Final Mitigated Negative Declaration and Response to Comments

More documents

Recommendations

Info

standards to protect people from adverse health effects such as hearing loss and disruption of certain activities. Noise is defined in the California Noise Control Act, Health and Safety Code, California Code of Regulations (CCR) § 46,022 as excessive or undesirable sound made by people, motorized vehicles, boats, aircraft, industrial equipment, construction, and other objects. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) has two sets of standards, one for single noise events and one for cumulative noise events in the community. See Appendix F for the TRPA Noise Event Standards tables. Single noise events are identified by source such as aircraft, watercraft, vehicles, snowmobiles, and the like. Cumulative noise sources are identified by land use category such as high and low density residential, commercial, industrial, urban/rural outdoor recreation, wilderness/roadless areas, and wildlife areas. Thresholds are set in dBA based on threshold noise for single noise events and average of background noise levels for cumulative noise events. There are no public or private airstrips in the vicinity of the project areas. WOULD THE PROJECT: a) Generate or expose people to noise levels in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal standards? b) Generate or expose people to excessive groundborne vibrations or groundborne noise levels? c) Create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project (above levels without the project)? d) Create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project, in excess of noise levels existing without the project? e) Be 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? If so, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) Be in the vicinity of a private airstrip? If so, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? LESS THAN POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH SIGNIFICANT NO IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT IMPACT Asian Clam Control Project IS/MND Emerald Bay State Park California Department of Parks and Recreation 60
DISCUSSION a) Project activities requiring use of a barge, boat, winch, and/or backhoe could produce noise in excess of typical noise in the area; however, noise related to project activities will be temporary in nature, and temporary increases in noise levels in this location frequently occur as a result of substantial watercraft recreation. Noise generated by these project activities will not violate any established noise standards established by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency or other local, state, or federal standards. The noise generated by project activities will result in a less than significant impact in regards to public exposure to elevated noise levels. b) Project activities will not result in excessive groundborne vibrations or noise levels. No impact. c) Project activities will be temporary in nature and there will be no permanent change in noise levels at the project site. No impact. 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. e) The project is not located within two miles of any public airstrip. No impact. f) The project is not located within two miles of any privately owned airstrip. No impact. Asian Clam Control Project IS/MND Emerald Bay State Park California Department of Parks and Recreation 61
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 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: XII. NOISE. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING T
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?