DOCSLIB.ORG

Biggie Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture; Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 1400 Independence Avenue, SW;Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected]. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. Cover photo: Giant Sequoias in the Placer County Grove of Big Trees, Tahoe National Forest. Photo courtesy of Roy Bridgman, Tahoe National Forest Biggie Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment Table of Contents CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE, NEED AND PROPOSED ACTION ....................................................... 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACT ION .................................................................................................2 PROPOSED ACTION (ALTERNATIVE 1)...........................................................................................4 MANAGEMENT DIRECTION AND DECISION FRAM EWORK ...............................................................5 PUBLIC INVOLVEM ENT ................................................................................................................6 ISSUES ........................................................................................................................................6 CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED ACT ION ...........................................................................................7 CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................................................... 8 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL .......................................................................................8 Alternative 1, Proposed Action ............................................................................................... 8 Management Requirements .................................................................................................. 18 Alternative 2, No Action ....................................................................................................... 29 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY ...................................... 29 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES................................................................................................ 29 CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .... 32 FOREST VEGETATION ................................................................................................................ 33 Methodology for Analysis and Prescription Development ....................................................... 33 Affected Environment........................................................................................................... 35 Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 2 (No Action and Existing Condition)....................... 36 Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 1............................................................................ 38 Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................................... 41 FIRE AND FUELS........................................................................................................................ 45 Background......................................................................................................................... 45 Tools Used to Predict Effects................................................................................................ 45 Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 1............................................................................ 46 Direct and Indirect Effects for Alternative 2 .......................................................................... 48 Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................................... 48 SOIL PRODUCTIVITY .................................................................................................................. 51 Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 51 Soil Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................... 51 Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 1............................................................................ 52 Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 2............................................................................ 54 Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................................... 54 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ........................................................................................... 56 Background......................................................................................................................... 56 Affected Environment........................................................................................................... 56 Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 1............................................................................ 57 Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 2............................................................................ 58 Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................................... 58 AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................................................ 63 Background......................................................................................................................... 63 Current Conditions and Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 2........................................ 63 Methodology for Estimating Emissions ................................................................................. 64 Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 1............................................................................ 64 Biggie Project Environmental Assessment i Biggie Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................................... 66 RECREATION, LANDS, AND VISUAL QUALITY.............................................................................. 67 Affected Environment........................................................................................................... 67 Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 1............................................................................ 69 Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 2............................................................................ 72 Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................................... 72 RANGE RESOURCES ................................................................................................................... 73 Affected Environment........................................................................................................... 73 Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 1............................................................................ 73 Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 2............................................................................ 74 Cumulative Effects for Alternative 1...................................................................................... 75 Cumulative Effects for Alternative 2...................................................................................... 75 WILDLIFE SPECIES....................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Bald Eagle Management Plan
    Application for New License Middle Fork American River Project (FERC Project No. 2079) Placer County Water Agency Middle Fork American River Project (FERC Project No. 2079) BALD EAGLE MANAGEMENT PLAN Placer County Water Agency P.O. Box 6570 Auburn, CA 95604 February 2011 February 2011 Application for New License Middle Fork American River Project (FERC Project No. 2079) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Plan Objective ........................................................................................................ 1 3.0 Presence of Bald Eagles in the Vicinity of the MFP ................................................ 2 3.1 Bald Eagle Nests and Reproductive Chronology .......................................... 2 3.2 Bald Eagle Winter Roosts ............................................................................. 2 3.3 Bald Eagle Occurrences ............................................................................... 3 4.0 Routine Project Maintenance Activities and Project-Related Recreation ................ 3 4.1 Routine Project Maintenance ....................................................................... 3 4.1.1 Vegetation and Integrated Pest Management .................................... 3 4.1.2 Transportation System Management ................................................. 4 4.1.3 Project Powerline Maintenance ......................................................... 5 4.2 Recreation Facility
    [Show full text]
  • TABLE of CONTENTS Chapter 1 Introduction & Scoping
    CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River (North and Middle Forks) Integrated Watershed Plan and Stewardship Strategy TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Introduction & Scoping Introduction 1-1 Physical/Biological Characteristics 1-2 Erosion Hazard 1-4 Geology/Soils 1-5 Climate/Precipitation 1-6 Vegetation/Land Cover 1-7 Fire 1-9 Water Quality/Quantity/Uses 1-9 Animal/Plant communities 1-14 Economy 1-15 Public and Agency Scoping 1-16 Initial Scoping 1-16 Final Objectives 1-27 Resource Issues 1-36 Desired Future Conditions 1-37 Chapter 2 Data Collection Assessment Plan 2-1 Issues/Objectives/Resources 2-1 Watershed Assessment Goals 2-9 Resource Assessment Themes 2-11 Assessment Approach 2-12 Data Assemblage Phase 1 First Generation GIS Products & System 2-15 US Forest Service 2-15 Additional First Generation Products 2-44 Phase 1 Conclusion 2-47 Phase 2 Second Generation GIS Products 2-47 Subwatershed Delineation 2-48 GIS-Based Subwatershed Analysis/Ranking 2-50 Watershed Assessments Geology 2-74 Soil-Water Routing 2-100 Channels 2-125 Erosion Hazard 2-140 Phase 3 Third Generation GIS Products 2-145 Placer County Fire Safe Council GIS Assessment 2-145 Greater Auburn Area FSC GIS Map Assessment 2-147 Placer Hills FSC GIS Map Assessment 2-148 Greater Colfax Area FSC GIS Map Assessment 2-149 Alta FSC GIS Map Assessment 2-150 Iowa Hill FSC GIS Map Assessment 2-151 Foresthill FSC GIS Map Assessment 2-152 GIS System 2-152 Additional Watershed Assessment and Data Analysis 2-153 Table of Contents Page 1 CALFED Category III Grant 98E14 American River
    [Show full text]