Final Mitigated Negative Declaration and Response to Comments

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TABLE of CONTENTS Chapter/Section Page 1 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………... 5 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION………………………………………………………. 8 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST………………………………………………..... 13 I. Aesthetics………………………………………………………… 15 II. Agricultural and Forest Resources… ………………………. 17 III. Air Quality………………………………………………………... 19 IV. Biological Resources……………………………………………. 23 V. Cultural Resources……………………………………………… 33 VI. Geology and Soils………………………………………………. 42 VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions…………………………………… 46 VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials……………………………. 49 IX. Hydrology and Water Quality………………………………….. 52 X. Land Use and Planning…………………………………………. 56 XI. Mineral Resources……………………………………………… 58 XII. Noise……………………………………………………………… 59 XIII. Population and Housing……………………………………….. 62 XIV. Public Services………………………………………………..… 64 XV. Recreation……………………………………………………..… 66 XVI. Transportation/Traffic…………………………………………... 68 XVII. Utilities and Service Systems………………………………..… 72 4 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.................................................... 74 5 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES………………………………………... 76 6 REFERENCES………………………………………………………………….. 79 7 REPORT PREPARATION.............................................................................. 87 Appendices A B C MAP SENSITIVE SPECIES LIST ACRONYMS Asian Clam Control Project IS/MND Emerald Bay State Park California Department of Parks and Recreation
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION AND REGULATORY GUIDANCE The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared by the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed Asian Clam Control Project at Emerald Bay State Park, El Dorado County, California. This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code §21000 et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations (CCR) §15000 et seq. An Initial Study is conducted by a lead agency to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment [CEQA Guidelines §15063(a)]. If there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15064(a). However, if the lead agency determines that revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant mitigate the potentially significant effects to a less-than-significant level, a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared instead of an EIR [CEQA Guidelines §15070(b)]. The lead agency prepares a written statement describing the reasons a proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, why an EIR need not be prepared. This IS/MND conforms to the content requirements under CEQA Guidelines §15071. 1.2 LEAD AGENCY The lead agency is the public agency with primary approval authority over the proposed project. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15051(b) (1), "the lead agency will normally be an agency with general governmental powers, such as a city or county, rather than an agency with a single or limited purpose." The lead agency for the proposed project is DPR. The contact person for the lead agency regarding specific project information is: Dan Shaw, Environmental Scientist California Department of Parks and Recreation Sierra District Resources Office 1155 North Lake Boulevard (PO Box 16) Tahoe City, CA 96145 (530) 581-4315 Phone (530) 581-5849 Fax Email Address: dshaw@parks.ca.gov (Include “Asian Clam Control” on the subject line) Asian Clam Control Project IS/MND Emerald Bay State Park California Department of Parks and Recreation 5
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 and 24: The MND states that there will be n
Page 25 and 26: arriers have not been secured with
Page 27 and 28: INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DE
Page 29: Pursuant to Section 21082.1 of the
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?