Final Mitigated Negative Declaration and Response to Comments

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Parking During peak visitation in the summer, parking on paved surfaces is limited to a first-come, first served basis at all the park units. There are no parking facilities near the project area. WOULD THE PROJECT: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Cause a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location, that results in substantial safety risks? d) Contain a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or a dangerous intersection) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) that would substantially increase hazards? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? LESS THAN POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH SIGNIFICANT NO IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT IMPACT DISCUSSION a) The proposed project is a resource management project and would not cause a substantial increase in traffic volume, result in additional congestion, or conflict with any local plan or ordinance. No impact. b) This project will not exceed individually or cumulatively the established LOS standards discussed in the Environmental Setting above. The only vehicle traffic expected to be generated by this project would be a vehicle to transport equipment and the boat or barge to deliver divers and equipment to the project site. No impact. Asian Clam Control Project IS/MND Emerald Bay State Park California Department of Parks and Recreation 70
c) This project will not will not impact air traffic. No impact. d) The bottom barriers would be secured to the lake substrate. Barrier movement or billowing due to gas accumulation could present an obstacle for boat traffic, although there has been no indication of these occurrences during pilot testing. Implementation of Mitigation Measure Trans-1 will reduce this potential impact to less than significant. e) Boat traffic in and out of the mouth of Emerald Bay would need to be temporarily restricted during installation and removal of bottom barriers to protect the safety of the divers and allow the divers to conduct treatment activities with no overhead boat wake. Work would be coordinated with the U. S. Coast Guard for diver protection and safety. While boat traffic would be temporarily controlled to conduct project activities, work could be halted in the case of an emergency to allow boat traffic, in coordination with the U. S. Coast Guard, resulting in less than significant impacts. f) Project activities would not result in inadequate parking capacity. No impact. g) There are no policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation that apply to this project. No impact. Mitigation Measure Trans-1: Securing Barriers The bottom barriers will be checked routinely to inspect and re-secure any barriers that move or start to billow due to gas accumulation. Asian Clam Control Project IS/MND Emerald Bay State Park California Department of Parks and Recreation 71
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 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: D E F convenience decreasing as den
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?