that range in size from ±9,000 square feet to ±19,277 square feet. Additionally, the Project would include three private parks with recreational amenities, to be created within the Project site. The proposed street layout within the Project site would include a bridge to allow internal access across an unnamed dry wash and associated riparian habitat area that crosses the site, as well as a paved route for emergency use only that would allow the proposed development area south of the dry wash to be accessed by emergency vehicles directly from Big Tujunga Canyon Road if needed. A component of the Project is a requested General Plan amendment to re-designate the site’s allowable land use from Minimum Residential to Low Residential and a Zoning change from an agricultural zone A1-1-H, to a residential zone RE9-1-H.
    [Show full text]
  • Santa Ana Sucker Habitat, Santa Ana River
    Santa Ana succker (Catostomus santaanae) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation Santa Ana sucker habitat, Santa Ana River. Photo credit Christine Medak (USFWS). U.S. Fish and Wildliffee Service Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office Carlsbad, CA March 10, 2011 2011 5-Year Review for Santa Ana sucker 5-YEAR REVIEW Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus santaanae) I. GENERAL INFORMATION Purpose of 5-Year Reviews: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is required by section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) to conduct a status review of each listed species at least once every 5 years. The purpose of a 5-year review is to evaluate whether or not the species’ status has changed since it was listed. Based on the 5-year review, we recommend whether the species should be removed from the list of endangered and threatened species, be changed in status from endangered to threatened, or be changed in status from threatened to endangered. Our original listing of a species as endangered or threatened is based on the existence of threats attributable to one or more of the five threat factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act, and we must consider these same five factors in any subsequent consideration of reclassification or delisting of a species. In the 5-year review, we consider the best available scientific and commercial data on the species, and focus on new information available since the species was listed or last reviewed. If we recommend a change in listing status based on the results of the 5-year review, we must propose to do so through a separate rule-making process defined in the Act that includes public review and comment.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Study/Negative Declaration for Big Tujunga Wash at Oro Vista Avenue Maintenance Program (W.O
    FINAL Initial Study/Negative Declaration for Big Tujunga Wash at Oro Vista Avenue Maintenance Program (W.O. E1907637) November 2017 Bureau of Engineering City of Los Angeles Environmental Management Group This Page Intentially Left Blank CITY OF LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT INITIAL STUDY (Article I - City CEQA Guidelines) Council District: 7 Draft date: July 2, 2015 Final date: November 2015 Lead City Agency: Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering, Environmental Management Division (BOE/EMG) Project Title: Big Tujunga Wash at Oro Vista Avenue Maintenance Program (W.O. E1907637) Project Sponsor: Department of Public Works, Bureau of Street Services I. INTRODUCTION A. Purpose of an Initial Study The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was enacted in 1970 for the purpose of providing decision-makers and the public with information regarding environmental effects of proposed projects; identifying means of avoiding environmental damage; and disclosing to the public the reasons behind a project’s approval even if it leads to environmental damage. The Bureau of Engineering Environmental Management Group (BOE/EMG) has determined the proposed project is subject to CEQA and no exemptions apply. Therefore, the preparation of an initial study is required. An initial study is a preliminary analysis conducted by the lead agency, in consultation with other agencies (responsible or trustee agencies, as applicable), to determine whether there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. If the initial study concludes that the project, with mitigation, may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report should be prepared; otherwise the lead agency may adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration.
    [Show full text]
  • 16. Watershed Assets Assessment Report
    16. Watershed Assets Assessment Report Jingfen Sheng John P. Wilson Acknowledgements: Financial support for this work was provided by the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy and the County of Los Angeles, as part of the “Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California” Project. The authors thank Jennifer Wolch for her comments and edits on this report. The authors would also like to thank Frank Simpson for his input on this report. Prepared for: San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy 900 South Fremont Avenue, Alhambra, California 91802-1460 Photography: Cover, left to right: Arroyo Simi within the city of Moorpark (Jaime Sayre/Jingfen Sheng); eastern Calleguas Creek Watershed tributaries, classifi ed by Strahler stream order (Jingfen Sheng); Morris Dam (Jaime Sayre/Jingfen Sheng). All in-text photos are credited to Jaime Sayre/ Jingfen Sheng, with the exceptions of Photo 4.6 (http://www.you-are- here.com/location/la_river.html) and Photo 4.7 (digital-library.csun.edu/ cdm4/browse.php?...). Preferred Citation: Sheng, J. and Wilson, J.P. 2008. The Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California. 16. Watershed Assets Assessment Report. University of Southern California GIS Research Laboratory and Center for Sustainable Cities, Los Angeles, California. This report was printed on recycled paper. The mission of the Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California is to offer a guide to habitat conservation, watershed health and recreational open space for the Los Angeles metropolitan region. The Plan will also provide decision support tools to nurture a living green matrix for southern California.
    [Show full text]
  • Los Angeles County
    Steelhead/rainbow trout resources of Los Angeles County Arroyo Sequit Arroyo Sequit consists of about 3.3 stream miles. The arroyo is formed by the confluence of the East and West forks, from where it flows south to enter the Pacific Ocean east of Sequit Point. As part of a survey of 32 southern coastal watersheds, Arroyo Sequit was surveyed in 1979. The O. mykiss sampled were between about two and 6.5 inches in length. The survey report states, “Historically, small steelhead runs have been reported in this area” (DFG 1980). It also recommends, “…future upstream water demands and construction should be reviewed to insure that riparian and aquatic habitats are maintained” (DFG 1980). Arroyo Sequit was surveyed in 1989-1990 as part of a study of six streams originating in the Santa Monta Mountains. The resulting report indicates the presence of steelhead and states, “Low streamflows are presently limiting fish habitat, particularly adult habitat, and potential fish passage problems exist…” (Keegan 1990a, p. 3-4). Staff from DFG surveyed Arroyo Sequit in 1993 and captured O. mykiss, taking scale and fin samples for analysis. The individuals ranged in length between about 7.7 and 11.6 inches (DFG 1993). As reported in a distribution study, a 15-17 inch trout was observed in March 2000 in Arroyo Sequit (Dagit 2005). Staff from NMFS surveyed Arroyo Sequit in 2002 as part of a study of steelhead distribution. An adult steelhead was observed during sampling (NMFS 2002a). Additional documentation of steelhead using the creek between 2000-2007 was provided by Dagit et al.
    [Show full text]
  • 4.3 Biological Resources
    Draft EIR CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2012 SECTION 4.3 Biological Resources 4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section of the EIR analyzes the potential environmental effects on biological resources from implementation of the proposed Granada Hills–Knollwood Community Plan and implementing ordinances and the proposed Sylmar Community Plan and implementing ordinances (proposed plans). Comments in response to the Notices of Preparation (NOP) were received on both proposed plans from the California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG). Data for this section were taken from The City of Los Angeles General Plan, Citywide General Plan Framework, Los Angeles Municipal Code, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and California Native Plant Society. Full reference-list entries for all cited materials are provided in Section 4.3.5 (References). This section of the EIR provides a description of the existing biological resources within the Granada Hills–Knollwood and Sylmar Community Plan Areas (CPAs) and analyzes the potential physical environmental impacts related to biological resources associated with implementation of the proposed plans. The EIR evaluates the environmental impacts related to biological resources using information from a variety of sources, including the California Department of Fish and Game’s (CDFG) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Electronic Inventory, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) list of Federal Endangered and Threatened Species, as well a variety of other environmental resources. A regulatory framework is also provided in this section describing applicable agencies and regulations related to biological resources. As set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a), the following Environmental Setting discussion describes the physical environmental conditions in the CPAs at the time the environmental analysis commenced.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Two Low-Flow Releases from Big Tujunga Reservoir, Los Angeles County, California, 2003
    Evaluation of Two Low-Flow Releases from Big Tujunga Reservoir, Los Angeles County, California, 2003 By Gregory O. Mendez In cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5003 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Gale A. Norton, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Charles G. Groat, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2005 For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services Box 25286, Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 For more information about the USGS and its products: Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/ Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Mendez, G.O., 2005, Evaluation of two low-flow releases from Big Tujunga Reservoir, Los Angeles County, California, 2003: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5003, 15 p. iii Contents Abstract ……………………………………………………………………………………… 1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………… 1 Purpose and Scope ……………………………………………………………………… 2 Acknowledgments ……………………………………………………………………… 2 Study Design ………………………………………………………………………………… 2 Description of Sampling Sites …………………………………………………………… 4 Methods ………………………………………………………………………………………
    [Show full text]
  • Extent of Fishing and Fish Consumption by Fishers in Ventura and Los Angeles County Watersheds in 2005
    EXTENT OF FISHING AND FISH CONSUMPTON BY FISHERS IN VENTURA AND LOS ANGELES COUNTY WATERSHEDS IN 2005 M. James Allen Erica T. Jarvis Valerie Raco-Rands Greg Lyon Jesus A. Reyes Dawn M. Petschauer Technical Report 574 - September 2008 EXTENT OF FISHING AND FISH CONSUMPTION BY FISHERS IN VENTURA AND LOS ANGELES COUNTY WATERSHEDS IN 2005 M. James Allen, Erica T. Jarvis, Valerie Raco-Rands, Greg Lyon, Jesus A. Reyes and Dawn M. Petschauer Southern California Coastal Water Research Project 3535 Harbor Blvd., Ste. 110 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 www.sccwrp.org September 15, 2008 Cover Images (Clockwise from the Lower Left): San Gabriel River Estuary, Upper Calleguas Creek (Coastal Terrace Stream), Lake Casitas (Mountain Reservoir), Big Tujunga Creek (Mountain Stream), Peck Road Park Lake (Urban Lake), and Lower San Gabriel River (Coastal Terrace Stream). Technical Report 574 Table of Contents Abstract.............................................................................................................................. vi Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1 Methods............................................................................................................................... 3 Field Survey....................................................................................................................3 Overview of Study ...................................................................................................... 3 Data
    [Show full text]
  • · of San Fernando, ET AL of Los Angeles UPPER LOS ANGELES RIVER AREA WATERMASTER
    · of San Fernando, ET AL of Los Angeles UPPER LOS ANGELES RIVER AREA WATERMASTER CITY OF LOS ANGELES VS. CITY OF SAN FERNANDO, ET AL CASE NO. 650079 - COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES GROUNDWATER PUMPING AND SPREADING PLAN I FOR THE UPPER LOS ANGELES RIVER AREA l LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 2004-2009 WATER YEARS ULARA WATERMASTER [ Mark G. Mackowski, R.G., C.E.G. ASSISTANT WA TERMASTER i Patricia K.iechler I CONSULTANT TO WATERMASTER I Melvin L. Blevins, P.E. GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY/MODELING CONSULTANT I Hadi Jonny, P.E. I WATERMASTER STAFF Andy J. Agra, P .E. Water Resources Engineer V ahe Dabbaghian Water Resources Engineer 1 Michael Hedvig Management Assistant Billie Washington Clerk Typist Copies of this report may be purchased for $40.00 0ncluding shipping). P.O. Box 51111, Room 1450 ' Los Angeles. CA 90051-0100 I 213/367..0921 or 213/367-0896 www.ularawatermaster.com I JULY 2005 I TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY II. INTRODUCTION Ill. PLANS FOR THE 2004-09 WATER YEARS ..................................... Pages 4 - 11 A. Proj ected Groundwater Pumping for 2004-2005 Water Year B. Constraints on Pumping as of2004-2005 ( IV. GROUNDWATER PUMPING FACILJTIES .....................................Pages 12-16 A. Well Fields B. Active Groundwater Pumping and Treating Facilities I C. Projected Groundwater Pumping and Treating Facilities D. Other Groundwater Remediation Projects E. Dewatering Operations I F. Unauthorized Pumping in the County V. GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS .... Pagesl?-22 A. Existing Spreading Operations B. Other Spreading Operations C. Actual and Projected Spreading Operations l D. Hansen and Tujunga Spreading Grounds Task Force E.
    [Show full text]
  • Watershed Assets Assessment Report
    16. Watershed Assets Assessment Report Jingfen Sheng John P. Wilson Acknowledgements: Financial support for this work was provided by the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy and the County of Los Angeles, as part of the “Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California” Project. The authors thank Jennifer Wolch for her comments and edits on this report. The authors would also like to thank Frank Simpson for his input on this report. Prepared for: San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy 900 South Fremont Avenue, Alhambra, California 91802-1460 Photography: Cover, left to right: Arroyo Simi within the city of Moorpark (Jaime Sayre/Jingfen Sheng); eastern Calleguas Creek Watershed tributaries, classifi ed by Strahler stream order (Jingfen Sheng); Morris Dam (Jaime Sayre/Jingfen Sheng). All in-text photos are credited to Jaime Sayre/ Jingfen Sheng, with the exceptions of Photo 4.6 (http://www.you-are- here.com/location/la_river.html) and Photo 4.7 (digital-library.csun.edu/ cdm4/browse.php?...). Preferred Citation: Sheng, J. and Wilson, J.P. 2008. The Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California. 16. Watershed Assets Assessment Report. University of Southern California GIS Research Laboratory and Center for Sustainable Cities, Los Angeles, California. This report was printed on recycled paper. The mission of the Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California is to offer a guide to habitat conservation, watershed health and recreational open space for the Los Angeles metropolitan region. The Plan will also provide decision support tools to nurture a living green matrix for southern California.
    [Show full text]
  • Wild and Scenic Rivers
    Wild and Scenic Rivers Background and Study Process Wild and Scenic Rivers For reader convenience, all wild and scenic study documents are compiled here, including duplicate sections that are also found in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix E Wild and Scenic Rivers. Wild and Scenic Rivers Background and Study Process Summary of Wild and Scenic Wild and Scenic Rivers River Eligibility Inventory by Forest Wild and Scenic Rivers Background and Study Process Background Congress enacted the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) in 1968 to preserve select river's free- flowing condition, water quality and outstandingly remarkable values. The most important provision of the WSRA is protecting rivers from the harmful effects of water resources projects. To protect free- flowing character, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (which licenses nonfederal hydropower projects) is not allowed to license construction of dams, water conduits, reservoirs, powerhouses, transmission lines, or other project works on or directly affecting wild and scenic rivers (WSRs). Other federal agencies may not assist by loan, grant, and license or otherwise any water resources project that would have a direct and adverse effect on the values for which a river was designated. The WSRA also directs that each river in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (National System) be administered in a manner to protect and enhance a river's outstanding natural and cultural values. It allows existing uses of a river to continue and future uses to be considered, so long as existing or proposed use does not conflict with protecting river values. The WSRA also directs building partnerships among landowners, river users, tribal nations, and all levels of government.
    [Show full text]