Final Mitigated Negative Declaration and Response to Comments

More documents

Recommendations

Info

primary factor. Asian clams are a non-native species that negatively impact native species and removal of these clams from a target reintroduction area is not anticipated to negatively impact reintroduced Lahontan cutthroat trout.” Our determination that these project activities were not anticipated to negatively impact reintroduced Lahontan cutthroat trout. Regarding consultation with the FWS- Mitigation Measure Hydro-1: Water Quality states that “underwater AC control activities in Lake Tahoe require permits from the Army Corps of Engineers, Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, and the California Department of Fish and Game. All of these permits require monitoring and protective measures to ensure that project activities do not result in significant impacts to water quality. Project activities will not commence until all required permits are attained.” Protective measures required for successful receipt of all required permits as directed in Mitigation Measure Hydro-1: Water Quality, will be adhered to as stated. Because there will be a federal agency involved in permitting, potential consultation with the FWS likely will not occur between DPR and the FWS, but rather between the two federal agencies. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Comment Summary: The MND should include a complete accounting of the Greenhouse Gas emission sources, a quantitative or qualitative estimate of GHG emissions, and how those GHG emissions compare to any applicable local, regional, or State thresholds. Response: The discussion in VII Greenhouse Gas Emissions determines that “Equipment used in project activities including delivery vehicles, barge, and boats could contribute to an increase in CO 2 and N 2 O levels, both components of GHG. The limited use of boats and vehicles, and the temporary nature of this activity, would result in a less than significant impact on the generation of GHG emissions.” In addition, the spread of invasive bivalves like Asian clams has been reported in the literature as a substantial potential local and global contributor to carbon dioxide (see Chauvaud, L. et al. Clams as CO 2 generators: The Potamocorbula amurensis example in San Francisco Bay. Limnol. Oceanogr. 48(6), 2003) so leaving the infestation untreated could result in a substantial chronic contribution of CO 2 in the project area. Hydrology and Water Quality Comment Summary: Please include further description of where the Eagle Point Campground water intake is located so the reader can better assess potential impacts to the water intake. Response: The Lead Agency needs to affirmatively document whether any subsurface utilities are present in the project area at the time the project is submitted for coverage under a Water Quality Certification as required by Mitigation Measure Hydro-1: Water Quality. The closest current distance from any utility to the infestation is 600 feet. The 24 Asian Clam Control Project Final Mitigated Negative Declaration and Response to Comments
arriers have not been secured with rebar driven into the substrate during pilot activities (rebar was used as a weight laid over the top of the barriers) and rebar inserted into the substrate would not be necessary to complete this project. In addition, ponar grabs are a sampling method and avoiding sampling near the utilities would not impact sampling results. Ponar grab samplers are the main bottom sampling device use to study the composition of the bottom of a lake or river and the device is named after Great Lakes scientists. So, no subsurface disturbance anywhere within a potential utility area would be necessary to complete project activities and there will be no impacts to these facilities. Noise Comment Summary: The Environmental Setting section should be revised to discuss whether the Project area is currently out of attainment with any State, federal, or Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) noise standards. Project-related noise should then be evaluated against the baseline of existing noise to determine if additional mitigation is needed, or to justify why mitigation is not required. The Environmental Setting should also identify that Emerald Bay is subject to a 5 mile per hour “no wake” zone, which among other objectives is intended to reduce motorized watercraft noise at Emerald Bay. Response: Because boat traffic in and out of Emerald Bay would be restricted during project activities, the baseline condition of existing noise would be diminished substantially during installation and removal. This reduction in baseline noise levels, along with the short-term and limited production of project-related noise resulted in a determination that the limited short-term noise produced by project activities would not rise above the level of a Less than Significant Impact. This issue is detailed in the Noise Discussion Section d) “The mouth of Emerald Bay is exposed to relatively high boat traffic in Lake Tahoe, and the noise that accompanies this boat use. Project activities will result in boat use at the project site and noise from a winch or backhoe, or from suction removal equipment such as an air compressor or pump. However, this noise will be temporary in nature and will not be substantially higher than the periodic noise that this site routinely experiences. Project activities may require a temporary reduction in boat traffic into Emerald Bay which would reduce the ambient noise during project activities. This will result in less than significant impacts.” The 5 mph “no wake” zone would adhere to project related boats as well so there would be no change in this regard from baseline conditions. Recreation and Traffic Comment Summary: These sections do not account for a “worst case” scenario of having to manage watercraft recreation and traffic for bottom barrier installation/removal activities during the peak boating season (Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day weekend). The reviewer recommends a 25 Asian Clam Control Project Final Mitigated Negative Declaration and Response to Comments
Page 1 and 2: FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIO
Page 3 and 4: 2009. Initial surveys estimated thi
Page 5 and 6: Emerald Bay will require traffic co
Page 7 and 8: 7 Asian Clam Control Project Final
Page 11 and 12: LAHONTAN REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CON
Page 13 and 14: the infestation is 600 feet. The ba
Page 21 and 22: More detail on the range of lake bo
Page 23: The MND states that there will be n
Page 27 and 28: INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DE
Page 29 and 30: Pursuant to Section 21082.1 of the
Page 31 and 32: CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 INTRODUC
Page 33 and 34: This chapter provides a list of tho
Page 35 and 36: The invasion and establishment of A
Page 37 and 38: the edges of the rubber sheets for
Page 39 and 40: 2.10 DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS DPR re
Page 41 and 42: 1. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALL
Page 43 and 44: and receives approval from the Cali
Page 45 and 46: DISCUSSION a-e) As noted in the Env
Page 47 and 48: for six criteria pollutants after t
Page 49 and 50: IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. ENVIRONME
Page 51 and 52: Water Plant Community are not expec
Page 53 and 54: (Helisoma newberryi) creeks. Lake T
Page 55 and 56: mouth of Emerald Bay. Creating nois
Page 57 and 58: ecosystems as wetlands, meadows, an
Page 59 and 60: V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. ENVIRONMENTA
Page 61 and 62: and prolonged droughts (Lindström
Page 63 and 64: Roads expanded and upgraded the roa
Page 65 and 66: CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AC
Page 67 and 68: esources in consultation with the O
Page 69 and 70: Liquefaction and Landslide Hazards
Page 71 and 72: would not increase as a result of t
Page 73 and 74: • Carbon Dioxide - The natural pr
Page 75 and 76:
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIA
Page 77 and 78:
emergencies and activities would al
Page 79 and 80:
WOULD THE PROJECT: a) Violate any w
Page 81 and 82:
Mitigation Measure Hydro-1: Water Q
Page 83 and 84:
DISCUSSION a) The proposed project
Page 85 and 86:
XII. NOISE. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING T
Page 87 and 88:
DISCUSSION a) Project activities re
Page 89 and 90:
DISCUSSION a-c) The project does no
Page 91 and 92:
WOULD THE PROJECT: a) Result in sig
Page 93 and 94:
implemented to inform the public, s
Page 95 and 96:
D E F convenience decreasing as den
Page 97 and 98:
c) This project will not will not i
Page 99 and 100:
significant environmental effects?
Page 101 and 102:
d) Most project-related environment
Page 103 and 104:
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS No project
Page 105 and 106:
CHAPTER 6 REFERENCES Chapter 2 Univ
Page 107 and 108:
Cultural Resources Barrett, S. A.,
Page 109 and 110:
Murphy and C.M. Knopp. Report prepa
Page 111 and 112:
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRP
Page 113 and 114:
Report Preparation CALIFORNIA DEPAR
Page 115 and 116:
APPENDIX B SENSITIVE SPECIES LIST _
Page 117 and 118:
Martes pennanti o fisher (C) Plants
Page 119 and 120:
If a Federal agency is involved wit
Page 121 and 122:
APPENDIX C ACRONYMS _______________
show all

Final Mitigated Negative Declaration and Response to Comments

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?