DOCSLIB.ORG

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT of ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT of ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 12/19/2013 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2013-30183, and on FDsys.gov BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 13590-001] Lockhart Power Company, Inc.; Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Assessment In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (Commission or FERC) regulations, 18 CFR pt. 380, the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed Lockhart Power Company, Inc.’s application for license for the Riverdale Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 13590-001), located on the Enoree River, near the town of Enoree, in Spartanburg and Laurens Counties, South Carolina. The project does not occupy federal lands. Staff prepared a draft environmental assessment (DEA), which analyzes the potential environmental effects of licensing the project, and concludes that licensing the project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment. A copy of the DEA is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission’s website at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], at (866)208-3676 (toll free), or, 202- 502-8659 (TTY). You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. Any comments should be filed within 45 days from the date of this notice. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission’s eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/dcos- Project No. 13590-001 2 filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support. In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-13590-001. For further information, contact Sarah Salazar by phone at 202-502-6863, or by email at [email protected]. Dated: December 12, 2013. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE Riverdale Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 13590-001 South Carolina Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower Licensing 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426 December 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES..............................................................................................................iii ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................ v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................vii 1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 1 1.1 APPLICATION............................................................................................. 1 1.2 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER.................................. 1 1.2.1 Purpose of Action............................................................................ 1 1.2.2 Need for Power................................................................................ 3 1.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ......................... 4 1.3.1 Federal Power Act ........................................................................... 5 1.3.2 Clean Water Act .............................................................................. 6 1.3.3 Endangered Species Act.................................................................. 6 1.3.4 Coastal Zone Management Act ....................................................... 6 1.3.5 National Historic Preservation Act.................................................. 7 1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND CONSULTATION............................................... 8 1.4.1 Scoping............................................................................................ 8 1.4.2 Interventions.................................................................................... 8 1.4.3 Comments on the License Application ........................................... 9 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES................................................... 10 2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE.................................................................. 10 2.1.1 Existing Project Facilities.............................................................. 10 2.1.2 Project Safety................................................................................. 11 2.1.3 Existing Project Operation and Environmental Measures ............ 11 2.2 APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL...................................................................... 11 2.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities ............................................................ 11 2.2.2 Proposed Project Operations ......................................................... 12 2.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures............................................... 13 2.3 STAFF ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................ 14 2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS.............................................................................. 16 2.4.1 Issuing a Non-power License ........................................................ 16 2.4.2 Project Decommissioning.............................................................. 17 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS......................................................................... 18 3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RIVER BASIN .............................. 18 3.2 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS ................................ 19 i 3.2.1 Geographic Scope.......................................................................... 19 3.2.2 Temporal Scope............................................................................. 19 3.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES ....................... 20 3.3.1 Geologic and Soil Resources......................................................... 20 3.3.2 Aquatic Resources......................................................................... 29 3.3.3 Terrestrial Resources..................................................................... 67 3.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species............................................. 77 3.3.5 Recreation and Land Use............................................................... 79 3.3.6 Cultural Resources......................................................................... 86 3.4 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE.................................................................. 88 4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 89 4.1 POWER AND DEVELOPMENTAL BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT..... 89 4.2 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES...................................................... 90 4.2.1 No-action Alternative .................................................................... 91 4.2.2 Lockhart Power’s Proposal ........................................................... 91 4.2.3 Staff Alternative ............................................................................ 91 4.3 COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES .......................................... 92 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................... 104 5.1 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES.................................................... 104 5.2 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE ....................................................................................... 109 5.3 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS................................................. 124 5.4 FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS ................. 124 5.5 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS............................ 130 6.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ...................................................... 132 7.0 LITERATURE CITED......................................................................................... 133 8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................................................................ 142 ii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location of the Riverdale Project.................................................................. 2 Figure 2. Percent of time during each month that inflows to the Riverdale Project are greater than 170 cfs and less than or equal to 500 cfs (i.e. when peaking with drawdown operation can occur under Lockhart Power’s proposed operations), less than or equal to 170 cfs (i.e. flow below turbine minimum turbine capacity plus 50 cfs minimum flow), and > 500 cfs (i.e. flows greater than maximum turbine capacity plus 50 cfs minimum flow).......................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Information on the NCWRC's Scientific Council of Fishes Rare
    A Summary of the 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes in North Carolina Submitted by Bryn H. Tracy North Carolina Division of Water Resources North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Raleigh, NC On behalf of the NCWRC’s Scientific Council of Fishes November 01, 2014 Bigeye Jumprock, Scartomyzon (Moxostoma) ariommum, State Threatened Photograph by Noel Burkhead and Robert Jenkins, courtesy of the Virginia Division of Game and Inland Fisheries and the Southeastern Fishes Council (http://www.sefishescouncil.org/). Table of Contents Page Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 3 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes In North Carolina ........... 4 Summaries from the 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes in North Carolina .......................................................................................................................... 12 Recent Activities of NCWRC’s Scientific Council of Fishes .................................................. 13 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part I, Ohio Lamprey .............................................. 14 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part II, “Atlantic” Highfin Carpsucker ...................... 17 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part III, Tennessee Darter ...................................... 20 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part
    [Show full text]
  • Download BALMNH No 08 1984
    Bulletin Alabama Museum of Natural History BULLETIN ALABAMA MUSEUM NATURAL HISTORY is published by the Alabama Museum of Natural History, The University of Alabama. The BULLETIN is devoted primarily to the subjects of Anthropology, Archaeology, Botany, Geology and Zoology of the Southeast. The BULLETIN appears irregularly in consecutive­ ly numbered issues. Manuscripts are evaluated by the editor and an editorial com­ mittee selected for each paper. Authors are requested to conform generally with the Council of Biological Editors Style Manual, Fourth Edition, 1978, and to consult recent issues of the BULLETIN as to style for citing literature and the use of abbreviations. An informative abstract is required. For information and policy on exchanges, write to the Librarian, The Univer­ sity of Alabama, Box S, University of Alabama, University, AL. 35486. Numbers may be purchased individually; standing orders are accepted. Remit­ tances should accompany orders and made payable to The University of Alabama. Communication concerning manuscripts, editorial policy, and orders for in­ dividual numbers should be addressed to the editor: Herbert Boschung, Alabama Museum of Natural History, The University of Alabama, Box 5987, University, AL. 35486. When citing this publication. authors are requested to use the following ab­ breviation: Bull. Alabama Mus. Nat. Hist. Price this Number: $6.00 NUMBER 8, 1984 Description, Biology and Distribution of the Spotfin Chub, Hybopsis monacha, a Threatened Cyprinid Fish of the Tennessee River Drainage Robert E. Jenkins and Noel M. Burkhead Department of Biology, Roanoke College, Salem, Virginia, 24153 ABSTRACT: Jenkins, Robert E. and Noel Burkhead, 1984. Description, biology and distribution of the spotfin Chub, Hybopsis monacha.
    [Show full text]
  • A List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States And
    t a AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY QL 614 .A43 V.2 .A 4-3 AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY Special Publication No. 2 A List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes -^ ru from the United States m CD and Canada (SECOND EDITION) A/^Ssrf>* '-^\ —---^ Report of the Committee on Names of Fishes, Presented at the Ei^ty-ninth Annual Meeting, Clearwater, Florida, September 16-18, 1959 Reeve M. Bailey, Chairman Ernest A. Lachner, C. C. Lindsey, C. Richard Robins Phil M. Roedel, W. B. Scott, Loren P. Woods Ann Arbor, Michigan • 1960 Copies of this publication may be purchased for $1.00 each (paper cover) or $2.00 (cloth cover). Orders, accompanied by remittance payable to the American Fisheries Society, should be addressed to E. A. Seaman, Secretary-Treasurer, American Fisheries Society, Box 483, McLean, Virginia. Copyright 1960 American Fisheries Society Printed by Waverly Press, Inc. Baltimore, Maryland lutroduction This second list of the names of fishes of The shore fishes from Greenland, eastern the United States and Canada is not sim- Canada and the United States, and the ply a reprinting with corrections, but con- northern Gulf of Mexico to the mouth of stitutes a major revision and enlargement. the Rio Grande are included, but those The earlier list, published in 1948 as Special from Iceland, Bermuda, the Bahamas, Cuba Publication No. 1 of the American Fisheries and the other West Indian islands, and Society, has been widely used and has Mexico are excluded unless they occur also contributed substantially toward its goal of in the region covered. In the Pacific, the achieving uniformity and avoiding confusion area treated includes that part of the conti- in nomenclature.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Cowpens National Battlefield Natural Resource Report NPS/ COWP/NRR—2012/521
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Cowpens National Battlefield Natural Resource Report NPS/ COWP/NRR—2012/521 ON THE COVER Main Entrance Photograph courtesy of Cowpens National Battlefield Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Cowpens National Battlefield Natural Resource Report NPS/ COWP/NRR—2012/521 Luke Worsham, Gary Sundin, Nathan P. Nibbelink, Michael T. Mengak, Gary Grossman Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources University of Georgia 180 E. Green St. Athens, GA 30602 April 2012 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received informal peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in the collection, analysis, or reporting of the data. Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Laboratory Operations Manual Version 2.0 May 2014
    United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Washington, DC EPA 841‐B‐12‐010 National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐2014 Laboratory Operations Manual Version 2.0 May 2014 2013‐2014 National Rivers & Streams Assessment Laboratory Operations Manual Version 1.3, May 2014 Page ii of 224 NOTICE The intention of the National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐2014 is to provide a comprehensive “State of Flowing Waters” assessment for rivers and streams across the United States. The complete documentation of overall project management, design, methods, quality assurance, and standards is contained in five companion documents: National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Quality Assurance Project Plan EPA‐841‐B‐12‐007 National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Site Evaluation Guidelines EPA‐841‐B‐12‐008 National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Non‐Wadeable Field Operations Manual EPA‐841‐B‐ 12‐009a National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Wadeable Field Operations Manual EPA‐841‐B‐12‐ 009b National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Laboratory Operations Manual EPA 841‐B‐12‐010 Addendum to the National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Wadeable & Non‐Wadeable Field Operations Manuals This document (Laboratory Operations Manual) contains information on the methods for analyses of the samples to be collected during the project, quality assurance objectives, sample handling, and data reporting. These methods are based on the guidelines developed and followed in the Western Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (Peck et al. 2003). Methods described in this document are to be used specifically in work relating to the NRSA 2013‐2014.
    [Show full text]
  • Uwharrie National Forest
    BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION REPORT FOR THE NATIONAL FOREST SERVICE NC 24/27 WIDENING – UWHARRIE NATIONAL FOREST MONTGOMERY COUNTY, NC TIP NO. R-2527 WBS ELEMENT 35572.1.1 APRIL 2019 Contact Person: Matthew M. Haney Environmental Program Specialist North Carolina Department of Transportation Natural Environment Section Biological Surveys Group 1598 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 919.707.6122 [email protected] Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1 II. POTENTIAL IMPACTS CONSIDERED ................................................................................. 1 III. SPECIES CONSIDERED AND METHODS ........................................................................... 2 IV. EXISTING BIOLOGICAL CONDITION ............................................................................... 2 A. BIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS AREA................................................................................................................. 2 B. STUDY AREA .......................................................................................................................................... 7 C. TIMING OF FIELD SURVEYS ................................................................................................................... 7 D. THREATENED, ENDANGERED, FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN, AND NORTH CAROLINA LISTED SPECIES .....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Status of Plants in Virginia
    SPRING/SUMMER 2015 VOL. 66, No. 1 & 2 SPRINGFall/SUMMER 2015 2015 VOL. 66,V No.OL. 1 66,& 2No. 3 inia Fall 2015 VOL. 66, No. 3 rg ORGN. AGE SUMMER/SPRING 2014 VOL. 65, No. 1 & 2 T Vi AID P U.S. POST Permit No. 2276 Richmond, NON-PROFI VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE VIRVGIRGINIINIAA JO JOURURNALNAL OF O SFC SIECIENCENCE VIRGINIAVIRGINIA JOURNAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE OF SCIENCE SPRING/SUMMER 2015 VOL. 66, No. 1 & 2 Fall 2015 VOL. 66, No. 3 VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE VIRGINIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE VIRGINIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE OFFIOCFFICIALIAL PUB LPUBICALTICATIOION OFN T OHFE TH VIER GVIRGINIAINIA ACA ACADEMDEMY OFY SOCFI ESCIENCENCE e ginia r Vi eet A23220 oadStr r .B OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE VIRGINIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE W ess Service Requested giniaAcademyofScienc r Vi ScienceMuseumof Addr 2500 Richmond,V OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE VIRGINIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE VIRGINIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE THE VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE Instructions to Authors All manuscripts and correspondence should be sent to the Editor ([email protected]). The Virginia Journal of Science welcomes for consideration original articles and short notes in the various disciplines of engineering and science. Cross-disciplinary papers dealing with advancements in science and technology and the impact of these on man and society are particularly welcome. Submission of an article implies that the article has not been published elsewhere while under consideration by the Journal. Submit manuscripts in electronic form as an MS Word OR WordPerfect file.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of Annual Meeting 2001 Final August 22
    REPORT OF THE ROBUST REDHORSE CONSERVATION COMMITTEE ANNUAL MEETING SOUTH CAROLINA AQUARIUM, CHARLESTON OCTOBER 3 – 5, 2001 With the increased emphasis on status surveys, the number of verified records throughout the historic range has increased dramatically and many of the recent records are stocked fish (map created by Jimmy Evans, GA DNR). Meeting facilitated by Jim Feldt, Consensus Builders under contract with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Report compiled by T.A. DeMeo T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS ..........................................................................................iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...........................................................................................................v INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1 Opening Remarks – Terry DeMeo ........................................................................................... 4 South Carolina Aquarium Robust Redhorse Exhibit and Educational Efforts – Chris Andrews, David Wilkins, Whit McMillan, SCA........................................................ 4 SUPPLEMENTAL BREEDING Broodfish Collection on the Oconee River, 2001 – Jimmy Evans, GA DNR.......................... 5 Spawning Results, 2001 – Greg Looney, USFWS................................................................... 8 Cryopreservation Activities Update – Greg Looney, USFWS............................................... 10 Fingerling Distribution
    [Show full text]
  • Fishposterbooklet Cover 4
    The Mountain Fishes OF NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION The Mountain Fishes OF NORTH CAROLINA by Barbara Scott Special Publications Editor Technical Advisors Wayne Starnes Curator of Fishes N.C. Museum of Natural Sciences David Yow Fishery Research Coordinator, Mountain Region N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission Todd Ewing Aquatic Nongame and Habitat Conservation Program N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission Anne M. Runyon Illustrator Jane Oslislo Designer North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 2004 Table of Contents Introduction 1 Produced by the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission The Mountain Region 3 512 N. Salisbury Street Raleigh, NC 27604 A Guide to the Poster 7 Copyright 2004 What Makes a Fish? 11 All Rights Reserved The Fishes 15 Suckers (Catostomidae) 15 The N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission is an Equal Opportunity Sunfishes (Centrarchidae) 16 Employer. All wildlife programs are administered for the benefit of Sculpins (Cottidae) 18 all North Carolina citizens without prejudice towards age, sex, race, religion or national origin. Violations of this pledge may be reported Carps and Minnows (Cyprinidae) 18 to the Equal Employment Officer, 1703 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, Pikes (Esocidae) 26 NC 27699-1703, Tel. (919) 733-2241. Catfishes (Ictaluridae) 26 Perches (Percidae) 27 Lampreys (Petromyzontidae) 30 This booklet and a companion poster may be purchased online at Trout (Salmonidae) 31 www.ncwildlife.org or by calling 1-866-WILDSHOP (1-866-945-3746). References 33 N.C. Index 35 WILD STORE Introduction hen we think of freshwater fishes, we usually think of the ones W that people catch to eat, such as trout, bass and perch.
    [Show full text]
  • Diversity, Distribution, and Conservation Status of the Native Freshwater Fishes of the Southern United States by Melvin L
    CONSERVATION m Diversity, Distribution, and Conservation Status of the Native Freshwater Fishes of the Southern United States By Melvin L. Warren, Jr., Brooks M. Burr, Stephen J. Walsh, Henry L. Bart, Jr., Robert C. Cashner, David A. Etnier, Byron J. Freeman, Bernard R. Kuhajda, Richard L. Mayden, Henry W. Robison, Stephen T. Ross, and Wayne C. Starnes ABSTRACT The Southeastern Fishes Council Technical Advisory Committee reviewed the diversity, distribution, and status of all native freshwater and diadromous fishes across 51 major drainage units of the southern United States. The southern United States supports more native fishes than any area of comparable size on the North American continent north of Mexico, but also has a high proportion of its fishes in need of conservation action. The review included 662 native freshwater and diadromous fishes and 24 marine fishes that are significant components of freshwater ecosystems. Of this total, 560 described, freshwater fish species are documented, and 49 undescribed species are included provisionally pending formal description. Described subspecies (86) are recognized within 43 species, 6 fishes have undescribed sub- species, and 9 others are recognized as complexes of undescribed taxa. Extinct, endangered, threatened, or vulnerable status is recognized for 28% (187 taxa) of southern freshwater and diadromous fishes. To date, 3 southern fishes are known to be extinct throughout their ranges, 2 are extirpated from the study region, and 2 others may be extinct. Of the extant southern fishes, 41 (6%) are regarded as endangered, 46 (7%) are regarded as threatened, and 101 (15%) are regarded as vulnerable. Five marine fishes that frequent fresh water are regarded as vulnerable.
    [Show full text]
  • Francis Marion FY 2003 Monitoring Report
    2011 Monitoring and Evaluation Annual Report Revised Land and Resource Management Plan Sumter National Forest August 8, 2012 Table of Contents FOREST SUPERVISOR’S CERTIFICATION ___________________________________________________________________________ 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION ___________________________________________________ 4 RESULTS AND REPORT FINDINGS __________________________________________________________________________________ 4 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ______________________________________________________________________________________ 11 CHAPTER 2 MONITORING RESULTS AND FINDINGS ___________________________________________________________ 12 ISSUE 1. ECOSYSTEM CONDITION, HEALTH AND SUSTAINABILITY _______________________________________ 12 Sub-Issue 1.1 – Biological Diversity _____________________________________________________________________________ 12 Sub-Issue 1.2 – Forest Health ___________________________________________________________________________________ 40 Sub-Issue 1.3 – Watershed Condition and Riparian Areas _____________________________________________________ 51 ISSUE 2. SUSTAINABLE MULTIPLE FOREST AND RANGE BENEFITS _______________________________________ 59 Sub-Issue 2.1 – Recreational Opportunities ____________________________________________________________________ 59 Sub-Issue 2.2 – Roadless Areas/Wilderness/Wild and Scenic Rivers __________________________________________ 62 Sub-Issue 2.3 – Heritage Resources _____________________________________________________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • REGIONAL INFLUENCE of LANDSCAPE FEATURES and PROCESSES on FLUVIAL FISH ASSEMBLAGES by Darren Jay Thornbrugh
    REGIONAL INFLUENCE OF LANDSCAPE FEATURES AND PROCESSES ON FLUVIAL FISH ASSEMBLAGES By Darren Jay Thornbrugh A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Fisheries and Wildlife - Doctor of Philosophy 2014 ABSTRACT REGIONAL INFLUENCE OF LANDSCAPE FEATURES AND PROCESSES ON FLUVIAL FISH ASSEMBLAGES By Darren Jay Thornbrugh Habitat fragmentation, degradation and loss are dominant reasons for global declines in biodiversity of fishes in stream systems, and humans have drastically modified landscapes drained by streams due to activities including urbanization and agriculture. Such human land uses are known to change stream habitats through inputs of excess nutrients, sediments, or toxics and through changes in stream flow and thermal regimes, and human land uses have been shown in many studies to negatively affect stream habitats and the fishes they support. Despite this understanding, degradation of stream habitats and fishes continues globally, and freshwater fishes remain one of the most threatened groups of organisms on the planet. Less understood are the specific mechanisms by which land uses affect stream habitats and how these can vary by region, and how additional landscape-scale characteristics may alter effects of human land uses, resulting in regionally-specific responses in stream fishes to stressors. Such differences across regions may render one locale more sensitive to biodiversity loss or fish assemblage change from the same magnitude of anthropogenic disturbance in the landscape and confound efforts to develop and apply specific actions to conserve biodiversity of stream fishes. The goal of this study is to help address these limitations in understanding.
    [Show full text]