Final Mitigated Negative Declaration and Response to Comments

More documents

Recommendations

Info

XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Emerald Bay State Park (SP) is located in the Lake Tahoe Basin. South Lake Tahoe is the largest city in the Lake Tahoe Basin and many small towns are also scattered throughout this rural area, including Tahoe City, Tahoma, and Kings Beach. Most summer visitors arrive from the San Francisco Bay Area followed by Southern California, other states, Central California, and Nevada. The table below shows the approximate driving distances from the park unit to the nearest larger populated communities of Tahoe City and South Lake Tahoe. Table XII-1: Driving Distances from Park Units to Larger Population Centers Park Unit Approximate Driving Distance from Park Unit to Tahoe City Approximate Driving Distance from Park Unit to South Lake Tahoe (Intersection HWY 50 &89) Emerald Bay SP 18.5 miles 10.5 miles Population In 2000, the population within the Lake Tahoe Basin (California and Nevada) was approximately 63,000 people (TRPA 2006). The majority of these residents live in the City of South Lake Tahoe. Much of the Lake Tahoe Basin is forested and/or rural, and contains small towns and cities primarily located along the highway system which encircles the lake. Housing There are no housing facilities in close proximity to the project area. The closest dwellings consist of several U.S. Forest Service lease cabins above the western and opposite end of Emerald Bay from proposed project activities. WOULD THE PROJECT: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? LESS THAN POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH SIGNIFICANT NO IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT IMPACT b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Asian Clam Control Project IS/MND Emerald Bay State Park California Department of Parks and Recreation 62
DISCUSSION a-c) The project does not have a housing component and all work would take place within the confines of the park unit boundaries, with no additions or changes to existing local infrastructure. The project would neither modify nor displace any existing housing and would displace no people, either temporarily or permanently. All jobs created by the project would be tied to short-term project related activities and would be temporary in nature. Visitation to the area is not expected to change as a result of the project. No impact. Asian Clam Control Project IS/MND Emerald Bay State Park California Department of Parks and Recreation 63
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 and 86: XII. NOISE. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING T
Page 87: DISCUSSION a) Project activities re
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?