CHAPTER 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) is preparing this Initial Study in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in order to evaluate the impacts of a proposed project to use detonation cord to kill northern pike (Esox lucius) in Lake Davis. The purpose of this project is to evaluate in the field the use of detonation cord to reduce the number of northern pike in Lake Davis, and, if detonation cord proves effective, to use it on a limited basis in the reservoir during the spring months for up to three years. The project is one of several recommendations put forth by CDFG, the Lake Davis Task Force Steering Committee and the local community to control the northern pike population and keep it contained within the lake. Northern pike is an illegally introduced fish species not native to California. The fast-growing and predatory fish reproduces rapidly and currently threatens the Lake Davis trout fishery. If the pike spreads to other California water bodies, it could threaten native fish populations in those areas. Fish populations at risk include spring, winter, and fall-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Sacramento splittail (Pogonichthys macrolepidotus), and delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus).
Purpose of this Document
The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) is preparing this Initial Study in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in order to evaluate the impacts of a proposed project to use detonation cord to kill the illegally introduced northern pike (Esox lucius) in Lake Davis. The predatory and invasive northern pike poses a serious threat to the local trout fishery and aquatic ecosystems statewide.
Organization of this Document
Following this introductory section, the Project Description section provides detailed information on the proposed project. The Evaluation of Environmental Impacts section contains the environmental checklist questions, evaluation and mitigation for each category of environmental review, as described in the CEQA Guidelines. The checklist for each category of impact is presented, followed by an analysis of any effects the project would have within the category. If a particular impact may be significant, mitigation measures are described that will reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Public Involvement
In 1995, the Save Lake Davis Committee was formed by a group of local residents in response to a CDFG proposal to chemically treat the lake to kill the illegally introduced northern pike. Officials from the City of Portola and Plumas County soon joined, and the group was renamed the Save Lake Davis Coalition. After legal and environmental review, much public protest and debate, and several court challenges, CDFG treated Lake Davis and its tributaries in October 1997 with Nusyn-NoxfishÒ and powdered rotenone. While initially the treatment appeared successful, pike were rediscovered in the reservoir in May 1999.
To address the community’s water quality concerns, CDFG stated that it would not treat the lake with substances containing “Proposition 65” chemicals.1 The agency also suggested to the Coalition that a task force be formed to facilitate communication on the further management of the pike problem. From this suggestion, the Save Lake Davis Task Force Steering Committee evolved.
The Steering Committee held a series of meetings to develop recommendations for dealing with the pike situation. Public input was solicited, and experts were consulted nationwide. These collaborative efforts resulted in the release the following February of Managing Northern Pike at Lake Davis: A Plan for Y2000 (Y2000 Plan). This document makes recommendations for managing the northern pike problem at Lake Davis, including pike removal, called “control and containment” activities, discouraging further illegal introductions, and improving public understanding of the issue.
One of the options identified through this public process was the use of explosives to kill the pike by concussion. However, the Y2000 Plan also recognized that additional study was required to determine the feasibility of such an activity. Throughout 2000, CDFG management efforts focused on other plan recommendations that were determined to have no significant environmental impacts, such as electrofishing, netting and seining (Table 1). At the same time, staff began exploring the detonation cord option.
Two public information meetings were held November 2001 in Portola prior to the completion of this initial study in order to present and discuss the draft detonation cord proposal to interested agencies and members of the public. CDFG has given periodic updates to the Portola City Council, Plumas County Board of Supervisors and the Lake Davis Task Force Steering Committee regarding the status of the proposed project.
Under CEQA, this document will be available for review and comment for a 30-day period. A copy of this initial study and proposed mitigated negative declaration will be available at the Portola and Quincy public libraries, and the California Department of Fish and Game Sacramento Valley and Central Sierra Region in Rancho Cordova, and the California Department of Fish and Game Portola Field Office, 209 Commercial Street, Portola, CA 96122. Supporting documentation will also be available at the Portola field office. This document can be mailed to interested parties upon request. At least one public hearing will be held in Portola area during the comment period. After the comment period, CDFG will consider the comments and determine whether to accept the mitigated negative declaration and proceed with the project. If a new, avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added to reduce or avoid that effect, or if it is determined that the existing mitigation measures will not reduce potential effects to less than significance, this document will be revised and recirculated.
During the review process, please submit comments to:
California Department of Fish and Game
Sacramento Valley and Central Sierra Region
Portola Field Office
P.O. Box 1858
Portola, CA 96122
Attn: Ivan Paulsen
[Table 1]
Project Purpose
The purpose of this project is to evaluate in the field the use of detonation cord to reduce the number of northern pike in Lake Davis. If detonation cord proves effective, it would be used on a limited basis in the reservoir during the spring months for up to three years. Phase I of the project is a 1-acre test shot during the spring spawn in 2002. Information on kill radius, fish densities, water quality, noise and other parameters will be collected. If Phase I indicates that further use of the cord would be feasible and effective, a second phase would be implemented. Phase II of the project is a series of one to six separate one to ten-acre shots, for a total of no more than 60 acres in 2002; and a series of one to fifteen 1-20 acre shots, for a total of no more than 300 acres to be carried out between ice-out (late March) and late May in 2003 and 2004.
Lake Davis currently supports an excellent trout fishery that is an important component of the local tourist-based economy. The fast-growing, highly predaceous pike eat mostly fish, and trout are an ideal prey. There is concern that Lake Davis and other California lakes and reservoirs could lose their trout fishery as a result. (CDFG 2000a, Rutz 1999).
Another concern is that an established pike population in Lake Davis also increases the likelihood that pike could become established in downstream locations, impacting salmonid populations there (CDFG 1997, 2000a). Lake Davis feeds into the Middle Fork Feather River, a tributary to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta that is the primary hydrographic hub of northern and central California. Pike eggs, fry, or adults could move downstream through the system, particularly during flood conditions. There is also the threat that an individual pike enthusiast with a car and a bucket could undertake additional illegal plantings out of either ignorance or malice.
The establishment of a pike population in the Delta would create additional predation on, and competition with, several state or federally listed threatened or endangered fish, including fall-, winter-, and spring-run Chinook salmon, steelhead, delta smelt and Sacramento splittail. The presence of pike could also increase the possibility of future listings or extinctions of other fish species. The successful establishment of pike in the Delta could jeopardize the State’s multi-million dollar commercial and recreational salmon fishery, whose wholesale value exceeds $14,000,000 annually (MFM 2001).
Under terms of Section 5501 of the Fish and Game Code, CDFG is authorized to take any fish which in its opinion is unduly preying on any bird, mammal or fish. Acting within its authority to protect the natural resources of the State of California, CDFG is proposing to use detonation cord to “take” northern pike in Lake Davis.
Background
Northern pike, Esox lucius, were first discovered in California at Frenchman Lake in 1989. Frenchman Lake, elevation 5,588 feet above sea level, is a shallow water-supply and recreational reservoir in Plumas County in the eastern Sierra Nevada Mountains. Frenchman Lake feeds the Middle Fork Feather River and is located approximately 20 miles east and upstream of Lake Davis. After the required legal and environmental review, the California Department of Fish and Game treated the lake with rotenone in 1991, eradicating northern pike in Frenchman Lake.
Pike were subsequently found in the Middle Fork Feather River and waterways in Sierra Valley in 1991 and 1992. These areas were also treated and the pike successfully eradicated (Dill 1997).
In 1994, pike were captured in Lake Davis. Young-of-the-year were captured in 1995 and 1996 indicating that reproduction was occurring. As described in the previous section, CDFG chemically treated the reservoir in the fall of 1997. Over Memorial Day weekend in 1999, however, an angler caught a pike at Lake Davis, and subsequent sampling further confirmed their presence.
Environmental Setting
Lake Davis is located in Plumas County, California, at elevation 5,775 feet above sea level in the Sierra Nevada mountains. Situated in the upper reaches of the Middle Fork Feather River watershed, Lake Davis was constructed in 1967 by the California Department of Water Resources. The reservoir is an impoundment on Big Grizzly Creek, has a surface area of 4,025 acres when full, a capacity of 84,371 acre-feet and an average depth 21 feet. The deepest point of the lake is 108’, just upstream of Big Grizzly Dam.
Below the reservoir, Big Grizzly Creek flows into the Middle Fork Feather River, which flows through the City of Portola. Downstream of the city lies a lengthy, rocky, and remote reach of the river, which flows for over 60 miles to Feather Falls and into Lake Oroville, the main reservoir in the California State Water Project. The Middle Fork Feather River is tributary to the larger Sacramento River system which drains into the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and ultimately the Pacific Ocean (Figure 1).
The reservoir drainage area encompasses about 44 square miles of valley and mountainous terrain with average annual precipitation between 25 inches on the reservoir to 40 inches on the surrounding peaks and ridges (CDWR 1971). Most of the precipitation falls during the winter in the form of heavy snowfall.
Lake Davis has been developed as a source of domestic water for the City of Portola and the Grizzly Lake Resort Improvement District (GLRID). Lake Davis was taken offline prior to the October 1997 chemical treatment, and continues to be offline pending improvements to the water treatment plant. Thus, neither entity currently uses Lake Davis as a water supply. Nearby residences depend on groundwater from private wells.
Access to the Lake Davis area from State Route 70 is along Lake Davis Road from the City of Portola, or along Grizzly Road west of Beckwourth. Grizzly Road (County Road 112) continues along the east shore of the lake, providing access to boat launch facilities, including Lightning Tree Boat Ramp, Fairview Point and Mosquito Slough Fishing Access. At the north end of the lake, the road becomes unpaved, and continues over the mountain ridge into Genessee Valley. Unpaved Forest Service Road 24N10 runs northerly along the west side of the reservoir to the intersection with County Road 112 (Figure 2).
Land adjacent to Lake Davis is within the U.S. Forest Service Plumas National Forest, except for the area at Grizzly Valley Dam, which is owned by the State of California. Parcels south of the reservoir are held by private parties (CDFG 1997). The Smith Peak State Game Refuge, on national forest land, lies directly west of the reservoir.
Lake Davis is in the Lake Davis Management Area of the USFS Beckwourth Ranger District (USFS 1988). The USFS manages logging contracts and grazing leases on these lands. Fishing, boating and swimming are primary summer activities on the reservoir. Outboard motors are permitted, although water skiing is not. Additional nearby recreational activities include hunting, picnicking, and mountain biking. Three family campgrounds have a total of 185 camp sites, four boat launching ramps, a sewage dump station, and a visitor information display. Winter use includes ice fishing, cross country skiing, snowmobiling, and snow play. Use of vehicles off roads and camping outside campgrounds is prohibited between the lake shore and main roads around the lake. Timber production continues in the lake vicinity, but there is no mining activity or known potential for mining (USFS 1988).
During the winter the lake is completely frozen over. The ice breaks up in late March or early April. At the time of ice break up, the temperature throughout the water column is relatively the same from top to bottom. A thermocline forms every summer stratifying the water column into an upper epilimnion and a deeper hypolimnion (CDWR 1971). During the summer the upper epilimnion is relatively warm with good wind driven circulation and is well oxygenated. During the summer months the water in the hypolimnion is cool but with no dissolved oxygen near the bottom, preventing occupancy of this strata of water by virtually all aquatic organisms. In the fall the surface water cools off and approaches the temperature of the hypolimnion initiating a fall turnover and mixing of the upper and lower levels of water in the lake.
Northern Pike Life History in Lake Davis
During the October 1997 treatment, the northern pike were widespread and abundant in the lake. Following the rediscovery of pike in May 1999, CDFG captured an additional 234 that year, and anglers caught at least two. In 2000, CDFG and reporting anglers caught over 600 pike. In 2001, the catch exceeded 6,000, the majority of which were young-of-the-year (Paulsen pers. comm.).
Based on CDFG monitoring over the past three years, the majority of the spawning activity at the lake appears to occur in shallow areas along the northwest margins of the lake in late March-early April, during or immediately following ice-out. Evidence at Lake Davis suggests that the pike are ready to spawn at 2 years of age, when they are about 18-22 inches long. Laboratory measurements of Lake Davis pike indicate that the number of eggs in each female is on the order of 10,000 eggs per pound of body weight. Female pike typically scatter their eggs widely over a large area, generally on flooded vegetation, or in the very shallow vegetated edges of lakes. Eggs incubate for about 12-14 days (Lee 1999). When they hatch, the pike larvae are less than half an inch long and hang onto underwater vegetation from a spot between their eyes. They do this for 5-12 days, then swim to the surface to fill their air bladders and become free-swimming (Billard 1996).
As of November 2001, northern pike were found most frequently in the shallow coves along the northwestern lakeshore, including Mosquito Slough and the Freeman and Cow Creek Cove areas (Figure 2). Although pike densities seem to be greatest in these areas, the species has been caught in areas all around the lake. Radiotelemetry data collected during the spring and summer months indicate that the pike are occupying areas less than 15 feet deep.
Detonation Cord
Detonation cord is a type of explosive manufactured in the form of a flexible cord. It has a wide variety of applications in the mining and construction industries and has also been used underwater as a fish sampling and management tool (Metzger 1986). Reinforced Primacord®, manufactured by Ensign-Bickford Company, was selected for this project because it is flexible, relatively safe to handle, and is not affected by submersion. Primacord® has, as its primary component, an explosive core of pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN), which is wrapped in a polypropylene and cellulose casing.
The size of the Primacord® is measured in the number of grains of explosive per foot (1 grain equals 0.65 milligrams). Either 25- or 50- grain Primacord® would be used for this project. The Primacord® comes wrapped on 1000-foot spools (Ensign-Bickford 1987). Assuming a 50-grain cord, a 1,000-foot reel contains approximately 7 pounds of PETN. Approximately 1,000 feet of Primacord® are proposed for use per 1 acre of lake surface. When initiated with a blasting cap, the Primacord® detonates along its length at a speed of about 23,000 feet per second. When 50-grain cord is detonated between three and six feet underwater, it briefly shoots up a narrow water column five to ten feet high immediately above the cord (CDFG 2001c)
The detonation of explosives (including Primacord®) in or near water produces post-detonation compressive shock waves which rapidly rise to a “peak pressure” and then decay to below ambient hydrostatic pressure. This impulse, or rapid change in pressure, causes most of the impact in fish. The primary site of damage is the swim bladder. Explosive shock waves affect both fish eggs and larvae, although larval fish are less sensitive than those in which the swim bladder has developed. Blast lethality can vary with fish size, species, “orientation of the fish relative to the shock wave, the amount and type of explosive, the detonation depth, target depth, water depth and bottom type.” (Wright,1982). Air bubbles in the water, such as those produced by aquatic plants during photosynthesis, may also reduce blast effectiveness (Abbott pers. comm.). Once detonation occurs and the air bladder within affected fish is damaged, most of the dead fish float to the top of the water surface, though some will sink to the bottom if air is forced completely out of the body cavity. Appendix A includes detailed information on the impact of detonation cord on northern pike and other aquatic life.
Implementation
Phase I of the project proposes a 1-acre test shot in Mosquito Slough during the spring spawn in 2002 (Figure 3). Information on kill radius, fish densities, water quality, noise and other parameters would be collected. If Phase I indicates that further use of the cord would be feasible and effective, a second phase would be implemented. Phase II of the project consists of a series of one to six separate one to ten-acre shots, for a total of no more than 60 acres in 2002; and a series of one to fifteen 1-20 acre shots, for a total of no more than 300 acres to be carried out between ice-out (late March) and late May in 2003 and 2004.
The Phase II project area is in Lake Davis, along the northern and western shorelines (Figure 4). Exact location of each detonation will depend upon locations of pike concentrations during each spring field season and lake level at the time of implementation. Lake elevation affects the size and shape of the lake coves, and varies from year to year depending on winter and spring runoff and management of the Grizzly Dam outlet structure. Depending on location, the maximum depth of the project area would be between 10 and 20 feet.
Figure 4
For both phases, project set-up, including readying boats and vehicles and preparing for road closures, will take place on the day prior to detonation. Primacord® will arrive at a predetermined USFS boat launch facility on the morning of the detonation and be transported by boat to the project site. There will be no storage of Primacord® in Plumas County on Plumas Forest land related to this project. The product will go directly from the delivery truck to the boat, and be detonated within a 4-8 hour period. There will be no leftover cord.
The exact location of each treatment area will be determined based upon DFG field crew observations.
The area to be treated will be segregated from the lake by installation of a blocking net. The block net will be secured to the shoreline using either steel fence posts or anchors or a combination of the two methods. The net has a lead line on the bottom to keep the net anchored to the bottom of the lake. Floats will be used to keep the net suspended from the water surface to the bottom.
Primacord® will be laid out midway in the water column using a system of stakes, floats and weights according to a pattern to be developed by the blasting operator. A team of six divers will lay out the cord. Assuming a 7 meter kill radius for the 50-grain cord, a 1-acre area would require approximately 1000 yards (1 spool) of cord. A 10-acre treatment area would require about 10 spools, etc. The amount of Primacord® to be ordered for each phase of the project will be calculated as lake level, runoff potential, and areas of pike concentration are determined. Primacord® will be deployed in the water as shown in Figures 5 and 6.
Because of the human activity during project set-up, it is not anticipated that any birds will be present in the vicinity of the project. However, should any birds arrive within 500 feet of the project, they will be frightened away prior to initiation of the blast. The blasting operator will be in radio contact with bald eagle monitors and will not initiate a blast until obtaining “all clear” signals from the monitors.
Vehicle access points on nearby roads will be secured in consultation and cooperation with the USFS, California Highway Patrol, and Plumas County. Project areas will be blocked off with a clearly marked line of buoys and patrolled by CDFG or Plumas County law enforcement staff. Recreational use of the boat launching facility will be suspended during transport of the Primacord®.
PHASE I
For the first phase, shortly after ice-out (late March to early April), the detonation cord is proposed for use in a one-acre area in the Mosquito Slough vicinity. Timing of Phase I is designed to coincide with the concentration of pike during the spring spawn. The project area is in Mosquito Slough, a long and shallow cove at the north end of Lake Davis at the mouth of Big Grizzly Creek (Figure 3).
The staging area for Phase I of the project is located at the Mosquito Slough Fishing Access where vehicles are permitted to drive to the lake shore. If lake levels allow, a public viewing area would be established at Fairview Point for the day of the project and cordoned-off for Phase I of the project. CDFG personnel will staff this area, and will patrol the lake and surrounding areas by car, boat, and on foot.
Data collection
The information described below will be collected during Phase I to determine Primacord®.effectiveness and to assist with Phase II planning. Noise measurements and ground movement measurements will also be taken during Phase II of the project.
Kill radius
A similar project resulted in kill radius of 7-9 meters from 50-grain detonation cord (Metzger 1986). This radius is being used as a basis of the layout in Mosquito Slough. To verify this information for the Lake Davis environment, live fish in nylon mesh live-baskets will be suspended at set distances from the cord. Mortality will be checked at set periods after the detonation. Control baskets will be set up at areas 50 and 100 meters from the detonation.
Fish population
During the post-detonation cleanup, all fish will be counted. The information will be used to determine: (1) the density and population structure of pike in Mosquito Slough, ( 2) the number of rainbow trout to be replanted to replace the fish killed in the blast, and (3) other fish species lost during the project.
Water quality parameters
Water quality parameters will be monitored, including turbidity, total suspended solids, volatile and semi-volatile organic chemicals, the expected byproducts described in Appendix D, odor and appearance. Measurement will be taken at the project site and control locations prior to the blast, and at periods following the blast.
Noise
Peak decibel readings will be taken at the blast site and 1 mile from the blast site to determine the level of noise created by the blast. This information will be useful in evaluating the type of sound levels that would be made by blasts in the future and, if necessary, for adjusting mitigation measures.
PHASE II
Phase II of the project consists of a series of one to six separate one to ten-acre shots, for a total of no more than 60 acres in 2002; and a series of one to fifteen 1-20 acre shots, for a total of no more than 300 acres in 2003 and 2004. In each year, the project would be carried out between ice-out (late March) and late May. Shots would take place 1 week or more apart. Phase II timing is designed to avoid the 2 to 3 week period between spawning and the free-swimming stage of the larval pike. This allows time for the newly-spawned pike to develop the air bladders that will make them susceptible to the pressure wave created by the Primacord®. Also, implementation later than May should be avoided because the growth of aquatic vegetation could buffer the impact of the pressure wave. The project area is the northwest portion of the lake between Mosquito Slough and the vicinity of the Camp 5 boat launch (Figure 4). The cord would be used in places where pike are found to be concentrated.
For Phase II, all personnel, including blasting crews, support, and cleanup personnel would access the area by boat. Staging for Primacord® preparation and cleanup crews would be on the lake shore at sites convenient to the area where Primacord® is to be laid out. The staging sites will be adjacent to the project area and will depend on lake level, results of botanical survey, and requirements of the U.S. Forest Service archaeologist.
CLEANUP (BOTH PHASES)
Immediately following the detonation of the cord, cleanup crews will arrive in boats launched at USFS boat ramps. Most visible fish will be collected by boat and by walking along the shore. All northern pike will be returned to the field office for laboratory work. A reasonable portion of the carcasses will be left in the lake to provide forage for bald eagles. In addition, a portion of the non-pike carcasses will be refrigerated or frozen and then placed in the blast area for several days following the blast to provide forage for bald eagles. Remaining fish carcasses will be taken to a sanitary landfill for disposal.
SAFETY (BOTH PHASES)
This project will be implemented by a highly experienced team of explosive experts operating under regulatory guidelines of all relevant federal, state and local agencies. Federal regulatory guidelines are set by the Mining Enforcement and Safety Administration (MESA), the Federal Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) and the Mining Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). Because the project will be conducted in waters adjacent to U.S. Forest Service lands, the detonation team will also follow U.S. Forest Service regulations. These regulations are contained in the book “Guidelines for using, storing and transporting explosives and blasting materials,” published by the U.S. Forest Service Missoula Technology and Development Program (2000). The detonation team will also follow regulations of the California Occupational Health and Safety Administration (CalOSHA) for hazardous materials and explosives. The CDFG detonation team will obtain a blasting permit from Plumas County.
The detonation team leader and at least one other team member will have up-to-date blasting licenses issued by the CalOSHA. Persons holding a blasting license must be trained, and pass a test administered by the CalOSHA. Applicants for a blasting license are also screened by the California Department of Justice. The detonation team leader will also have had recent training in first aid and CPR.
Prior to handling the explosives and setting them in place, the detonation team leader will review safety procedures with all team members and survey the site for operational safety. Detonation cord will not be deployed if there is a danger from a lightning storm or a fire hazard.
Safe distances are estimated in feet, laterally from the closest submerged (minimum 3 feet of depth below water) portion for detonation cord (50 grain/foot).
Subject Safe distance (feet) Humans on land 100 Divers or Swimmers 1,400-2,000 Fish (with swimbladder) 200-300 Birds (on lake surface) 50 Birds (in flight) 500 Structures on land 20 Public Boaters 1,500 Aquatic mammals or waterfowl (diving) 700 Waterfowl (floating) 350 Terrestrial fauna 100 Source: Hempen pers. comm.
The safe distance for humans should not be confused with the proper distance for spectators and individuals who may not be aware of the detonation cord operation. All visitors should remain beyond flagged zones in excess of 1,500 feet from the closest point of the placed detonation cord.
Onssite risk management and accident avoidance training by the detonation team leader the day before or the day of each detonation will include: first aid, accident avoidance measures such as minimizing the chance of slips, trips, and falls, communication and concurrences with local authorities, routes to hospitals, public notice and public relations, and public observation of the tests. The discussion should consider all elements of detonation cord placement, connections, firing, warning, misfire evaluation and reporting, and post-shot evaluations. Revision of operations or risks shall be in writing and shared with all field personnel before being accomplished.
Monitoring will include air and ground vibration monitoring, with instrumentation providing digital recordings, and field observations for each detonation. Underwater monitoring will be employed on the first few detonations in 2002, and on the first detonation exceeding 10 acres.
PERMITS AND APPROVALS
The following permits/approvals/consultations may be required:
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
A federal ESA consultation is required with the USFWS for any project that could potentially affect listed threatened or endangered species. The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), which is federally threatened, may potentially be affected by this project as described in the Biological Resources section. The mitigations described in that section are the result of informal consultation with the USFWS.
California Department of Fish and Game
CESA requires informal or formal consultation when a project may affect a state-listed plant or animal. The bald eagle is the only state-listed species that could potentially be affected by the proposed project. When informal or formal ESA consultation is required for a federally listed species that is also state-listed, CDFG normally accepts the results of the federal conclusions and does not initiate a formal process of its own.
Regional Water Quality Control Board
A report of Waste Discharge listing anticipated chemicals discharged to Lake Davis and/or a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit may be required.
California Department of Health Services
A list of expected chemicals introduced into Lake Davis will be submitted to DHS for review and approval.
Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District
The NSAQMD has reviewed the project and its anticipated air emissions. No permit will be required at the scale proposed for this project, based upon current information (Appendix B).
Plumas County
A blasting permit will be obtained from the county by the blasting operator. In addition CDFG is coordinating with county departments related to the various aspects of the project, including Environmental Health, Public Works, and the Sheriff Department.
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the following checklist:
Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality X Biological Resources X Cultural Resources Geology and Soils X Hazards and Hazardous Materials X Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems X Mandatory Findings of Significance Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in this document have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated.” An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, nothing further is required because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
____________________________________________ _____________________________________
Signature Date
____________________________________________ _____________________________________
Printed Name For
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers make account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) “Negative Declaration: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, “Earlier Analyses,” may be cross-referenced.
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available ro review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever from is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
f) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
g) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less that significance.
| Would the project: | Potentially Significant Impact | Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated | Less than Significant Impact | No Impact |
| a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? | X | |||
| b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? | X | |||
| c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character of quality of the site and its surroundings? | X | |||
| d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? | X |
Setting
Most shoreline locations provide views of the lake and adjacent mountains. This area has very high recreational and aesthetic values.
Methodology
Aspects of the proposed project that would change the visual characteristics of Lake Davis and the surrounding shoreline were evaluated to determine consistency or conflict with the existing aesthetic context. Visual consistency would occur if the project would not result in permanent or persistent changes in the visual setting, or would enhance existing aesthetic values. Visual conflict would occur if the project would cause additional daytime glare or nighttime fugitive lighting on a permanent or long-lived basis, or cause substantial physical alterations that would permanently reduce the value of scenic vistas.
Evaluation
a) The project is short-lived in nature. The visual elements of the project includes motor vehicles, boats, and traffic control devices, all of which would be removed from the project area except for the short periods of time needed to implement the project. Fish carcasses will be removed from the lake and shoreline during the afternoon and days immediately following each blast.
b) See discussion for item (a).
c) See discussion for item (a).
d) The only sources of glare involved in the project will be from motor vehicles, which are already present in the project area.
| Would the project: | Potentially Significant Impact | Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated | Less than Significant Impact | No Impact |
| a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? | X | |||
| b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? | X | |||
| c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? | X |
Setting
Timber, livestock, field crops (Alfalfa Hay, Meadow Hay, Grain Hay, Irrigated, Meadow and Range Pasture) and miscellaneous crops (Nursery, Apiary, Seed, Fruit, Potatoes, Grain, etc.) make up the majority of agriculture in Plumas County (Plumas-Sierra Counties 2001). With the exception of timber, none of these activities occur within 0.5 miles of the site. Timber stands in the vicinity of Lake Davis are periodically harvested. Livestock grazing takes place on National Forest lands adjacent to project.
Methodology
The potential for impacts upon agricultural resources was evaluated by determining whether project activities would use agricultural lands, alter agricultural resources, or affect agricultural operations and practices.
Evaluation
a) The project involves no agricultural conversion.
b) The project will not conflict with existing zoning for Lake Davis and adjacent lands. Lands zoned for agricultural uses adjacent to Lake Davis will not be substantially affected by project activities. The project will not occur on properties subject to a Williamson Act contract.
c) No project activities will occur on designated farmland or cause changes that would lead to the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use.
| Would the project: | Potentially Significant Impact | Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated | Less than Significant Impact | No Impact |
| a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? | X | |||
| b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? | X | |||
| c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal and state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? | X | |||
| d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? | X | |||
| e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? |
X |
Setting
Lake Davis is within the Mountain Counties Air Basin as defined by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The Basin is comprised of Plumas, Sierra, Nevada, Placer (middle portion), El Dorado (western portion), Amador, Calaveras, Tuolumne, and Mariposa counties. The CARB has officially designated the Mountain Counties Air Basin as “ozone impacted” by transport from those areas (13 C.C.R. § 70500).
The Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District (NSAQMD) has jurisdiction over air quality issues in the Lake Davis area. Air pollution is regulated by two types of standards: emission standards and ambient air quality standards. Emission standards are the levels of air pollutants that a source is allowed to release into the air. Ambient air quality standards are levels of air pollutants that if exceeded are considered unhealthy to breathe. An area is said to be in attainment if there have been no violations of an ambient air quality standard. If there have been violations of a standard, then the state or federal government designates the area “nonattainment” for that pollutant.
The NSAQMD is currently considered in attainment for all the federal standards, but is nonattainment for the state standard for particulate matter less than 10 microns diameter (PM10) and ozone. The NSAQMD's state nonattainment designation for ozone is currently deemed to be due to transport of ozone and its precursors from upwind areas such as Truckee. With the possible exception of the Truckee area and its growing PM10 problems, air quality in the NSAQMD may be stabilizing, partly due to flat growth.
Methodology
The potential for impacts upon air quality was evaluated by determining whether project activities would impact air quality, primarily through the analysis of volatile Primacord® detonation products reported by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories (LLNL) (Carlsen 2001). For example, impacts to air quality were evaluated by assessing the potential health risks associated with release of volatile detonation products (Appendix C).
Evaluation
a) The use of Primacord® will produce small amounts of several categories of gases. Specific chemical produced during detonation that may become gaseous can be described in several major categories as follows:
Total Organic Gases (TOGs): TOG, as defined by the CARB, means compounds containing carbon excluding carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbide, and ammonium carbide. TOGs include the Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) benzene, toluene, xylenes, ethylbenzene, styrene, naphthalene, bis-2ethylhexyl phthalate, and methane. These VOCs were reported by LLNL as by-products of the detonation of Primacord ®. (Carlsen 2001).
Details on the concentrations of specific VOCs and other chemicals are presented in Appendix C and in the Hydrology and Water Quality section of this report. Because of the low concentration levels of VOCs detected by LLNL during laboratory experiments, it is not expected that these VOCs chemicals would be detectable in air under typical field conditions and therefore they are not expected to be present in concentrations sufficient to contribute to TOG.
Methane production from the detonation of Primacord® results in an increase of approximately 0.000003 percent from TOG levels measured in Plumas County in 2000 (Table 2). The production of carbon monoxide due to Primacord® detonation is about 0.0003 percent of the amount produced in Plumas County in 2000 (Table 2). Detonation of Primacord ® will not produce ROG, NOX, SOX, PM, PM10, or ozone. Because anticipated emissions from the use of Primacord® will not exceed emission standards established by NSAQMD, no conflict or obstruction exists.
Reactive Organic Gases (ROGs): ROG means TOG minus the CARB “exempt” compounds (e.g., methane, ethane, and CFCs).
Other Gases: Other gases include carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen, hydrogen, and ammonia. Analysis for these gases was not done by LLNL. However, the generation of these gases during the detonation of PETN has been demonstrated (Ornellas et al. 1966). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that they will be produced during detonation of Primacord® . Oxides of nitrogen and sulphur (NOX and SOX, respectively), particulate matter (PM), and particulate matter of less than 10 microns (PM10) are not expected to be produced.
b) As described in (a), no air quality standards will be exceeded.
c) The NSAQMD is currently considered nonattainment for the state standard for particulate matter less than 10 microns diameter (PM10) and ozone. The use of Primacord® will not produce ozone or PM10, therefore no net increase of these air quality parameters will occur.
d) Based on laboratory studies conducted by LLNL (Carlsen 2001), it has been determined that the project will not result in substantial concentrations of pollutants in air. Any VOCs produced by the detonation of Primacord® will be in such low concentrations as to be undetectable. An evaluation of human health and ecological risk posed by Primacord® use was conducted that indicates it is unlikely that adverse health effects will result (Appendix C).
e) Use of Primacord® produces an acrid odor under laboratory conditions (Carlsen, pers comm.). This odor, however, was detected under a detonation cord to water ratio about 164,000 times greater than proposed for use in the lake (Appendix C, Table 1.) For this reason, and because rapid mixing and dilution of airborne detonation products will occur prior to air reaching the shore, objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people are not anticipated.
| Would the project: | Potentially Significant Impact | Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated | Less than Significant Impact | No Impact |
| a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? | X | |||
| b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game | X | |||
| c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? | X | |||
| d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? | X | |||
| e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? | X | |||
| f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? | X |
Setting
Vegetation
The plant life surrounding Lake Davis is characterized as an east side pine complex. Vegetation is sagebrush with scattered pine on the flat terrain near the reservoir shore, changing to a dense stand of Jeffrey pine, ponderosa pine and fir on the steeper slopes and ridges. Wet stringer meadows surrounded by dense stands of lodgepole pine extend along the major tributary streams on the west side of the reservoir. Habitat types include big sagebrush, eastside pine, lodgepole, and mixed conifer (CDFG 1997). The lake shore below the high water mark varies in width depending on reservoir level, and is sparsely vegetated, mostly with annuals. At the high water level, there is a sparse scattering of willow (Salix spp.)
The bottom of Mosquito Slough and coves along the northwest lakeshore is soft and silty. Aquatic vegetation includes waterweed (Elodea spp.), Ceratophyllum demersum, (Potomageton spp.), Ranunculus aquatilus, arum-leaved arrow-head (Sagittaria cuneata) and filamentous algae. Aquatic vegetation begins growing during the spring, in some years creating nearly 100 percent cover of aquatic vegetation up to 6 feet tall from mid summer through fall (Burmester 2001). Between the lake level and high-water mark, vegetation consists of sedges and forbs tolerant of inundation.
Wildlife
Wildlife species that occur in the Lake Davis basin typify those of eastside pine habitats (CDFG 1996). Two species of big game use the general area: deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and black bear (Ursus americanus) (CDWR 1973). The entire shoreline constitutes deer summer range and is also used by bears and upland game species. Upland game species include western gray and Douglas squirrels (Sciurus griseus, Tamiasciurus douglassii), cottontails (Sylvilagus nuttallii), hares (Lepus spp.), wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), and blue grouse (Dendragapus obscurus) (CDWR 1973).
Fourteen species of waterfowl use the seasonal and permanent wetlands for nesting in the spring and frequently concentrate in the area during fall migration (USFS 1988). The entire surface of Lake Davis provides waterfowl habitat (CDWR 1973). Mammals include beavers (Castor canadensis), coyotes (Canis latrans), mountain lions (Felis concolor), shrews (Sorex spp.), moles (Scapanus spp.), mice, gophers (Thomomys spp.), and raccoons (Procyon lotor) Bird species include hummingbirds, woodpeckers, flycatchers, jays, chickadees, warblers, sparrows, and finches. Birds of prey known to use the area include red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), northern harriers (Circus cyaneus), American kestrels (Falco sparverius), golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos), great-horned owls (Bubo virginianus), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), osprey (Pandion haliaetus) and northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis). (CDWR 1973, Chester pers. comm.).
Phytoplankton and Zooplankton
Phytoplankton, the microscopic single cell algae that live in the water column, are the base of the Lake Davis food chain. They are preyed upon by zooplankton that make up much of the food base for trout and northern pike. Zooplankton found in Lake Davis include cladocerans (Daphnia pulex and Bosmtha spp.), rotifer (Asplancha spp.), and copepods of orders Calanoida and Cyclopoida. Many species of aquatic insects partially dependent on the reservoir include caddisflies, mayflies, dragonflies, and water striders (CDFG 1997).
Benthic Invertebrates
Bottom samples indicate the presence of several species of midge (Chironomidae) larvae. The most common are Chironomus atrella and Chaoborus flavicans (CDWR & Plumas County 1971). Leeches (Helobdella stagnalis and Dina spp.) are also periodically abundant and may be found attached to waders’ legs. Aquatic snails (Physa spp.and Gyraulus spp.) have also been collected, as have nonnative crayfishes (Pastifasticus leniusculus) (CDFG 1997).
Amphibians
Field crews have observed Pacific tree frog (Hyla regilla) and western toad (Bufo boreas) at the reservoir (Banka, pers. comm.).
Fish
The fisheries resources of Lake Davis are artificially maintained through intensive stocking programs by the California Department of Fish and Game. Species found in Lake Davis include rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus), northern pike (Esox lucius), golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), brown bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus), brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), brown trout (Salmo trutta), and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). The species composition reflects catch from 8 types of fishing gear in 1999 and 2000.
Methodology
A list of special-status plant and wildlife species that could potentially occur in the project area was compiled from information contained in a current review of the California Natural Diversity Database, a project species list from the USFWS, and the list of California Species of Special Concern. Known special-status plant locations were obtained from the U.S. Forest Service Beckwourth Ranger District, and a CDFG botanical survey. These lists were compared with elevations and habitat types and conditions at the project area.
A variety of environmental documents prepared for other projects were reviewed. Forest Service biologists were interviewed regarding known locations and sitings of special-status wildlife species. An August 2001 rare-plant survey was completed for Mosquito Slough (Burmester 2001). The study area included Fairview Point (the Phase I public viewing area), the Mosquito Slough Fishing Access (staging area for Phase I), and the shoreline along Mosquito Slough. Phase II areas were not covered during this survey. In addition, technical advisors for the biological aspects of the project visited the lake, with focus on the Mosquito Slough area in April 2001.
For purposes of this document, special-status species are those that are protected under the federal ESA, CESA, and CEQA, as well as those that are identified as imperiled or sensitive by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) and the USFS. These species may be state or federally endangered or threatened, state or federally proposed or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered, state or federal species of concern, CNPS List 1B, List 2, List 3, or List 4 plants, or they may be identified as sensitive by the USFS. Only those species that are threatened, endangered, or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered are formally protected under state or federal endangered species acts. All others receive varying levels of protection under CEQA as species that are considered rare. The federal ESA does not recognize species of concern as a separate protected category, but these species are tracked by the Sacramento office of the USFWS. Status definitions are provided in Tables 3, 4, and 5.
In order to evaluate the potential impact of the noise produced by the underwater detonations on the bald eagle, interviews were conducted with persons experienced with underwater use of detonation cord to determine the type and decibel (dB) range of noise to be expected (Appendix D). This information was compared with blast overpressure (noise) standards applied by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to an open-air blasting demolition project USACOE 2000, Appendix D). A literature review was conducted for noise effects on bald eagles.
Evaluation
a) The project has the potential to impact candidate, sensitive, or special-status species as described below:
Special-status Plants
Seven special-status plants could potentially occur in the Phase I and Phase II project areas: lens-pod milk-vetch (Astragalus lentiformis), Plumas ivesia (Ivesia serioleuca), Sierra Valley ivesia (Ivesia aperta var. aperta), Egg Lake monkey flower (Mimulus pygmaeus), sticky pyrrocoma (Pyrrocoma lucida), Sheldon’s sedge (Carex sheldonii), and sweet marsh butterweed (Senecio hydrophiloides). See Table 3 for additional information on these plants. Several of these plants were included in rare-plant surveys in portions of the general project area.
A spot check of the Mosquito Slough area conducted in 2000 found that the potential for sensitive species along the immediate margins of the reservoir appeared to be low (Dittes, 2000). A more thorough survey conducted in 2001 confirmed this assessment. There is a moderate to high potential for occurrence of lens-pod milk-vetch along the forested margins above the high water mark.
A previously documented lens-pod milk-vetch population is located near the study area (CNDDB, 2001), 40 feet above the maximum high-water mark and 400 feet west of the Mosquito Slough Fishing Access.
Mitigation #1 (Sensitive Plants): A CDFG botanist will visit each site in advance of project activities and will establish exclusion fencing around any sensitive plant resources. Early spring is not the right time of year to identify rare plants in the Lake Davis region, so exclusion fencing, including a 10-foot buffer, will be established around populations established on previous surveys or the botanist’s personal knowledge. No project activities will be allowed within fenced areas. To protect special-status plants from trampling and destruction, a comprehensive rare-plant survey will be conducted in the spring/summer of 2002.
Special-status Wildlife
A number of special-status wildlife species have the potential to occur in the project vicinity. Detailed information is provided in Table 4. Of these, only the state and federally endangered bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) the great grey owl (Strix nebulosa), a state endangered species, and the osprey (Pandion haliaetus), a California species of concern, could potentially be affected by the proposed project.
Bald eagle
Two Lake Davis bald eagle nesting territories have been occupied over the past 24 years: the Cow Creek/Crocker territory and the Mosquito Slough territory. Nest locations within each territory have varied from year to year, and territories have not always been occupied each year. The known nest sites within the Cow Creek/Crocker territory were not occupied in 2000 or 2001. In 2001, the Mosquito Slough nest was from 1 to 1.5 miles from the lake edge. The distance from the nest to the lake shoreline varies by year and by season with lake level. The nest is farther from shore when the lake level is lower. In California, bald eagles lay eggs between mid-February and mid-April After an incubation period of about five weeks, the young stay at the nest site and are fed by the parents for about 12 weeks until fledging.
Project-related effects on Lake Davis bald eagles include potential disturbance to nesting birds, and temporary reductions in localized fish prey.
Injury
In very close proximity, the detonation of Primacord®, even underwater, could cause injury to bald eagles. Close proximity would be directly over the water at the instant of the shot, within the water column that shoots up. For an open air blasting project in Missouri, a distance of 500 feet was established to ensure bald eagle safety (Appendix D). Although underwater use of Primacord® results in far less danger from flying debris or blast overpressure (noise) than open air blasting, this 500 foot guideline will nevertheless be used to ensure against any possibility of injury. See Mitigation #2 (Safe Zone) (page 52).
Disturbance
Use of detonation cord at Lake Davis could startle nesting bald eagles in the area. Bald eagles could be startled by the blast, resulting in broken eggs, injured chicks, or nest abandonment. Newly fledged birds could also potentially fall from the nest if startled. Such disturbance would be considered “take” under the federal Endangered Species Act.
The likelihood of nest abandonment would vary with individual bird, species, and the relative age of the nest or nestlings. Abandonment would be most likely to occur in the early stages of nesting when a pair’s energetic investment in the nest was relatively low. It would be less likely to occur when there were eggs in the nest, and least likely to occur when there were nestlings in the nest and the energetic investment in the offspring had been considerable.
Noise from the underwater detonation of Primacord® is substantially different than that from dynamite blasting , gunshots, or Primacord® detonation in the open air, as described in the Noise section. Appendix D provides the technical evaluation conducted to determine the sound levels caused by detonation of cord blasts underwater.
Noise levels that would be generated by the Lake Davis project are estimated to be a maximum of 100 dB for a 50-acre blast area within a 500-foot radius of the blast site (Appendix D). The Mosquito Slough bald eagle nest in 2001 was a minimum of one mile away from the blast site. At 5,000 feet (roughly one mile), noise from a 50-acre blast would be 82 dB. For reference, a standard of 128dB was established for the protection of bald eagles during an open-air blasting demolition project in Missouri (Appendix D). Given that a 1 dB reduction in noise is perceptible to the human ear and a 6 dB reduction makes a noise roughly half as loud (Abbott pers. comm.), 82 dB is roughly one-eighth as loud as 128 dB.
These numbers do not incorporate the beneficial noise-reducing effects of vegetation. If there is substantial forest between the noise source and the nest, which there is at the Mosquito Slough nest, the actual noise level could be reduced by up to 5 dB in the first 100 feet of forest and another 5 dB for the second 100 feet. Beyond a distance of 100 feet, further attenuation is negligible. This could decrease the noise at 5,000 feet to 72 dB, roughly equivalent to freeway traffic at 50 feet, a lawn mower at 50 feet, or noise in a large office (Abbott pers. comm.).
There is currently little, if any, information on the response of bald eagles to blasting. As presented in Appendix D (USACOE 2000), gunshots were the only noises, of a variety of auditory stimuli, that elicited overt escape behavior in one study of wintering bald eagles, but eagles observed were clearly more tolerant of noises when the sources were partially or totally concealed from view (Stalmaster and Newman 1978). Russel et al. (1993), evaluating nest success at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, a test facility intensively used by bald eagles where weapons firing is a common occurrence, concluded that nest success there was not significantly different than the national average.
A variety of loud and/or sharp, sudden noises are part of ambient conditions near Lake Davis eagle nesting territories from recreation and forestry activities, including firearm discharge and thunder. Deer and waterfowl hunting are permitted during parts of the fall and winter. Snowmobiling is a common activity along County Road 112 (about 0.5 mile from the Mosquito Slough nest site), and logging is carried out in the area. Lake Davis bald eagles have already acclimated to a variety of human activities and noises. Nevertheless, blasting noise at Lake Davis would be a new and novel stimulus to the eagles nesting there. While it would not be expected to create the kind of disturbance at the 2001 eagle nest that would result in nest abandonment or reproductive failure, nesting eagles will be monitored during all shots for any signs of disturbance. See Mitigation #3, Nest Monitoring, pages 52-53.
In future years, bald eagle nests may establish active nests in different locations than those currently known and/or current nest locations may end up closer to shore, and therefore closer to potential blast sites, at higher lake levels. Under no circumstances, however, would PrimacordÒ be detonated closer than 500 feet to a nest; therefore, it is clear that blast noise would never be higher at a nest than 100 dB. Indeed, it is unlikely that blasting would be permitted closer than 1,000 or more feet. Under these conditions, no significant disturbance effects to bald eagles would be expected.
Prey base
Surveys of prey remains at the Cow Creek bald eagle nest site prior to the 1997 rotenone treatment indicated that fish (particularly brown bullhead) and coots were the main prey items. Remains of waterfowl and gull were also found. Bald eagles also commonly feed on carrion and small mammals. Eagles nesting at Lake Davis and Frenchman Lake from 1983 to 1992 had a diet that included birds and mammals (54 percent) and fish (46 percent) (Jackman, et. al. 1999). While the bird is not known to cache food supplies, food may accumulate at the nest where nestlings will use it “day after day” until brought fresh food. Eagles are opportunistic foragers, and the presence of available dead fish improves foraging conditions (Buehler, 2000). During a temporary depression in fish abundance in small areas of the lake, eagles would use the rest of the lake for foraging and would be expected to rely on other prey resources as necessary.
A temporary alteration of the distribution of fish prey is expected with the proposed blasts. If fully implemented, the project would affect up to 2 percent of the lake surface area in 2002, and up to 10 percent of the surface area in 2003 and 2004. If the fish foraged upon by eagles were evenly distributed in the lake, the project could remove a similar percentage of fish biomass. Foraging success, however, is influenced by a large number of factors, including visibility of fish, location of perches, and angle of the sun (Jurek pers. comm.; Jackman 1999) Foraging success may increase immediately following the blast; past experience indicates that eagles take advantage of the the temporary abundance of dead fish, a temporary glut, after a detonation cord blast (Abbott pers. comm.).
Mitigation #2 (Safe Zone): Blasting will not occur if eagles are within 500 ft of the blasting zone. Blasting will take place only after any eagles have moved outside of the blasting zone into "safe zone" beyond 500 feet.
Mitigation #3 (Nest Monitoring): Monitors situated at pre-established eagle nest observation locations and the blast operator at the blast site will be in communication with each other. The monitor at the nest site will signal an all-clear prior to shot initiation. The shot may not be initiated without the all-clear from the monitor. Bald eagles will be observed by the monitor at the nest site to determine their behavioral response to the Phase I test shot. These results will be reported to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. Large shots should not be initiated until observations indicate that the birds noticed the earlier shots but hadn’t shown alarm or intent to flush. At any indication that blasting activities could result in nest abandonment, the project will cease until alternatives are developed that reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation #4 (Territory Monitoring): The Cow Creek and Mosquito Slough nesting territories will be monitored in late winter and early spring in order to locate new nest sites. Locations of any new occupied nest sites will be reported to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine if there are locations where use of detonation cord should be avoided.
Mitigation #5 (Restocking): Following the blasts each spring, CDFG will stock double the estimated number of trout killed with catchable size trout. This stocking will be in addition to the regular planting allotment for Lake Davis. Successful implementation of the project will therefore result in a temporary increase in the number of rainbow trout in the reservoir, and a temporary decrease in the numbers of brown bullhead, northern pike, golden shiner, pumpkinseed sunfish, and, possibly, largemouth bass.
Mitigation #6 (Supplemental Feeding): For several days following each blast, field crews will float a reasonable portion of the trout killed in the blast in the treated area as easily accessible prey for foraging bald eagles. These efforts will be monitored in 2002, and reported to the USFWS. Feeding plans for 2003 and 2004 may be altered based upon monitoring results, as determined by USFWS.
Great Gray Owl
The great gray owl, Strix nebulosa, a state-listed endangered species is a rarely seen resident at 1400 to 2300 m (4500-7500 ft.) in the Sierra Nevada from the vicinity of Quincy, Plumas County south to the Yosemite region. There are more than 50 pairs in California. They are historically known from the Big Grizzly Creek area. Recent surveys (circa 1997) indicate the presence of a couple of these owls from the west side of Plumas National Forest but not within the Lake Davis area (Winter, pers. comm. 2001). An individual was detected about three miles from the Mosquito Slough area of Lake Davis in July 2000 (Powers, pers. comm.).
The great gray owl exhibits no regular seasonal migration. Most individuals are apparently resident, but there are few winter records. Their home range and territory are probably the same with an estimated home range in California of 239-258 hectares (591-638 acres). The great gray owl may also be nomadic, following prey populations. Food availability causes some non-breeders, post-breeders, and juveniles to move to higher elevations after the breeding season and to lower elevations in the winter.
During the breeding season, great gray owls are found in Sierra Nevada mixed conifer, lodgepole pine, and dense old-growth and second-growth red fir forests. Except for birds dispersing, nearly all great gray owls are found in or near meadows within these forest habitats. Important meadow characteristics include meadow size, the height of grass, the portion of the meadow covered by nongrass-forb vegetation, and the livestock grazing pressure. Forests surrounding meadows require a high density of large diameter snags for nests and a high canopy closure to provide cover and a cooler sub-canopy microclimate. Foraging occurs on wet meadows and prey items include meadow dwelling rodents, especially pocket gophers and vols, but also includes birds, up to grouse size.
Owls attempting to nest probably return to the same nesting area each year. Nests usually are placed in the broken tops of snags or large conifer trees, 35 feet or more from the ground. Nest trees must be large enough to provide a nest for a 30-inch long owl. Normally, two or three eggs are laid approximately from March through May. Incubation lasts about thirty days, nestlings remain in the nest about three weeks, and the flightless young remain in the vicinity of the nest for another three to five weeks. These fledglings then stay in the nesting territory for several more months until they can fend for themselves (CDFG 2000c, 2002).
Portions of the project area, particularly the western end of Mosquito Slough, are adjacent to open wet meadows, potential foraging habitat. The Phase I test shot is about ½ to ½ miles east of this area depending on lake level.
Mitigation #7 (Owl Monitoring): During the spring of 2002, a great gray owl survey will be conducted in areas of suitable habitat adjacent to the project areas. If nest locations are found, buffer areas of 1400’ will be established to ensure no disturbance to the birds.
Osprey
The osprey is a California Species of Concern. Four osprey nests were documented at Lake Davis in 1999 (USFS 1999). The nearest nest was one mile from the project area. Osprey are regularly observed foraging at Lake Davis during the spring and summer. The birds arrive at nesting areas in March and April. Project implementation methods ensure that no osprey will be foraging at the project site during implementation.
Intense human activity, such as logging, in the vicinity of nesting osprey has been shown to negatively influence nest productivity. However, the same study found no difference in nest productivity between nests exposed to little or no disturbance and those nests exposed to relatively constant disturbance throughout the nesting period. (Levenson 1984). Recommendations for restricting the distance that timber harvesting may occur to osprey nests range from 0.4 kilometers (1325 feet) (Lind 1972) and 100 meters (328 feet) (Adams 1979).
The sporadic and temporary nature of the detonation cord project makes it much different from a logging operation. The detonation set-up and implementation will occur in one day, with cleanup crews visiting the site for several days afterward. Noise anticipated from the project will be temporary (one shot per day, with a maximum of 15 shots per year, at different locations in the project area). The noise is estimated to be between a quick sound of 88-98 dB at 500 feet. The noise will be quieter if there is intervening vegetation (Appendix D). The intensity of disturbance resulting from the cleanup crews will not differ markedly from normal recreational activities at the lake.
Implementation of this project does not conflict with any policies protecting osprey, and will not have a significant impact. However, as a precaution, osprey activity at Lake Davis will be monitored during the winter and early spring to document any new nest sites. Detonation cord will not be used any nearer than 1400 feet from an active nest site, to insure against disturbance that could influence nest productivity.
b) Project activities will take place along shorelines and within the reservoir. When water levels are low, the vegetated shoreline is well above the water line and project activities would not affect riparian vegetation. When lake is full, scattered willow thickets may occur along the lake edge in the project area. No project activities will affect this vegetation.
c) No wetland delineations were conducted but wetlands do occur in the project area (Burmester 2001). Under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the US Army Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over these wetlands as well as “other waters” of the United States, which includes Lake Davis. Because there will be no project-related earth-moving, no substantial adverse effects to wetlands are expected through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. The Corps of Engineers presented CDFG with a letter dated December 5, 2000, stating that it would not take jurisdiction over wetlands in the project area.
d) Table 5 summarizes information on special-status fisheries resources noted in a letter from the USFWS (USFWS 2000). All species of special concern are located below Feather Falls and Oroville Dam. There are no threatened or endangered species of fish nor are there species of special concern in Lake Davis, Mosquito Slough, or the lower reach of Big Grizzly Creek above Lake Davis. No aspect of the proposed project would create an impediment to fish or wildlife movements or the use of native wildlife nursery sites By reducing the number of northern pike in Lake Davis, the project may have a beneficial effect on downstream populations of native fish species.
e) No such policies exist for the project area.
f) No such plans exist for the project area.
| Would the project: | Potentially Significant Impact | Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated | Less than Significant Impact | No Impact |
| a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? | X | |||
| b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? | X | |||
| c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? | X | |||
| d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? | X |
Setting
Plumas County has a rich history of agriculture, gold mining, logging, railroads, and Native American habitation. According to the California Native Heritage Commission (CNHC), 604 Native Americans live in Plumas County (CNAHC 2001). This group is comprised of primarily Maidu Indians.
Prehistoric lithic scatters occur at several shoreline locations within the project area. Historic sites in the general area include sawmill sites and an old railroad grade. The Beckwourth Trail is also located in the project area (Northeast Center 2000). Locations of pre-historic and historic habitation along the original Grizzly Creek drainage within the project vicinity have been inundated by the reservoir since 1967, and while many are no longer accessible, sensitive sites may occur in the vicinity of the lake shore depending on lake level (Elliott pers. comm.).
Methodology
Existing literature about the project area was reviewed, maps from the Northeastern Information Center Historical Resources Information System were examined, and a U.S. Forest Service archaeologist with specific knowledge of the project area was consulted to determine the sensitivity of the present-day shoreline to disturbance of heritage resources. Locations of project activities were compared with known historic or pre-historic resources.
Evaluation
a) Historic and prehistoric resource sites exist within the project area. Some of these areas may be inundated at current lake levels, but could be exposed as lake levels change. Most project activities will be carried out from the lake surface and will not affect these resources. The light foot traffic of cleanup crews and the beaching of small boats which may occur for several days following each shot will not affect these resources. The temporary placement of metal posts into the shoreline to hold blocking nets, has the potential to affect these sites. The impact will be avoided by implementing the following measure:
Mitigation #8(Cultural Resource Clearance): If it is necessary to install metal posts to temporarily hold blocking nets, CDFG will consult with a U.S. Forest Service archaeologist familiar with area cultural resources prior to project operations. The archaeologist will direct all such activities to areas where there will be no impact. Stakes will be placed only in locations where cultural resources are not significantly affected..
b) See discussion for item (a).
c) No paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature was identified within the project area.
d) See discussion for item (a).
| Would the project: | Potentially Significant Impact | Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated | Less than Significant Impact | No Impact |
| a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: |
X | |||
|
||||
|
X | |||
|
X | |||
|
X | |||
| b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? | X | |||
| c) Be locatd on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? | X | |||
| d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? | X | |||
| e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? | X |
Setting
A review of the hydrology and geology of the project area has previously been documented (Oberdorfer 1999). The valley basin occupied by Lake Davis occupies a block-faulted valley basin with a geologic structure dominated by faulting that has a generally similar pattern of NW-SE oriented faults. A fault considered to have the greatest importance with regard both to the structural origin of Grizzly Valley and probably also to influencing the flow of ground water toward the lake from Crocker Mountain and away from the lake down the alignment of lower Big Grizzly Creek is located north of the vicinity of Grizzly Valley Dam. The fault structurally and topographically separates lower Grizzly Valley from Crocker Mountain.
The soils of Plumas County have generally been characterized (NRCS 2001). The Plumas Series is the dominant soils group in the area. The series is a group of very deep, well drained soils which are formed in mixed alluvium, Plumas soils are located on alluvial fans. Slopes are 0-5 percent. Elevation is 3,400 to 3,550 feet.
Methodology
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) calculated peak particle velocities anticipated at Grizzly Dam, and concluded that detonation of 1000 feet of detonation cord would result in low peak particle velocities which would be “barely measurable, if at all” one mile away. They concluded that there is no potential for impact to the Grizzly Valley Dam from Primacord® use in the reservoir (Appendix E).
Evaluation
a i-iv) A significant distance exists between the areas where Primacord® is being considered for use and the location of the dam. Energy released from the detonation of Primacord® would be sufficiently attenuated long before it reached the dam and therefore no structural damage to the dam would result. DWR calculations indicate that energy released by Primacord® detonation would be insufficient to disrupt, increase or induce further geologic faulting beneath the lake. The project will have no impact on earthquake faults, seismic related events or landslides.
b) The project will have no impact on soil erosion or topsoil.
c) See discussion for item (a) above.
d) The project does not involve construction on expansive soils.
e) The project does not involve the use of septic tanks or sewers.
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
| Would the project: | Potentially Significant Impact | Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated | Less than Significant Impact | No Impact |
| a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? | X | |||
| b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? | X | |||
| c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school? |
X | |||
| d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? | X | |||
| e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing
or working in the project area? |
X | |||
| f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? | X | |||
| g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? | X | |||
| h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? | X |
Setting
The specific type of detonation cord that will be used is Primacord®, manufactured by Ensign Bickford (Ensign Bickford 2001). Primacord® contains pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN) coated with polypropylene and cellulose. PETN is the primary component that explodes on percussion, is more sensitive to shock than trinitrotoluene (TNT), and detonates at 210 C (Budavari 1987). Primacord® is considered a DOT-Hazard Class 1 Explosive. A Material Safety Data Sheet is included at the end of Appendix C.
The use of Primacord® produces several detonation products. The Hydrology and Water Quality section and Appendix C present data on the occurrence and risk of exposure to these chemicals.
Project safety procedures are described in Chapter 2, Project Description.
Evaluation
a) Primacord® is considered a hazardous material. However, Primacord® is regularly used in surface and underground mining, quarry and construction blasting. It is also widely used by resource management agencies for the management of fish. Its performance characteristics are well understood, and the manufacturer has developed methods for its safe handling and use.
Risks associated with the use of detonation cord are primarily dependent on the skills and knowledge of the people using them. When used prudently, there is almost no risk. Use of Primacord® by an inexperienced or careless individual is very risky. CDFG has been using explosives in California waters on a regular basis for many years. Appendix F lists projects that the detonation team leader Robert Snyder, Fish Habitat Supervisor, has participated in since 1979. The project will be carried out by an experienced team under established and proven safety procedures described in Chapter 2, Project Description.
b) See (a) above.
c) No known schools are within a 0.25 miles of Lake Davis.
d) The project site is not a hazardous materials site.
e) The project site is not within an airport use plan and is not within 2 miles of an airport.
f) The project site is not within the vicinity of a known private airstrip
g) The project will not interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans for the area.
h) The project will not expose people or structures to dangers involving wildland fires.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
| Would the project: | Potentially Significant Impact | Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated | Less than Significant Impact | No Impact |
| a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? | X | |||
| b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? | X | |||
| c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? | X | |||
| d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? | X | |||
| e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? | X | |||
| f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? | X | |||
| g) Place housing within100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? | X | |||
| h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede
or redirect flood flows? |
X | |||
| i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? | X | |||
| j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? | X |
Setting
A review of the hydrology and geology of the Lake Davis area has previously been reviewed (Oberdorfer 1999). The aquifer in the vicinity of Lake Davis does not appear to be confined and the hydraulic gradient generally follows the topography. This means that the lake receives water from the surrounding ground water, not vice versa. Because the ground water to the south and east is higher than lake level, water cannot flow uphill from the lake to these locations.
An exception to this flow regime exists below the dam where water levels in wells are lower than the water surface in Lake Davis. In this region there is a potential driving force for flow of water out of the lake and into drinking water aquifers. However, higher water levels along the eastern side of the valley indicate that the bulk of the water flowing to wells in this area most likely comes down from Crocker Mountain. Aquifers along the south side of the lake, to the east of the lake, and underlying Portola are unlikely to be hydraulically connected to Lake Davis. Regarding surface water, it is highly unlikely that surface water released from the dam enters the ground water aquifers adjacent to the creek.
Methodology
In order to determine the by-products resulting from the detonation of Primacord®, the scientific literature was examined (Boumsellek 1991; Ornellas et al 1966; Renner et al 1980; Sloger 1998; and Young 1984). CDFG hired Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) to detonate Primacord® under highly concentrated laboratory conditions and to measure resulting water quality (Carlsen 2001). A screening level human health and ecological risk assessment, including calculations of the dilution of Primacord® detonation products in water, was also completed (Appendix C). The document includes the assumptions used to estimate risk due to these chemicals. Results of this risk assessment were used to evaluate water quality.
Evaluation
a) The detonation of Primacord® produces several chemicals including compounds of nitrogen, such as ammonia and cyanide, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as toluene, xylenes and benzene (Appendix C and Carlsen 2001). Once diluted in the reservoir under field conditions, these chemicals would be in concentrations below current limits of detection. The concentrations would not be high enough to exceed water quality standards or to result in potential adverse human health or ecological effects. See Appendix C, Table 1 for estimates of the anticipated concentrations of chemicals produced upon detonation of Primacord®.
Visible residue from the Primacord® coating has not been observed in the field (Snyder pers. comm.). However, laboratory detonation of about 4” of the cord resulted in the production of dark plastic particulate matter with a volume of about 50-60 milliliters (LLNL 2001).
Mitigation #9 (Skimming): The water surface will be monitored by CDFG prior to and following the Phase I test shot. If a significant amount of residue is visible, CDFG, in consultation with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Board, will skim the area with fine-mesh nets to remove such debris. This skimming will take place following all subsequent shots as required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board to ensure no water quality impacts occur.
b) Because Primacord® detonation products are diluted and subsequently degrade relatively quickly in the Lake Davis environment, they will have no anticipated influence on groundwater. This conclusion is further supported by the unlikely significant connection between Lake Davis and underlying ground water aquifers in the area.
c) Some foot traffic and beaching of small boats will occur during implementation and cleanup. These activities will not alter drainage or cause erosion or siltation.
d) See answer to c) above.
e) See answer to c) above.
f) See answer to a) above.
g) No new housing is part of the project.
h) See answer to g) above.
i) The detonation of Primacord® is at a distance sufficiently far from the Grizzly Valley Dam and of such small magnitude, that very low peak pressure velocities will result at the dam, and no damage to the dam will occur (Appendix E).
j) The magnitude of water disturbance caused by the use of Primacord® is insufficient to cause inundation of any type.
| Would the project: | Potentially Significant Impact | Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated | Less than Significant Impact | No Impact |
| a) Physically divide an established community? | X | |||
| b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.? | X | |||
| c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? | X |
Setting
Lake Davis is within the Plumas National Forest. The Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan directs the management of the forest in order to guide the efficient use and protection of forest resources, fulfill legislative requirements, and balance local, regional, and national needs (USFS 1988). The area immediately around Lake Davis is zoned “general forest” and has a General Plan Designation of “Important Timber” (Plumas County 1987).
Evaluation
a) The project is located on the reservoir, is temporary in nature, and will not physically divide an established community.
b) The Plumas County General Plan designates Lake Davis as a “special water area,” since it has been developed for domestic water use. (County of Plumas 1987). Activities at the lake must therefore not conflict with this use (McMorrow pers. comm.). In addition, since Lake Davis has been developed for drinking water, the California Department of Health Services (DHS) must approve use of any chemicals within the reservoir (see Permits and Approvals). This project will not conflict with the “special water use” designation or DHS requirements described in the Water Quality section (pages 65-68).
Designated as an “Important Timber Area” interspersed with areas designated “Timberland Production Zone,” logging activities frequently occur in the vicinity of the project. During the spring months the USFS does not permit logging contractors to begin work until roads are sufficiently dry (Cole pers. comm.). CDFG will coordinate with the Plumas National Forest in order to ensure that the timing of any part of the project does not conflict with timber operations on lands adjacent to or affected by the project.
c) There are no habitat conservation plans (HCPs) or natural community conservation plans (NCCPs) in the vicinity of the project.
| Would the project: | Potentially Significant Impact | Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated | Less than Significant Impact | No Impact |
| a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? | X | |||
| b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? | X |
Setting
Mineral resources in Plumas County include crushed rock, sand and gravel (National Atlas 2001). Two mines in Plumas County are known to produce several rare minerals. The Merdock mine produces clinoclase, cornwallite, and ferrimolybdite and the California-Engel mine produces cyanotrichite and stilbite (Dakota Matrix Minerals 2001).
Evaluation
a) No mineral resources exist in the area of Lake Davis that would be impacted by the project; therefore, no loss of availability will occur (National Atlas 2001).
b) Recovery sites are within 20 miles of Lake Davis (National Atlas 2001); therefore, no loss of availability will occur.
| Would the project: | Potentially Significant Impact | Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated | Less than Significant Impact | No Impact |
| a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? | X | |||
| b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? | X | |||
| c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? | X | |||
| d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? | X | |||
| e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? | X | |||
| f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? | X |
Setting
The Lake Davis area is rural and generally quiet, punctuated by sounds generated by recreation and timber harvesting activities, wildlife, and seasonal weather. Sounds from human activities include motor vehicle operations (e.g., automobiles and trucks, motorcycles, snowmobiles, power boats and personal watercraft), electrical power generators, chainsaws, and firearms (e.g., rifles and shotguns). Seasonal weather sounds include wind and thunder. The amount and incidence of noise varies with changes in access to the area and hunting seasons, yet intermittent noise is present throughout the year and at all locations within the project area.
Methodology
A technical evaluation was conducted to determine the sound level that would be caused by the project. Estimates of sound levels were made based on interviews with individuals who have witnessed underwater detonation cord blasting. Reported noise conditions by observers standing between 50 and 600 feet from the blast was estimated to be between 60 and 110 decibels (Appendix D). Considerable reduction in noise levels occurs with distance (Abbott pers. comm.).
The noise created by detonation cord ignited underwater is substantially different than the sound of a gun shot or fire works. The underwater detonation noise tends to be muffled and more drawn out than a single sharp rifle report. This muffling effect is a result of poor acoustic coupling between water and air resulting in the downward reflection of much of the acoustic energy towards the bottom where some of it again reflected back to the surface. The loudness as it is heard in the air is consequently much reduced from what might be expected for an equivalent amount of gunpowder. Many factors affect the loudness such as the depth of the cord. If it is ignited in very shallow water the sound is louder and if it is quite deep in the water it may not be heard hardly at all (Abbot pers. comm.).
In addition, area land uses were evaluated to determine the nature and location of “sensitive receptors.” This evaluation indicated there are no residences or other long-term uses inhabited by humans within, or immediately adjacent to the project area. The only sensitive receptors within the area potentially affected by substantially elevated noise levels due to Primacord® blasts are two bald eagle nests, as described and evaluated in the Biological Resources section.
The frequency of noise generated by the project was also used as a factor in assessing noise impacts. Full project implementation would result in up to 7 separate detonation noises over a period of approximately 2 months in the spring of 2002, and up to 20 separate detonation noises over the same time period in 2003 and 2004.
Evaluation
a) There are no human sensitive receptors in residence or constant presence within the project area. The project will not expose people to ambient noise levels greater than those allowed by established standards or ordinances. Personnel involved in blasting activities will be subject to employee safety and ear protection protocols.
b) The project will not generate substantial groundborne vibration or noise due to sound pressure attenuation within the water column. Any groundborne vibration or noise will be short-lived.
c) The periodic and short term nature of the proposed project will not result in a permanent increase in ambient noise levels within the project area.
d) Primacord® blasts are expected to cause percussive noise at substantially higher sound levels than ambient conditions. Personnel involved in blasting activities will be subject to employee safety and ear protection protocols. Intermittent noise from blasts will be rapidly attenuated over distance (and by screening vegetation and terrain), such that temporary detonation sound levels at recreational use areas will be short-lived and non-harmful to human visitors.
e) The project area is not within two miles of a public airport.
f) The project area is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
| Would the project: | Potentially Significant Impact | Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated | Less than Significant Impact | No Impact |
| a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? | X | |||
| b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing units, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? |
X | |||
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? |
X |
Setting
There are no permanent residences within or immediately adjacent to the project area. The transient population consists of public resource management staff, timber harvesting personnel, hunters, anglers, and other recreational visitors. There are 185 seasonal camping sites at the three reservoir campgrounds.
The full-time population of nearby Portola is estimated at 2,300 persons. Temporary and transient increases in population of Portola and the project area are anticipated during periods of project implementation. The number of additional people, however, not expected to exceed 15-20 personnel, well within seasonal daily fluctuations in people visiting the lake.
Methodology
The potential for impacts upon population and housing is a function of the proposal’s effects upon existing housing or population within the project area and the project’s capacity to induce population growth in the project area. The severity of impacts is determined by the relative magnitude and duration of change in housing capacity and population.
Evaluation
a) The project will not affect population growth in the area.
b) There are no housing units in the project area that would be affected by the proposal.
c) The project will not displace any residents or cause the need to construct replacement housing.
| Would the project: | Potentially Significant Impact | Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated | Less than Significant Impact | No Impact |
| a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any or the public services: | X | |||
|
X | |||
|
X | |||
|
X | |||
|
X | |||
|
X |
Setting
Public services are provided in the area of the project site by a variety of agencies including the City of Portola, County of Plumas and USFS.
Lake Davis is developed as a domestic water supply. When the system is operating, water drawn from the reservoir is routed to the Plumas County Flood Control District Water Treatment Plant where it is filtered, chlorinated and delivered to the City of Portola and the GLRID (CDFG 1997). Currently, the treatment plant is not operational and neither the City or GLRID is using Lake Davis water until improvements to the plant are completed. Both entities, however, have contracts for Lake Davis water with the Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, a state water contractor.
Evaluation
a) Because the Primacord® detonation products are diluted and degrade in the reservoir, it is not anticipated that problems with the water treatment facility, once operational, will occur due to their presence. (See Appendix C, Table 1 for estimates of the anticipated concentrations of chemicals produced upon detonation of Primacord®).
The project will not impact fire protection services.
The project may temporarily require the services of Plumas County Sheriff Department and U.S. Forest Service personnel to assist in traffic management. However, this is not expected to have a significant long-term effect on police services.
The project will not impact schools.
Use of the boat launch facility where Primacord® is being loaded will be temporarily suspended while the cord is loaded. Access to portions of Lake Davis and its shoreline will be restricted during project implementation. This closure will be both short-term and temporary and will not substantially impact recreational services at the reservoir.
| Would the project: | Potentially Significant Impact | Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated | Less than Significant Impact | No Impact |
| a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? | X | |||
| b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse effect on the environment? | X |
Setting
Lake Davis is managed for water-oriented recreation. Summer use includes camping, fishing, and boating. Winter use includes ice fishing, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing and snowmobiling (USFS 1988). Other recreation uses of Lake Davis include bird-watching, picnicking, and hiking. There were an estimated 9,000 hours of recreational use and 2,200 angler hours in 1994 (CDFG 1997).
The California Department of Fish and Game maintains the rainbow trout fishery through an annual spring stocking program. Because of the presence of the northern pike, only catchable-size trout are being stocked.
Boat launch ramps are located at Mallard Cove, Honker Cove, Old Camp Five and Lightning Tree (Dirksen and Reeves 1990). Car top launching facilities are located at Coot Bay and Mallard Cove. During dry years, as the lake draws down during the summer, boat launch ramps may become unuseable. For example, in the late summer of 2001, the only useable boat ramp was Camp Five.
The USFS maintains three family-style campgrounds with 185 camp sites: Grizzly, Grasshopper Flat and Lightning Tree (CDFG 1997). The campgrounds are operated by Thousand Trails, Inc. under contract with the USFS. In 1994, the campgrounds had an estimated 400,000 visitor use-days (CDFG 1997). Approximately 39,000 paid campers used the three campgrounds in 2000. In May 2000, Lightning Tree Campground had 1,025 users.
Deer, game birds, waterfowl, and bear are hunted in the fall. It is estimated that during the month of October, up to 150 hunters utilize the Lake Davis area (Moraga pers. comm.) Hunting season for coyote remains open year round.
Evaluation
a) The project is likely to temporarily draw publicity to Lake Davis. A minor influx of visitors at Fairview Point may occur on the day of the 1-acre Phase I detonation. Proposed traffic control measures and setting up viewing in designated areas will limit impacts to the project site and therefore no anticipated deterioration of facilities or increases in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks will occur.
The use of Primacord® will result in a localized, minor, and temporary decrease in fish abundance. Following the blasts each spring, CDFG will stock twice the estimated number of trout killed with catchable-size trout. This allotment is in addition to the regular annual planting allotment of catchable-size trout.
Because access will be prohibited to the boat launch ramp being used to transport Primacord® on the days of the project, a temporary loss of recreational use will occur at this location. Boat launching use would shift to other facilities at the reservoir during this period. The total closure time at the Lightning Tree, Camp Five or Honker Cove boat launch facilities would be no more than seven weekday mornings during late March, April and May 2002, and during no more than 20 weekday mornings during the same spring period in 2003 and 2004. Weekend use will not be affected, and implementation will be coordinated to avoid holidays and 3-day weekends.
b) The project will not require the construction or expansion of recreations facilities.
XV. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
| Would the project: | Potentially Significant Impact | Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated | Less than Significant Impact | No Impact |
| a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? | X | |||
| b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways? |
X | |||
| c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase
in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety
risks? |
X | |||
| d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? |
X | |||
| e) Result in inadequate emergency access? |
X | |||
| f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? |
X | |||
| g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? | X |
Setting
Access to the Lake Davis area from State Route 70 is on West Street and then Lake Davis Road from the City of Portola, or along Grizzly Road west of Beckwourth. Grizzly Road (County Road 112) continues along the east shore of the lake, providing access to boat launch facilities, including Lightning Tree Boat Ramp, Fairview Point and Mosquito Slough Fishing Access. At the north end of the lake the road becomes unpaved and continues over the mountain ridge into Genessee Valley. Unpaved Forest Service Road 24N10 runs north on the west side of the reservoir to the intersection with County Road 112 (Figure 2).
Impacts
a) Temporary increases of traffic to and from the staging areas will occur through the life of the project. On each of the project days, this traffic will consist of CDFG pick-up trucks transporting personnel and equipment necessary to complete the project. In addition, the Primacord® supplier will transport the product to the site in a truck. This activity is short-lived and will not cause a substantial increase in traffic.
b) Plumas County does not have a congestion management agency. Traffic due to the project may cause temporary, short-term traffic on roads leading and surrounding Lake Davis. This traffic, because of its temporary nature, is not expected to cause significant congestion.
c) No significant additional air traffic is anticipated as a result of the project.
d) The project will not result in the alteration of existing roads or uses that are incompatible with existing roads.
e) Several hours before detonation, traffic in the vicinity of staging areas where Primacord® is being handled and prepared will be controlled to prevent access by unauthorized personnel. The project will not affect emergency access.
f) Adequate parking is available for the limited number of vehicles to be used in the project.
g) The project will not influence or affect alternative transportation.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
| Would the project: | Potentially Significant Impact | Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated | Less than Significant Impact | No Impact |
| a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board? |
X | |||
| b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? | X | |||
| c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? | X | |||
| d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed? |
X | |||
| e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? | X | |||
| f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate
the project’s solid waste disposal needs? |
X | |||
| g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? | X |
Setting
The Plumas-Sierra Rural Electric Cooperative and Sierra Pacific Power Company supply the City of Portola and residences along Lake Davis and Grizzly Roads with electricity, satellite television, and internet services.
As described under Public Services, Lake Davis is developed as a domestic water supply for the City of Portola and the GLRID, although currently neither entity is using the water pending improvements to the treatment plant. GLRID serves homes in the Delleker area (west of Portola) as well as residences along Grizzly Road.
Evaluation
a) Use of Primacord® will not cause any exceedence of wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (See Water Quality pages 65-68. A report of Waste Discharge listing anticipated chemicals discharged to Lake Davis will be submitted to the RWQCB for approval. In addition, CDFG will obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit prior to project implementation.
b) Primacord® detonation products are not anticipated to be present in high enough concentrations to require any water or wastewater treatment. The project will not require installation of new treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities.
c) The project has no influence on storm water conveyance or treatment.
d) The project does not require a water supply.
e) Primacord® detonation products are not anticipated to be present in high enough concentrations to require any wastewater treatment, or treatment by a drinking water treatment facility.
f) After detonation, fish carcasses will be collected and taken to an appropriately permitted facility for sanitary disposal.
g) Disposal of fish carcasses will be carried out in compliance with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Section 15065 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines requires the Department of Fish & Game to determine whether the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, which would require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the use of detonation cord to control northern pike at Lake Davis. The analysis presented in this Initial Study was designed to assess the potential for, and probable severity of, environmental impacts, with particular attention to those issues that are of special concern to people in the local community or to agencies responsible for resources affected by the project. Where the analysis determined that there was the potential for significant adverse environmental impacts, this document presents measures to avoid or mitigate impacts to a less-than-significant level of severity. The following findings are a summary and restatement of determinations presented in detail for each environmental factor in the previous sections of the Initial Study.
| Would the project: | Potentially Significant Impact | Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated | Less than Significant Impact | No Impact |
| a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? | X | |||
| b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? | X | |||
| c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? | X |
Evaluation
a) Historical, cultural, and archaeological resource sites exist within the project area. Some of these areas may be inundated at current lake levels, but could be exposed as lake levels change. The proposal calls for project activities to be carried out from the lake surface and therefore they will not affect these resources. The light foot traffic of cleanup crews and the beaching of small boats which may occur for several days following each shot will not affect these resources. The temporary placement of metal posts into the shoreline to hold blocking nets has the potential to affect these sites. Mitigation #8 Cultural Resource Clearance), page 58, will be implemented to ensure these impacts will be at less-than-significant levels.
As discussed in the Hydrology and Water Quality section, a number of chemicals are produced during the detonation of Primacord®. Over time, these chemicals quickly disperse in the area and/or are broken down in the lake. Their generation and transient presence in the environment is unlikely to pose adverse human or ecological health effects. If detonation results in the production of visible particulate matter, this will be removed by skimming (in consultation with the Regional Water Quality Control Board) as described in Mitigation #9 (Skimming), page 67.
Intermittent Primacord® blasts are expected to cause few or no effects upon the aquatic habitat of fish since resulting pressure waves will only affect organisms that have gas-filled organs, such as lungs or a swim bladder, and inhabit the water column in shallow portions of the lake. The proposed timing of blasts is designed to occur before extensive growth of aquatic vegetation in the spring. The removal of pike will reduce the likelihood of northern pike impact on the state’s anadromous fisheries downstream. Selective restocking of trout will assist in preserving the desired fish community in Lake Davis.
The use of Primacord® will diminish the number of fish in limited locations of Lake Davis. The intended reduction of northern pike will be a significant beneficial impact, given the tremendous threat posed by pike to the fisheries resources of Lake Davis and State of California. The loss of fish, however, can affect the prey base available to bald eagles (a species that is federally listed as threatened and state-listed as endangered) that forage and nest in the area. As part of the project, CDFG will offset the loss of trout by enumerating the trout killed in each blast and restocking twice as many catchable-size trout the same spring, after detonations for the season are completed, as described in Mitigation #5 (Restocking), page 53. Supplemental feeding of bald eagles will also occur, as described in Mitigation #6 (Supplemental Feeding), page 53. Consequently, short-term fish depletion is not anticipated to adversely impact raptors or other predators dependant on fish in Lake Davis.
Percussive noise substantially above ambient sound levels will be produced by detonation of Primacord®. The only sensitive receptors present in the project area are bald eagles at two known nest sites. In very close proximity, the blasts could cause injury or frighten bald eagles, potentially leading to adverse health or behavioral effects on the birds. The analysis conducted for the Initial Study has determined the minimum separation distance from a blast site to avoid direct blast injury and ensure the attenuation of noise to safe levels. Mitigation #2 (Safe Zone) and Mitigation #3 (Nest Monitoring), and Mitigation #4 (Territory Monitoring), described on pages 52-53 will be implemented to avoid or reduce potential noise impacts to bald eagles to a less-than-significant level.
Based on the available scientific information and implementation of proposed mitigation measures to avoid or minimize impacts upon the bald eagle, it appears that eagles will not be affected by the use of Primacord®. Short-term behavioral alteration may occur, such as a startle response, but it is not anticipated that this response will result in nest abandonment or reproductive failure. Sound level monitoring during Phase I and Phase II implementation will be used to supplement or alter this determination, if necessary.
Any impacts to great grey owl will be fully mitigated as described in Mitigation #7 (Owl Monitoring) (page 54).
Any impacts to sensitive plant species will be fully mitigated as described in Mitigation #1 (Sensitive Plants) (page 49).
b) The proposed use of Primacord® is one of a number of management techniques being used, or proposed for use by the Department of Fish & Game to control northern pike at Lake Davis. The set of fisheries management techniques implemented by the northern pike control program is presented in Table 1. The Department has found that each technique has varying efficacy and efficiency for the purpose of controlling northern pike at different locations and under differing conditions. Taken individually, the impacts of these techniques and the proposed use of Primacord® are limited. The intent of the proposed project is to develop an additional control technique that, in combination with others in the northern pike control program, will provide significant beneficial impacts through improved pike removal and consequent protection of recreational fisheries resources in Lake Davis and protection of native fisheries resources in other parts of California.
Previous application of rotenone and Nusyn-Noxfish® to Lake Davis caused substantial water quality impacts. The Department implemented measures to protect the potable water supply for residents dependent upon Lake Davis, as well as measures to recover the trout fishery of the lake. The current water quality and the sport fishery indicate a complete recovery to pre-treatment conditions, with the notable inclusion of continued presence (and apparently increasing abundance) of northern pike. The proposed use of Primacord® is the only contemporary or probable northern pike control measure that would involve the discharge of toxic compounds into the lake water and surrounding air. Considering the rapid rate of dispersal, magnitude of dilution, rate of break-down in water of PETN detonation by-products, and the absence of water or air quality impacts due to the other measures used to control northern pike, the individually limited impacts of the proposal upon water and air quality do not contribute to adversely impact the environment individually or cumulatively.
c) Based upon the Screening Level Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment contained in Appendix C, no anticipated significant adverse direct or indirect effects on humans are anticipated from exposure to Primacord® detonation products.
Primacord® is considered a hazardous material and contains PETN which explodes on percussion and is more sensitive to shock than trinitrotoluene (TNT). Primacord® is considered a DOT-Hazard Class 1 Explosive. Improper handling or transportation of Primacord® may pose a threat to people, structures, or wildlands, either through injury from explosion or damage from fire. Proper handling and transportation is ensured by the safety procedures incorporated into the project as described in the Project Description.
Adams, J. K. and V. E. Scott, 1979. Timber Harvest Modification around an Active Osprey Nest, Western Birds 10: 157-158.
Bass, D.G., Jr., and V.G. Hitt. 1977. Quantitative sampling of warm-water stream fish with detonating cord. Proceedings of the Annual Conference Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 31:519-521.
Bayley, P.B., and D.J. Austen. 1988. Comparison of detonating cord and rotenone for sampling fish in warmwater impoundments. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 8:310-316.
Billard 1996. Reproduction of pike: gametogenesis, gamete biology and early development. Chapter 2 in Pike: Biology and exploitation. Edited by John F. Craig. Chapman and Hall, London.
Boumsellek, S. et al. 1991. Negative Ion Formation in the Explosives RDX, PETN, and TNT by Using the Reverse Electron Attachment Technique. American Society for Mass Spectroscopy, Vol. 3, pgs 243-247.
Budavari S. 1989. The Merck Index, 11th Edition. Merck & Co., Rahway, N.J.
Buehler, D.A. 2000. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). In The Birds of North America, No. 506) (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.
Burmester, D. 2001. Botanical survey, Lake Davis detonation cord project, Mosquito Slough, Plumas County, CA. Prepared by and for California Department of Fish and Game, Portola, CA
CNAHC (California Native American Heritage Commission). 2001. http://ceres.ca.gov/nahc/default.html
Cameron, G.R., R.H. Short, and C.P.G. Wakeley. 1944. Abdominal injuries due to underwater explosion. British Journal of Surgery 31:51-66.
Carlsen, T., N. Borglin, M. Hoffman, and R. Garza. 2001. Water quality testing after the detonation of PrimacordÒ detonation cord in water from Lake Davis. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories. 2001. September 13.
California Department of Fish and Game. 1996. Lake Davis northern pike eradication project—draft EIR. March 1996. Rancho Cordova, CA. 226 pp.
CDFG. 1997. Lake Davis northern pike eradication project—final EIR. January 1997. Rancho Cordova, CA. Document includes App. 17 Preliminary State Biological Opinion.
CDFG. 2000a. Managing northern pike at Lake Davis: A plan for Y2000. Portola/Sacramento, CA.
CDFG. 2000b. Unpublished table of special-status plants with actual or potential occurrence at Lake Davis. Sacramento. 3pp.
CDFG. 2000c. The Status of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Animals and Plants in California, Great Gray Owl. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/species/t_e_spp/tespp.shtml
CDFG. 2001b. Management of northern pike population at Lake Davis, CA. Draft 2000 field season report. Portola.
CDFG, 2001c. Detonation Cord Demonstation (video cassette of detonation cord use for pikeminnow control on the Eel River).
CDFG. 2002. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, B271. Great Gray Owl, by D. Gaines. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/bdb/B271.html
CDWR 1971. California Department of Water Resources. 1971. Lake Davis basin water quality investigation: Plumas County. Department of Water Resources, Central District.
CDWR. 1973. Natural resources of the Sierra Valley study area, Sierra and Plumas counties. Interagency-multidisciplinary investigation of federal, state, and local agencies. Report issued by Central District. CPA/1020.10.
CDWR 1998. Central District, California. CPA/1020.10. Chapter VIII, pages 195-249.
CNDDB (California Natural Diversity Data Base). 2001. Records search. California Department of Fish and Game Natural Heritage Division, Sacramento.
Cunningham, J. 2001b. Presentation with Ivan Paulsen to the Plumas County Board of Supervisors, Quincy, CA. August 9.
Dakota Matrix Minerals. 2001. The world of minerals online. http://www.dakotamatrix.com/default.htm
Dill, W. A. and A.J. Cordone. 1997. History and Status of Introduced Fishes in California, 1871-1996. California Department of Fish and Game, Fish Bulletin 178.
Dirksen, D.J. and R.A. Reeves. 1990. Recreational lakes of California. Recreation Sales Publishing Inc. Burbank, CA.
Dittes, J. 2000. Survey for special-status vascular plant species conducted at Lake Davis northern pike management sites on Cow Creek, Freeman Creek, and Big Grizzly Creek, Plumas County, California. Prepared for California Department of Fish and Game, Rancho Cordova, by John Dittes, Chico, CA.
Ecklund, A.M. 1943. The pathology of immersion blast injuries. U.S. Naval Medical Bulletin 41:19-26.
Ensign-Bickford Company. 1987. PrimacordÒ detonating handbook. Simsbury, CT.
Ensign-Bickford Company. 2001. Product information. http://www.ebco-commercial.com/commercial/products.html
Falk, M.R. and M.J. Lawrence. 1973. Seismic exploration: its nature and effect on fish. Technical report series no. CEN T-73-9. Department of the Environment, Fisheries and Marine Service, Central Region, Winnipeg, Canada.
Gitschlag, G.R. 1990. Sea turtle monitoring at offshore oil and gas platforms. Pp. 223-246. In: T.H. Richardson, J.I. Richardson, and M. Donnelly (compilers): Proceedings of 10th annual workshop on sea turtle biology and conservation. NOAA tech memo NMFS-SEFC-278.
Gitschlag, G. R., and B. A. Herczeg 1994. Sea turtle observations at explosive removals of energy structures. Marine Fisheries Review 56(2): 1-8.
Gitschlag, G. R.., B. A. Herczeg, and T. R. Barcak. 1996. Observations of sea turtles and other marine life at the explosive removal of offshore oil and gas structures in the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf Research Reports 9:1-16.
Gitschlag, G. R., and M. Renaud. 1989. Sea turtles and the explosive removal of offshore oil and gas structures. Pages 67-68. In: Eckert, S. A., K. L. Eckert, and T. H. Richardson (compilers): Proceedings of the ninth annual workshop on sea turtle conservation and biology. NOAA tech memo NMFS-SEFC-232. 306 p.
Goertner, J. F., M. L. Wiley, G. A. Young, and W. W. McDonald. 1994. Effects of underwater explosions on fish without swim bladders. Technical report NSWC TR 88-114. Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division, White Oak Detachment, Silver Spring, MD.
Hesse, L. W., G. Zuerlein, R., Vancil, L. Koziol, B. Newcomb, and L. A. Retelsdorf. 1979. Niobrara-Missouri River fishery investigations. Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. Technical series 5. Lincoln, NE.
Jackman, R.E., W.G. Hunt, J.M. Jenkins, and P.J. Detrich. 1999. Prey of Nesting Bald Eagles in Northern California. Journal of Raptor Research 33(2):87-96.
Johnston, K. H. 1957. Removal of longnose gar from rivers and streams with the use of dynamite. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Raleigh, North Carolina.
Kearns, R. K., and F. C. Boyd. 1965. The effect of marine seismic exploration on fish populations in British Columbia coastal waters. Canadian Fish Culturist 34:3-26.
Keevin, T.M., J.B. Gaspin, G.R. Gitschlag, G.L. Hempen, T.L. Linton, M.Smith, and D.G. Wright. 1999. Underwater explosions: Natural resource concerns, uncertainty of effects, and data needs. Pages 105-116. In: Proceedings of the twenty-fifth annual conference on explosives and blasting technique, Nashville, TN. International Society of Explosive Engineers, Cleveland, OH.
Klima, E. F., G. R. Gitschlag, and M. L.. Renaud. 1988. Impacts of the explosive removal of offshore petroleum platforms on sea turtles and dolphins. Marine Fish. Rev. 50(3):33-42.
Kostyuchenko, L. P. 1973. Effects of elastic waves generated in marine seismic prospecting on fish eggs in the Black Sea. Hydrobiol. Journal 9:45-48.
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. 1999. Lake Davis data evaluation project, Livermore, CA.
Layher, W.G. and O.E. Maughan. 1984. Comparison efficiencies of three sampling techniques for estimating fish populations in small streams. Progressive Fish-Culturist 46:180-184.
Lee, D.P. 1999. A review of the life history and biology of northern pike, (Esox lucius). Appendix 2 in Managing Northern Pike at Lake Davis: A Plan for Y2000. Save Lake Davis Task Force Steering Committee and the California Department of Fish and Game. February 2000.
Levenson, H. and J. R. Koplin. 1984. Effects of Human Activity on Productivity of Nesting Ospreys, Journal of Wildlife Management 48(4): 1374-1377.
Lind, G. S. 1976. Production, Nest Site Selection, and Food Habits of Ospreys on Deschutes National Forest, Oregon. M.S. Thesis. Oregon State University.
Linton T.L., A.M. Landry, Jr., J.E. Buckner, Jr., and R.L. Berry. 1985. Effects upon selected marine organisms of explosives used for sound production in geophysical exploration. Texas Journal of Science 37:341-353.
Ludwig, M. 1977. Environmental assessment of the use of explosives for selective removal of eelgrass (Zostera marina) Pp. 63-68. In: S. A. Young, ed. Proceedings of the Second Conference on the environmental effects explosives and explosions. Naval Surface Weapons Center. NSWCEOL YT 77-36.
Metzger, R.J. and P.L. Shafland. 1986. Use of detonating cord for sampling fish. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 6:113-118.
MFM Seafood 2001. Monterey Fish Market Seafood, Inc. Http:/www.webseafood.com/ news/cal_squid.htm
National Atlas of the United States, 2001. Wysisyg://48//http://nationalatlas.gov.
Nielsen, L. A., and D. L. Johnson. 1983. Fisheries techniques. American Fisheries Society. Bethesda, Maryland.
Northeast Cetner of the California Historical Resources Information System, letter regarding record search for the placement of temporary fish barriers from Frank E. Bayham to Julie Cunningham, July 26, 2000.
Oberdorfer, J., Hamilton, D. 1999. Reevaluation of the Hydrology of the Lake Davis-Portola Region. Leland R. Gardner and Associates. Prepared for Plumas Co. Dept. of Public Works., Quincy, CA.
O'Keeffe, D. J. and G. A. young. 1984. Handbook on the environmental effects of underwater explosions. Naval Surface Weapons Center, Dahlgren, Virginia 22448. Report No. NSWC TR 83-240.
Ornellas, O., Carpenter, J., Gunn, S. Detonation Calorimeter and Results Obtained with PETN. The Review of Sci Inst, Vol 37, No. 7, 1966.
Platts, W. S. 1974. Geomorphic and aquatic conditions influencing salmonids and stream classification-with application to ecosystem management. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Surface Environment and Mining Program, Billings, MT.
Platts, W. S., W. F. Meghan, and G. W. Minshall. 1983. Methods for evaluating stream, riparian, and biotic conditions. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report INT-138.
Plumas County. 1987. County of Plumas General Plan. CA.
Plumas-Sierra Rural Electric Cooperative 2001. Http://www.psln.com/psrec/index.html.
Plumas-Sierra Counties. 2001. 2000 annual crop and livestock report. Plumas-Sierra Counties Department of Agriculture. http://www.countyofplumas.com/agcomm/2000_crop_report.pdf
Richmond, D. R., J. T. Yelverton, and E. R. Fletcher. 1973. Far-field underwater-blast injuries produced by small charges. Defense Nuclear Agency, Department of Defense, Washington, D. C. Technical Progress Report, DNA 3081 T.
Rasmussen, J. L. 1984. Experimental PrimacordÒ detonation to sample fish populations of upper Mississippi River (UMR) main channel border habitat. Proc. Of 40th annual meeting upper Mississippi River conservation committee. UMRCC, 1830 Second Ave. Rock Island, Il 61201. pp. 49-67.
Renner, R. Short, J. 1980. Chemical Products of Underwater Detonations. US Navy, Naval Surface Weapons Center, NSWC/WOLTR 78-87.
Rischbieter, D.B. 2000. Structures to prevent the spread of nuisance fish from Lake Davis, California. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 20:784-790.
Russel, J., A. William, and N.D. Lewis. 1993. Quantification of military noise in bald eagle habitat at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. Paper presented at the Raptor Research Foundation Annual Meeting Special Symposium on Adaptations of Raptors to Human-altered Environments. Charlotte, NC.
Rutz, D., Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1999. Lake Davis Steering Committee Conversations with Out-of-State Pike Experts. Pullman House, Portola, CA. August 19.
Sipe, J. 2001. 10 year well testing program summary document. Plumas County Public Health Agency, Quincy, CA.
Sloger, W. 1998. Shock Testing the SeaWolf Submarine, Final Environmental Impact Statement. US Navy, S. Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command.
Smith, M. 1996. Effects of underwater explosions on aquatic vegetation, submerged and emergent. Report submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, project DACW43-96-O-1584. Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville.
Spurgeon, L. 2001a. Project memorandum on detonation noise levels calculated at distance from Lake Davis. Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., Seattle. September.
Spurgeon, L. 2001b. Project memorandum on initial estimates of detonation cord noise levels for Lake Davis study. Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas Inc., Seattle. July.
Stalmaster, M.V. and J.R. Newman. 1978. Behavioral responses of wintering bald eagles to human activity. Journal of Wildlife Management 42:506-513.
USACOE (US Army Corps of Engineers). 2000. Supplemental biological assessment, lock and dam 24 rehabilitation: Explosive concrete removal. St. Louis, MO. 8pp.
USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 1988. Plumas National Forest land and resource management plan. Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2000. Species list for California Department of Fish and Game’s proposed project to control northern pike in Lake Davis, Plumas county, California. Letter from Karen Miller.
USN (U.S. Navy). 1977. Environmental effects of explosives and explosions. Naval Surface Weapons Center. NSWC/EOL YT 77-36.
Wiley, M.L., J.B. Gaspin, and J.F. Goertner. 1981. Effects of underwater explosions on fish with a dynamical model to predict fish kill. Ocean Science and Engineering 6: 223-284.
Wright, D. G. 1982. A discussion paper on the effects of explosives on fish and marine mammals in the waters of the Northwest Territories. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 1052. Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Yaguda, A. 1945. Pathology of immersion blast injury. U.S. Navy Medical Bulletin 44: 232-240.
Yelverton, J.T., D.R. Richmond, W. Hicks, K. Saunders, and E.R. Fletcher. 1975. The relationship between fish size and their response to underwater blast. Lovelace Foundation for Medical Education and Research, Albuquerque, NM.
Young, G. 1984. Dispersion of the Chemical Products of Underwater Explosions. US Navy, Naval Surface Weapons Center, NSWC TR 82-404.
Persons and Agencies Contacted
Abbott, Robert R. 2001. Senior fisheries scientist, Strategic Environmental Consulting Inc., San Rafael, CA. Personal communication and technical project memo on survey of detonation cord users, August and December 2001.
Banka, Teri. 2002. Fish and Wildlife Scientific Aide, California Department of Fish and Game. Personal communication with Julie Cunningham. January 14.
Carlsen, Tina. 2001. Tina Carlsen, Senior Environmental Scientist, LLNL, Personal Communication with Mike Blankinship.
Chester, Dennis. 2001. Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Forest Service, Beckworth Ranger Station. Personal communications with Julie Cunningham, ongoing.
Cole, Lt. Mona Lisa. 2001. Personal communication with Julie Cunningham. November.
Cunningham, Julie. 2001. Environmental Specialist, CDFG, Portola, CA. Personal communications with Anne Flannery, Mike Blankinship, Davis Shpak, and Robert Abbott. Ongoing.
Elliott, Daniel. 2001. District archaeologist, US Forest Service, Beckwourth Ranger District. Personal communication with Mike Blankinship, August 14 and Julie Cunningham, November.
Epanchin, Peter. 2001. Wildlife biologist, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento. Personal communication with Julie Cunningham. Ongoing.
Glick, Frank. 2001. Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, Ca. Personal communication with Mike Blankinship, August 15.
Hanson, John. 2001. Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. Personal communication with Julie Cunningham, November 26.
Hempen, Greg. 2002. Marine detonation science specialist with EcoBlast. Personal communication with Robert (Bud) Abbott.
Jurek, Ron. 2001 Wildlife biologist, CDFG, Sacramento. Personal communication with Julie Cunningham, May and June.
Keevin, Thomas. 2001. US Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis, MO. Personal communication with Robert (Bud) Abbott, August 24.
Lidberg, Jim. 2002. California Department of Fish and Game, Quincy, CA. Personal communication with Julie Cunningham, January 4.
McMorrow, John. 2001. Personal communication with Julie Cunningham, Environmental Specialist , CDFG.
Moraga, Dan. 2001. CDFG. Personal communication with Bud Abbott, August 2001.
Paulsen, Ivan. 2001. California Department of Fish and Game, Senior Fisheries Biologist. Personal communications with Bud Abbott and Mike Blankinship. Ongoing.
Pierson, Elizabeth D. (Dixie). 2001. Bat expert, Berkeley, CA. Personal communication with Anne Flannery, April 30.
Powers, Lori. 2002. Associate biologist, California Department of Fish and Game. Personal communication with Julie Cunningham, January 14.
Schaber, Judy. 2001. Assistant resources officer, US Forest Service, Beckwourth Ranger Station. Personal communication with Robert Abbott, May 10.
Snyder, Robert. 2001. Fisheries Habitat Supervisor, California Department of Fish and Game. Description of detonation cord use at public information meeting in Portola, November 13.
Szewczak, Joe. 2001. Bat biologist, UC White Mountain Research Station, Bishop, CA. Personal communication with Anne Flannery, May 2.
Week, Larry. 2001. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland and Anadromous Fish Division, Sacramento. Personal communication with Tom Keevin.
Wendel, Michael. 2001. Plumas County Planning Department, Quincy, Ca. Personal Communication with Ed McCarthy. October.
Winter, Jon. 2001. Wildlife biologist, great gray owl expert, Santa Rosa, CA. Personal communication with Anne Flannery, May 2.
List of Preparers
This report was prepared by:
California Department of Fish and Game
Sacramento Valley and Central Sierra Region
Portola Field Office
P.O. Box 1858
Portola, CA 96122Technical analysis and assistance provided by:
Blankinship & Associates, Inc. (Air and Water Quality; Appendix C, Environmental Risk Analysis)
Mike Blankinship, David Shpak, and Ed McCarthy
Strategic Environmental Consulting, Inc. (Biological Resources, Noise, Hazards and Hazardous Materials)
Robert Abbott
Ibis Environmental Services (Biological Resources)
Anne Flannery
EcoBlast (Noise Analyses, Appendix D)
Greg Hempen and Tom Keevin
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. (Noise Analyses, Appendix D)
Lawrence Spurgeon
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (Water Quality issues)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 The California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 directs
the governor to annually publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer or
reproductive toxicity.