Final Mitigated Negative Declaration and Response to Comments

More documents

Recommendations

Info

project in Marla Bay showed that large scale benthic barrier removal yielded turbidity levels not to exceed 0.9 NTU (nephelometric turbidity units) and the turbidity measurements returned to background levels in a matter of minutes. Suction removal also has the potential to increase local turbidity. Implementation of Mitigation Measure Hydro-1 and Mitigation Measure Hazmat-1 will reduce these potential impacts to less than significant. b) The project would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. No impact. c) No existing drainages or drainage patterns would be substantially altered by the proposed project. No impact. d) No project activities would result in a substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff or result in off-site flooding. No impact. e) The proposed project would not create or contribute runoff water. No impact. f) The proposed project may cause a temporary increase in turbidity during removal of benthic barriers or suction removal activities. The barriers can have fine sediment deposited on them during the period of deployment, and this fine sediment can cause turbidity as the barriers are removed. Previous bottom barrier water quality monitoring results indicate that turbidity is localized and temporary in nature. A pilot project in Marla Bay showed that large scale benthic barrier removal yielded turbidity levels not to exceed 0.9 NTU (nephelometric turbidity units) and the turbidity measurements returned to background levels in a matter of minutes. Suction removal can also result in short term localized increases in turbidity similar to that observed during barrier removal. Supplementation of the barrier treatment method with straw or other material to help reduce oxygen under the mats would be small in scale and not negatively impact water quality. Implementation of Mitigation Measure Hydro-1 will reduce these potential impacts to less than significant. g) The proposed project does not include a housing component. No impact. h) The proposed project does not include construction of any structures. No impact. i) The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death from flooding, including flooding resulting from the failure of a levee or dam. No impact. j) Lake Tahoe is a large water body with the potential for the production of seiche waves. However, project activities would not increase the risk of seiche waves or increase public exposure to this risk. The Lake Tahoe Basin is classified as having low incidence and susceptibility of small or large landslides (USGS 2007) and project activities will not expose the public or property to an increased risk or susceptibility from these events. No impact. Asian Clam Control Project IS/MND Emerald Bay State Park California Department of Parks and Recreation 54
Mitigation Measure Hydro-1: Water Quality A Water Quality Monitoring Plan will be prepared and presented to the TRPA and LRWQCB for approval prior to conducting project activities. Turbidity will be measured before, during, and after installation and removal of benthic barriers. Turbidity curtains will be utilized during suction removal activities to contain any disturbance related turbidity. 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. The water intake at Eagle Point Campground will be turned off during removal of the benthic barriers and will not be turned back on until water quality returns to background levels. Asian Clam Control Project IS/MND Emerald Bay State Park California Department of Parks and Recreation 55
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 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
LAHONTAN REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CON
Page 13 and 14:
the infestation is 600 feet. The ba
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
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 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: WOULD THE PROJECT: a) Violate any w
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?