Final Mitigated Negative Declaration and Response to Comments
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration and Response to Comments Final Mitigated Negative Declaration and Response to Comments
) Project activities would not result in impacts to riparian habitat. Deep water plant communities are of local concern because they are important to the ecology of Lake Tahoe and because they have experienced substantial documented declines in the lake. The proposed project is not expected to impact deep water plant communities because the project area is in shallow water, and the work would result in a long term benefit for native species in Emerald Bay. c) Work would occur on the lake substrate near the mouth of Emerald Bay. Benthic barriers would be secured to the lake bottom temporarily covering the substrate and any substrate affected by suction removal of clams would be left in place or returned clean. This project would comply with all State and Federal regulatory requirements concerning work in protected waters. The short term duration of the project, long term ecological benefits of the proposed work, and lack of permanent impacts or alteration of the substrate would result in less than significant impacts from the proposed activities. d) The proposed project would not impede fish or wildlife movement and would not impact wildlife corridors. There are no known wildlife nursery sites in the project area. Work would occur in a fish bearing lake, but the high boat traffic and wave action in the treatment area, short term duration of barrier deployment and removal activities, and positive impact of removing an invasive competitor would result in less than significant impacts to fish. e, f) The proposed project would be designed to ensure there are no conflicts with any local ordinances, adopted conservation plans, or policies. This includes complying with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency’s Goals and Policies regarding Biological Resources and Threshold Attainment. No impact. Mitigation Measure Bio-1: Nesting Osprey and Bald Eagle To the extent possible, project activities would occur outside of the osprey (April 1 – August 15) and bald eagle (February 15 – August 15) breeding seasons. If work is required during the breeding season, a DPR-approved biologist would conduct surveys to document reproductive activity of the established osprey and eagle nests within 0.25 and 0.5 miles, respectively, of the project area. o If the nests are not occupied or the young have fledged then project activities would be allowed to commence. o If osprey or eagles are actively incubating eggs or have young in the fledgling state within 0.25 or 0.5 miles, respectively, of the project area, no work would be conducted. o If there are chicks on the nest, work could be authorized by a DPR-approved biologist if: i. A DPR-approved biologist is onsite during all operations to monitor the nests to ensure the young or adults are not visibly disturbed by project activities, ii. Any visible disturbance attributable to project activities would result in the project being postponed until after the young fledge. iii. No more than 4 hours of activities creating noise above ambient levels would occur in any 24-hour period. Asian Clam Control Project IS/MND Emerald Bay State Park California Department of Parks and Recreation 32
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The proposed project activities are located in the underwater portion of Emerald Bay State Park (SP), which is managed by the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) as an underwater park under a lease from the California State Lands Commission. Emerald Bay is on the southwest shore of Lake Tahoe in the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range. The basin is a large box-like depression surrounded by rugged mountains. The major topographic feature of the basin is the lake itself, by far the largest body of water in the Sierra Nevada, with a surface area of over 190 square miles. The climate of the Lake Tahoe Basin is generally Mediterranean and is modified by topography and geography. It is characterized by relatively warm, dry summers, interrupted by occasional thundershowers and cold, wet winters, with the majority of precipitation falling as snow. EXISTING CONDITIONS A full accounting of known cultural resources within the project area was achieved through a comprehensive literature review and records search of DPR archives. Records searches undertaken for this project had two primary purposes: to determine whether known archaeological or historic resources are located within the study area; and to determine the likelihood of unrecorded resources based on the distribution and characteristics of known submerged sites. Denise Jaffke, Associate State Archaeologist for the Sierra District of DPR, conducted a records search of the District Unit Data Files located at the Cultural Resource Office (Archaeology), Ed Z’berg Sugar Pine Point State Park. Information collected in the course of research was supplemented with pertinent archival information compiled by DPR staff using files maintained at the Sierra District Cultural Resources Office in Tahoma. Past cultural resource inventory reports and related documentation were reviewed. The reports document a wide variety of archaeological and structural features around Emerald Bay, most notably the historic Vikingsholm complex. The bay itself contains numerous submerged cultural resources, primarily associated with the building of Vikingsholm and recreational activities at Emerald Bay Resort. None of these resources are located in the project Area of Potential Effects. PREHISTORIC CONTEXT Heizer and Elsasser (1953) were the first researchers to construct a regional chronology for the North-central Sierra. Based on mutually exclusive site locations and tool technologies from north Lake Tahoe and Truckee, two cultural complexes were identified. The Martis Complex (ca. 5,000-1,300 B.P.), commonly referred to as the “Middle Archaic,” was defined by a heavy reliance on basalt flaked stone scrapers, drills, large dart points, and handstones and millingstones, and appeared to reflect an economic focus on hunting and seed-gathering. The later King’s Beach Complex (ca. 1,300-150 B.P.), in contrast, was characterized by chert and obsidian toolstone, bedrock mortars, smaller projectile points (presumably arrow points), and Asian Clam Control Project IS/MND Emerald Bay State Park California Department of Parks and Recreation 33
- Page 7 and 8: 7 Asian Clam Control Project Final
- Page 9 and 10: 9 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 15 and 16: 15 Asian Clam Control Project Final
- Page 17 and 18: 17 Asian Clam Control Project Final
- Page 19 and 20: 19 Asian Clam Control Project Final
- 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 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: ecosystems as wetlands, meadows, an
- 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.,
) Project activities would not result in impacts <strong>to</strong> riparian habitat. Deep water plant<br />
communities are of local concern because they are important <strong>to</strong> the ecology of Lake Tahoe<br />
<strong>and</strong> because they have experienced substantial documented declines in the lake. The<br />
proposed project is not expected <strong>to</strong> impact deep water plant communities because the<br />
project area is in shallow water, <strong>and</strong> the work would result in a long term benefit for native<br />
species in Emerald Bay.<br />
c) Work would occur on the lake substrate near the mouth of Emerald Bay. Benthic barriers<br />
would be secured <strong>to</strong> the lake bot<strong>to</strong>m temporarily covering the substrate <strong>and</strong> any substrate<br />
affected by suction removal of clams would be left in place or returned clean. This project<br />
would comply with all State <strong>and</strong> Federal regula<strong>to</strong>ry requirements concerning work in<br />
protected waters. The short term duration of the project, long term ecological benefits of<br />
the proposed work, <strong>and</strong> lack of permanent impacts or alteration of the substrate would<br />
result in less than significant impacts from the proposed activities.<br />
d) The proposed project would not impede fish or wildlife movement <strong>and</strong> would not impact<br />
wildlife corridors. There are no known wildlife nursery sites in the project area. Work would<br />
occur in a fish bearing lake, but the high boat traffic <strong>and</strong> wave action in the treatment area,<br />
short term duration of barrier deployment <strong>and</strong> removal activities, <strong>and</strong> positive impact of<br />
removing an invasive competi<strong>to</strong>r would result in less than significant impacts <strong>to</strong> fish.<br />
e, f) The proposed project would be designed <strong>to</strong> ensure there are no conflicts with any local<br />
ordinances, adopted conservation plans, or policies. This includes complying with the<br />
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency’s Goals <strong>and</strong> Policies regarding Biological Resources <strong>and</strong><br />
Threshold Attainment. No impact.<br />
Mitigation Measure Bio-1: Nesting Osprey <strong>and</strong> Bald Eagle<br />
To the extent possible, project activities would occur outside of the osprey (April 1 –<br />
August 15) <strong>and</strong> bald eagle (February 15 – August 15) breeding seasons.<br />
If work is required during the breeding season, a DPR-approved biologist would<br />
conduct surveys <strong>to</strong> document reproductive activity of the established osprey <strong>and</strong><br />
eagle nests within 0.25 <strong>and</strong> 0.5 miles, respectively, of the project area.<br />
o If the nests are not occupied or the young have fledged then project activities<br />
would be allowed <strong>to</strong> commence.<br />
o If osprey or eagles are actively incubating eggs or have young in the fledgling<br />
state within 0.25 or 0.5 miles, respectively, of the project area, no work would<br />
be conducted.<br />
o If there are chicks on the nest, work could be authorized by a DPR-approved<br />
biologist if:<br />
i. A DPR-approved biologist is onsite during all operations <strong>to</strong><br />
moni<strong>to</strong>r the nests <strong>to</strong> ensure the young or adults are not visibly<br />
disturbed by project activities,<br />
ii. Any visible disturbance attributable <strong>to</strong> project activities would<br />
result in the project being postponed until after the young fledge.<br />
iii. No more than 4 hours of activities creating noise above ambient<br />
levels would occur in any 24-hour period.<br />
Asian Clam Control Project IS/MND<br />
Emerald Bay State Park<br />
California Department of Parks <strong>and</strong> Recreation<br />
32