DOCSLIB.ORG

SOUTH SWP HYDROPOWER FERC PROJECT NO. 2426-227 Updated

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SOUTH SWP HYDROPOWER FERC PROJECT NO. 2426-227 Updated SOUTH SWP HYDROPOWER FERC PROJECT NO. 2426-227 Updated Study Report From May 1, 2018 through April 30, 2019 May 2019 State of California Los Angeles California Natural Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF WATER WATER AND POWER RESOURCES Hydropower License Planning and Compliance Office This page intentionally left blank. Updated Study Report South SWP Hydropower, FERC Project No. 2426-227 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ............................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Description of the Existing Project and Licensees’ Proposal .................. 1-2 1.3 Relicensing Studies ................................................................................ 1-2 1.4 Use of Field Results and Data Summary Reports .................................. 1-7 1.5 Status of Studies ..................................................................................... 1-7 1.6 Updated Study Report Content and Considerations ............................... 1-7 2.0 STATUS OF EACH STUDY .............................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Aquatic Invasive Species Study .............................................................. 2-5 2.1.1 Completed Work to Date ............................................................ 2-5 2.1.2 Key Accomplishments and Summary of Findings to Date ......... 2-5 2.1.3 Incidental Observations: ............................................................ 2-6 2.1.4 Associated Data Files ................................................................ 2-6 2.1.5 Variances from Study Methods, Schedule or Approach, and Unexpected Field Conditions ..................................................... 2-7 2.1.6 Remaining Work ........................................................................ 2-7 2.2 Quail Lake Fisheries Assessment Study ................................................. 2-7 2.2.1 Completed Work to Date ............................................................ 2-7 2.2.2 Key Accomplishments and Summary of Findings to Date ......... 2-9 2.2.2.1 Boat Electrofishing ...................................................... 2-9 2.2.2.2 Creel Surveys ........................................................... 2-14 2.2.3 Associated Data Files .............................................................. 2-17 2.2.4 Variances from Study Methods, Schedule or Approach, and Abnormalities in Expected Field Conditions ............................. 2-17 2.2.5 Remaining Work ...................................................................... 2-17 2.3 Pyramid Reach Fish Populations Study ................................................ 2-18 2.3.1 Completed Work to Date .......................................................... 2-18 2.3.1.1 Step 1: Classify Mesohabitat and Channels ............. 2-18 2.3.1.2 Step 2: Conduct eDNA Sampling ............................. 2-18 2.3.1.3 Step 3: Select Sampling Sites for Fish Population Sampling .................................................................. 2-18 2.3.1.4 Step 4: Sample Fish Population ............................... 2-19 2.3.2 Key Accomplishments and Summary of Findings to Date ....... 2-20 2.3.2.1 Mesohabitats ............................................................ 2-20 2.3.2.2 eDNA ........................................................................ 2-22 2.3.2.3 Fish Population ......................................................... 2-22 2.3.3 Associated Data Files .............................................................. 2-28 2.3.4 Variances from Study Methods, Schedule or Approach, and Unexpected Field Conditions ................................................... 2-28 2.3.5 Remaining Work ...................................................................... 2-28 2.4 Special-Status Aquatic Amphibians and Semi-Aquatic Snakes Study..................................................................................................... 2-29 2.4.1 Completed Work to Date .......................................................... 2-29 2.4.2 Key Accomplishments and Summary of Findings to Date ....... 2-29 Department of Water Resources/ Page i May 2019 Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Updated Study Report South SWP Hydropower, FERC Project No. 2426-227 2.4.2.1 Foothill Yellow-legged Frog ...................................... 2-29 2.4.2.2 Western Spadefoot ................................................... 2-30 2.4.2.3 Two-Striped Gartersnake and South Coast Gartersnake .............................................................. 2-30 2.4.3 Associated Data Files .............................................................. 2-32 2.4.4 Variances from Study Methods, Schedule or Approach, and Unexpected Field Conditions ................................................... 2-32 2.4.5 Remaining Work ...................................................................... 2-32 2.5 Botanical Resources Study ................................................................... 2-32 2.5.1 Completed Work to Date .......................................................... 2-32 2.5.2 Key Accomplishments and Summary of Findings to Date ....... 2-32 2.5.2.1 Step 2: Special-Status Plant Surveys ....................... 2-32 2.5.2.2 Step 3: Wetland and Riparian Assessment .............. 2-35 2.5.3 Associated Data Files .............................................................. 2-37 2.5.4 Variances from Study Methods, Schedule or Approach, and Unexpected Field Conditions ................................................... 2-39 2.5.5 Remaining Work ...................................................................... 2-39 2.6 Non-Native Invasive Plants Study ......................................................... 2-40 2.6.1 Completed Work to Date .......................................................... 2-40 2.6.2 Key Accomplishments and Summary of Findings to Date ....... 2-40 2.6.3 Associated Data Files .............................................................. 2-47 2.6.4 Variances from Study Methods, Schedule or Approach, and Unexpected Field Conditions ................................................... 2-47 2.6.5 Remaining Work ...................................................................... 2-48 2.7 Special-Status Terrestrial Wildlife Species – California Wildlife Habitat Relationships Study .................................................................. 2-48 2.7.1 Completed Work to Date .......................................................... 2-48 2.7.2 Key Accomplishments and Summary of Findings to Date ....... 2-49 2.7.2.1 CWHR ...................................................................... 2-49 2.7.2.2 Wildlife Movement .................................................... 2-53 2.7.2.3 Incidental Observations ............................................ 2-53 2.7.3 Associated Data Files .............................................................. 2-54 2.7.4 Variances from Study Methods, Schedule or Approach, and Unexpected Field Conditions ................................................... 2-55 2.7.5 Remaining Work ...................................................................... 2-56 2.8 ESA-Listed Plants Study ....................................................................... 2-56 2.8.1 Completed Work to Date .......................................................... 2-56 2.8.2 Key Accomplishments and Summary of Findings to Date ....... 2-56 2.8.3 Associated Data Files .............................................................. 2-63 2.8.4 Variances from Study Methods, Schedule or Approach, and Unexpected Field Conditions ................................................... 2-63 2.8.5 Remaining Work ...................................................................... 2-63 2.9 ESA-Listed Amphibians, California Red-legged Frog Study ................. 2-63 2.9.1 Completed Work to Date .......................................................... 2-63 2.9.2 Key Accomplishments and Summary of Findings To Date ...... 2-63 2.9.3 Associated Data Files .............................................................. 2-66 Department of Water Resources/ Page ii May 2019 Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Updated Study Report South SWP Hydropower, FERC Project No. 2426-227 2.9.4 Variances from Study Methods, Schedule or Approach, and Unexpected Field Conditions ................................................... 2-66 2.9.5 Remaining Work ...................................................................... 2-67 2.10 ESA-Listed Riparian Bird Species, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Least Bell’s Vireo, and Yellow-billed Cuckoo Riparian Habitat Evaluations Study ................................................................................. 2-67 2.10.1 Completed Work to Date .......................................................... 2-67 2.10.2 Key Accomplishments and Summary of Findings to Date ....... 2-68 2.10.2.1 LBVI .......................................................................... 2-68 2.10.2.2 WIFL ......................................................................... 2-68 2.10.2.3 Incidental Observations ............................................ 2-69 2.10.3 Associated Data Files .............................................................. 2-69 2.10.4 Variances
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Center Comments to the California Department of Fish and Game
    July 24, 2006 Ryan Broderick, Director California Department of Fish and Game 1416 Ninth Street, 12th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Improving efficiency of California’s fish hatchery system Dear Director Broderick: On behalf of the Pacific Rivers Council and Center for Biological Diversity, we are writing to express our concerns about the state’s fish hatchery and stocking system and to recommend needed changes that will ensure that the system does not negatively impact California’s native biological diversity. This letter is an update to our letter of August 31, 2005. With this letter, we are enclosing many of the scientific studies we relied on in developing this letter. Fish hatcheries and the stocking of fish into lakes and streams cause numerous measurable, significant environmental effects on California ecosystems. Based on these impacts, numerous policy changes are needed to ensure that the Department of Fish and Game’s (“DFG”) operation of the state’s hatchery and stocking program do not adversely affect California’s environment. Further, as currently operated, the state’s hatchery and stocking program do not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, Administrative Procedures Act, California Endangered Species Act, and federal Endangered Species Act. The impacts to California’s environment, and needed policy changes to bring the state’s hatchery and stocking program into compliance with applicable state and federal laws, are described below. I. FISH STOCKING NEGATIVELY IMPACTS CALIFORNIA’S NATIVE SALMONIDS, INCLUDING THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES Introduced salmonids negatively impact native salmonids in a variety of ways. Moyle, et. al. (1996) notes that “Introduction of non-native fish species has also been the single biggest factor associated with fish declines in the Sierra Nevada.” Moyle also notes that introduced species are contributing to the decline of 18 species of native Sierra Nevada fish species, and are a major factor in the decline of eight of those species.
    [Show full text]
  • State of California
    Upper Piru Creek Wild Trout Management Plan 2012-2017 State of California Department of Fish and Game Heritage and Wild Trout Program South Coast Region Prepared by Roger Bloom, Stephanie Mehalick, and Chris McKibbin 2012 Table of contents Executive summary .................................................................................. 3 Resource status ........................................................................................ 3 Area description ...................................................................................................... 3 Land ownership/administration ............................................................................... 4 Public access .......................................................................................................... 4 Designations ........................................................................................................... 4 Area maps............................................................................................................... 5 Figure 1. Vicinity map of upper Piru Creek watershed ............................................ 5 Figure 2. Map of upper Piru Creek Heritage and Wild Trout-designated reach....... 6 Fishery description.................................................................................................. 6 Figure 3. Photograph of USGS gaging station near confluence of Piru and Buck creeks ..................................................................................................................... 7
    [Show full text]
  • Exhibit a Scope of Work Addendum 1 1
    IFB# 10144736 Page 36 of 55 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK ADDENDUM 1 1. Contractor agrees to provide the Department of Water Resources (DWR) Southern Field Division (SFD), Maintenance and Repair of Card Readers and Gates as described herein. Department has the authority to add and remove equipment, and locations as deemed necessary. Any additional requested work will be serviced at the unit’s rates herein. 2. The services shall be performed at: Various Locations within Southern Field Division: a. William E. Warne Power Plant- North end of Pyramid Lake via Smokey Bear Road off Interstate 5, Gorman, California 93243 b. Oso Pumping Plant and Sub-Center - 300th Street West off Hwy 138 Gorman, California 93536 c. Alamo Power Plant -300th Street West off Hwy 138, Gorman, California 93536 d. Vista Del Lago Visitor Center - 35800 Vista Del Lago Road, Gorman, California 92343 e. Castaic- 31849 North Lake Hughes Road, Castaic, California 91384 f. Pearblossom O&M - 34534 116th Street East, Pearblossom, California 93553 g. Devil Canyon Power Plant - 6900 Devil Canyon Road, San Bernardino, California 92407 h. Mojave Siphon Power Plant -16001 Highway 173, Hesperia, California 92345 i. Cedar Springs Sub Center – 16051 State Highway 173, Hesperia, California 92345 j. Greenspot Pumping Station - Greenspot Road, Highland, California 92346 k. Crafton Hills Pump Station - Mill Creek Road, Mentone, California 92359 l. Cherry Valley Pumping Plant - Mill Creek Road, Mentone, California 92359 m. Citrus Pumping Station - 9401 Opal Avenue, Mentone, California 92359 3. Location: Electric Gates and Type a. Castaic Sub Center: arm gate b. Castaic Lagoon seepage pit: slide gate c.
    [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]
  • Land Areas Report Refresh Date: 10/17/2020 Table 13 - National Wild and Scenic Rivers by State
    Table 13 - National Wild and Scenic Rivers by State * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary development State National Wild and Scenic River Classification Unit Name NFS Acreage Other Acreage Total Acreage Alabama Sipsey Fork West Fork, Alabama WILD William B. Bankhead National Forest 6,134 110 6,244 SCENIC William B. Bankhead National Forest 3,550 505 4,055 Sipsey Fork West Fork, Alabama Totals 9,685 615 10,300 Alabama Totals 9,685 615 10,300 Arizona Fossil Creek, Arizona WILD Coconino National Forest 1,720 0 1,720 Tonto National Forest 1,085 0 1,085 RECREATIONAL Coconino National Forest 1,137 4 1,141 Tonto National Forest 1,136 0 1,136 Fossil Creek, Arizona Totals 5,078 4 5,082 Verde, Arizona WILD Coconino National Forest 525 0 525 Tonto National Forest 6,234 0 6,234 SCENIC Coconino National Forest 2,862 0 2,862 Prescott National Forest 2,148 25 2,173 Tonto National Forest 649 0 649 Verde, Arizona Totals 12,418 25 12,443 Arizona Totals 17,496 29 17,525 2020 Land Areas Report Refresh Date: 10/17/2020 Table 13 - National Wild and Scenic Rivers by State * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary development State National Wild and Scenic River Classification Unit Name NFS Acreage Other Acreage Total Acreage Arkansas Big Piney Creek, Arkansas SCENIC Ozark National Forest 6,448 781 7,229 Big Piney Creek, Arkansas Totals 6,448 781 7,229 Buffalo, Arkansas WILD Ozark National Forest 2,871 0 2,871 SCENIC Ozark National Forest 1,915 0 1,915 Buffalo, Arkansas Totals 4,785 0 4,786
    [Show full text]
  • Simulation of Flows and Water Quality in the California Aqueduct Using DSM2
    Simulation of Flows and Water Quality in the California Aqueduct Using DSM2 Siqing Liu, Bob Suits DWR, Bay Delta Office, Modeling Support Branch 2011 CWEMF Annual Meeting, February 28 –March 2 1 Topics • Project objectives • Aqueduct System modeled • Assumptions / issues with modeling • Model results –Flows / Storage, EC, Bromide 2 Objectives Simulate Aqueduct hydraulics and water quality • 1990 – 2010 period • DSM2 Aqueduct version calibrated by CH2Mhill Achieve 1st step in enabling forecasting Physical System Canals simulated • South Bay Aqueduct (42 miles) • California Aqueduct (444 miles) • East Branch to Silverwood Lake • West Branch to Pyramid Lake (40 miles) • Delta‐Mendota Canal (117 miles) 4 Physical System, cont Pumping Plants Banks Pumping Plant Buena Vista (Check 30) Jones Pumping Plant Teerink (Check 35) South Bay Chrisman (Check 36) O’Neill Pumping-Generating Edmonston (Check 40) Gianelli Pumping-Generating Alamo (Check 42) Dos Amigos (Check 13) Oso (West Branch) Las Perillas (Costal branch) Pearblossom (Check 58) 5 Physical System, cont Check structures and gates • Pools separated by check structures throughout the aqueduct system (SWP: 66, DMC: 21 ) • Gates at check structures regulate flow rates and water surface elevation 6 Physical System, cont Turnout and diversion structures • Water delivered to agricultural and municipal contractors through diversion structures • Over 270 diversion structures on SWP • Over 200 turnouts on DMC 7 Physical System, cont Reservoirs / Lakes Represented as complete mixing of water body •
    [Show full text]
  • 3.12 Hydrology and Water Quality
    3.12 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This section describes the drainage features, stormwater quality, flooding hazards, and flood-protection improvements within the City’s Planning Area. Regulatory agencies governing stormwater quality and flooding hazards are also discussed. The City’s Planning Area is comprised of the City’s boundaries and adopted Sphere of Influence (SOI). The County’s Planning Area consists of unincorporated land within the One Valley One Vision (OVOV) Planning Area boundaries that is outside the City’s boundaries and adopted SOI. Together the City and County Planning Areas comprise the OVOV Planning Area. With implementation of the proposed General Plan goals, objectives, and policies potential impacts on hydrology and water quality would be less than significant. EXISTING CONDITIONS Surface Water Drainage Patterns within City’s Planning Area Surface water drainage patterns are dependent on topography, the amount and location of impervious surfaces, and the type of flood control that is located in an area. The size, or magnitude, of a flood is described by a term called a “recurrence interval.” By studying a long period of flow record for a stream, hydrologists estimate the size of a flood that would have a likelihood of occurring during various intervals. For example, a five-year flood event would occur, on the average, once every five years (and would have a 20 percent chance of occurring in any one year). Although a 100-year flood event is expected to happen only once in a century, there is a 1 percent chance that a flood of that size could happen during any year.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Fish and Game Commission Designated Wild Trout Waters
    The following waters are designated by the Commission as "wild trout waters": 1. American River, North Fork, from Palisade Creek downstream to Iowa Hill Bridge (Placer County). 2. Carson River, East Fork, upstream from confluence with Wolf Creek excluding tributaries (Alpine County). 3. Clavey River, upstream from confluence with Tuolumne River excluding tributaries (Tuolumne County). 4. Fall River, from Pit No. 1 powerhouse intake upstream to origin at Thousand Springs including Spring Creek, but excluding all other tributaries (Shasta County). 5. Feather River, Middle Fork, from Oroville Reservoir upstream to Sloat vehicle bridge, excluding tributaries (Butte and Plumas counties). 6. Hat Creek, from Lake Britton upstream to Hat No. 2 powerhouse (Shasta County). 7. Hot Creek, from Hot Springs upstream to west property line of Hot Creek Ranch (Mono County). 8. Kings River, from Pine Flat Lake upstream to confluence with South and Middle forks excluding tributaries (Fresno County). 9. Kings River, South Fork, from confluence with Middle Fork upstream to western boundary of Kings Canyon National Park excluding tributaries (Fresno County). 10. Merced River, South Fork, from confluence with mainstem Merced River upstream to western boundary of Yosemite National Park excluding tributaries (Mariposa County). 11. Nelson Creek, upstream from confluence with Middle Fork Feather River excluding tributaries (Plumas County). 12. Owens River, from Five Bridges crossing upstream to Pleasant Valley Dam excluding tributaries (Inyo County). 13. Rubicon River, from confluence with Middle Fork American River upstream to Hell Hole Dam excluding tributaries (Placer County). 14. Yellow Creek, from Big Springs downstream to confluence with the North Fork of the Feather River (Plumas County).
    [Show full text]
  • Draft SEIR Chapter 2 Program Description
    1 Chapter 2 2 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 3 2.1 Introduction 4 2.1.1 Program Purpose 5 The purpose of the Proposed Program is to establish and implement a permitting program 6 for suction dredging activities consistent with the requirements of Fish and Game Code 7 section 5653 et seq. and the December 2006 Court Order. 8 2.1.2 Program Objectives 9 The objectives of the Proposed Program are as follows: 10 Comply with the December 2006 Court Order; 11 Promulgate amendments to CDFG’s previous regulations as necessary to 12 effectively implement Fish and Game Code sections 5653 and 5653.9 and other 13 applicable legal authorities to ensure that suction dredge mining will not be 14 deleterious to fish; 15 Develop a program that is implementable within the existing fee structure 16 established by statute for the CDFG’s suction dredge permitting program, as well 17 as the existing fee structure established by the CDFG pursuant to Fish and Game 18 Code section 1600 et seq.; 19 Fulfill CDFG’s mission to manage California's diverse fish, wildlife, and plant 20 resources, and the habitats upon which they depend, for their ecological values 21 and for their use and enjoyment by the public; 22 Ensure that the development of the regulations considers economic costs, 23 practical considerations for implementation, and technological capabilities 24 existing at the time of implementation; and 25 Fulfill the CDFG’s obligation to conserve, protect, and manage fish, wildlife, 26 native plants, and habitats necessary for biologically sustainable populations of 27 those species and as a trustee agency for fish and wildlife resources pursuant to 28 Fish and Game Code section 1802.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    This page intentionally left blank Table of Contents 1. Section 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Overview ................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Hazard Mitigation Planning ...................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 ............................................................................... 1-1 1.4 Community Rating System – Activity 510 Floodplain Management Planning ....... 1-2 1.5 Local Participants ..................................................................................................... 1-2 1.6 Community Profile ................................................................................................... 1-3 1.6.1 Unincorporated Ventura County................................................................... 1-3 1.6.2 Participating Cities ........................................................................................ 1-3 1.6.3 Participating Special Districts ....................................................................... 1-4 1.7 Description of the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ..................................................... 1-6 1.7.1 Section 2: Record of Adoption ..................................................................... 1-6 1.7.2 Section 3: Planning Process .........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Story Behind Your Drinking Water Quality
    German Spanish Korean Chinese Annual Water Quality Report ~ Published June 2009 June Published ~ Report Quality Water Annual In fact, our water was far better than required for most standards most for required than better far was water our fact, In met all drinking water standards for health and safety again this year. year. this again safety and health for standards water drinking all met Aqueduct Las Virgenes Municipal Water District District Water Municipal Virgenes Las California Water Quality Report for 2008 for Report Quality Water Sierra Mtn Snow Mtn Sierra Lake Oroville in northern California northern in Oroville Lake Drinking Water Quality Water Drinking The Story Behind Your Your Behind Story The LVMWD For More Information PRSRT STD Board of Directors US POSTAGE Division 1 LVMWD PAID NO HOLLYWOOD CA Customer Service Charles Caspary PERMIT #8 Phone: (818) 251-2200 President Fax: (818) 251-2109 Division 2 E-mail: [email protected] Glen Peterson Additional information about drinking water safety and Secretary standards can be found at: MWD Representative Division 3 California Department of Public Health EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline Lee Renger Office of Drinking Water (800) 426-4791 Vice President 601 N. 7th St. www.epa.gov/safewater/standards.html Division 4 Sacramento, CA 94234-7320 (Information on how drinking water laws are www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/drinkingwater/Pages/ established) Joseph M. Bowman default.aspx Board Member U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Centers for Disease Control Division 5 (EPA) and Prevention Jeff Smith Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water 1600 Clifton Road Treasurer 401 M Street, SW Atlanta, GA 30333 Washington, DC 20460 www.cdc.gov General Manager www.epa.gov/safewater/ (800) 311-3435 John R.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Environmental Impact Statement - Los Padres National Forest Tamarisk Removal Project
    Final Environmental Impact United States Department of Agriculture Statement Forest Service Los Padres National Forest September 2016 Tamarisk Removal Project Los Padres National Forest Kern, Los Angeles, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties, California In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877- 8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD- 3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992.
    [Show full text]