Draft EIS/EIR for the San Luis Reservoir SRA Resource ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

5. Environmental Analysis Impact GHG emissions from generation of water supply and electricity for Plan Area use Table 5-4 Impacts Summary Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Impact Magnitude Impact Magnitude Impact After Mit. Impact Magnitude Impact After Mit. Impact Magnitude Impact After Mit. Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Notes: NA = Not applicable Impact magnitudes are based on the impact criteria defined for each resource area in Section 5.4. 5-70 San Luis Reservoir SRA Draft RMP/GP and Draft EIS/EIR
5. Environmental Analysis 5.5 NEPA/CEQA Environmentally Preferable/Superior Alternative The CEQ’s NEPA regulations require that “the alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferable” be identified at the time an agency issues its Record of Decision (40 CFR 1505.2). Environmentally preferable is defined as “the alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in Section 101 of the NEPA, meaning the alternative that causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment. In addition, it also means the alternative that best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources” (CEQ 1981). The CEQ’s NEPA regulations do not require that the alternative be adopted. Section 101 of the NEPA states that: … it is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to (1) fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations; (2) assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings; (3) attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences; (4) preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity, and variety of individual choice; (5) achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities; and (6) enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources. The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6[a] and [e][2]) require that the analysis of alternatives in an EIR include an identification of the “environmentally superior alternative” among all of those considered. In addition, if the No Project Alternative is identified as environmentally superior alternative, the EIR must also identify the environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Under CEQA, the goal of identifying the environmentally superior alternative is to assist decision-makers in considering project approval. CEQA does not require an agency to select the environmentally superior alternative (State CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15042-15043). Alternative 1, the No Action/No Project Alternative, would result in the least development but would not implement any of the focused management plans listed in Table 4-1 (boating, vegetation, trails, cultural resources). This alternative would not result in any new impacts, but existing impacts would continue. Alternative 2 would have minimal new development. The development under Alternative 2 would be centered on existing developed areas, and this alternative would not open new areas up to vehicular access. Alternative 2 also would include the development of focused resource management plans for biological resources and limited analysis of cultural resources. Alternative 3 would have the greatest long-range facility development concentrated and clustered in existing San Luis Reservoir SRA 5-71 Draft RMP/GP and Draft EIS/EIR
Page 1 and 2:
3. Planning Influences 3 Planning I
Page 3 and 4:
3. Planning Influences − Californ
Page 5 and 6:
3. Planning Influences The Statewid
Page 7 and 8:
3. Planning Influences Valley Initi
Page 9 and 10:
3. Planning Influences 3.2.5 Cal Fi
Page 11 and 12:
3. Planning Influences 3.3.1.3 Open
Page 13 and 14:
3. Planning Influences Community Pl
Page 15 and 16:
3. Planning Influences needs and de
Page 17 and 18:
3. Planning Influences measures wou
Page 19 and 20:
3. Planning Influences Southern Cal
Page 21 and 22:
3. Planning Influences Use Area. Re
Page 23 and 24:
3. Planning Influences available da
Page 25 and 26:
3. Planning Influences 3.4.1.5 Scen
Page 27 and 28:
3. Planning Influences • A marina
Page 29 and 30:
3. Planning Influences increased mi
Page 31 and 32:
3. Planning Influences Constraints
Page 33 and 34:
3. Planning Influences Constraints
Page 35 and 36:
4. Plan Overview 4 Plan Overview Th
Page 37 and 38:
4. Plan Overview continuing to enco
Page 39 and 40:
4. Plan Overview 4.2.1.1 Scenic/Aes
Page 41 and 42:
4. Plan Overview • Provide for st
Page 43 and 44:
4. Plan Overview Guidelines • Emp
Page 45 and 46:
4. Plan Overview Goal RES-V6 • Id
Page 47 and 48:
4. Plan Overview offering activitie
Page 49 and 50:
4. Plan Overview Goal VIS-T1 • Pr
Page 51 and 52:
4. Plan Overview Guidelines • Con
Page 53 and 54:
4. Plan Overview • Secondary Inte
Page 55 and 56:
4. Plan Overview coordinate plannin
Page 57 and 58:
4. Plan Overview Goal OPS-A2 • Pr
Page 59 and 60:
4. Plan Overview Guidelines • Dev
Page 61 and 62:
4. Plan Overview Goal WA-E1 • Exp
Page 63 and 64:
S4 CSP S
Page 65 and 66:
4. Plan Overview U S RD RN SP P Urb
Page 67 and 68:
4. Plan Overview • Existing Featu
Page 69 and 70:
4. Plan Overview up to fish or be n
Page 71 and 72:
4. Plan Overview motorized boating
Page 73 and 74:
4. Plan Overview The FC Zones were
Page 75 and 76:
4. Plan Overview South of O’Neill
Page 77 and 78:
4. Plan Overview All three action a
Page 79 and 80:
4. Plan Overview Table 4-1 Proposed
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
4. Plan Overview after 2014, a wate
Page 87 and 88:
S4 CSP S
Page 89 and 90:
4. Plan Overview that are indigenou
Page 91 and 92:
4. Plan Overview remain accessible
Page 93 and 94:
Work with DFG to reduce conflicts w
Page 95 and 96:
4. Plan Overview additions would be
Page 97 and 98:
4. Plan Overview relatively small a
Page 99 and 100:
Work with DFG to reduce conflicts w
Page 101 and 102:
4. Plan Overview Alternative 4 woul
Page 103 and 104:
4. Plan Overview Use Area, consiste
Page 105 and 106:
4. Plan Overview Table 4-2 Visitor
Page 107 and 108:
4. Plan Overview in the Plan Area (
Page 109 and 110:
4. Plan Overview Table 4-4 Plan Are
Page 111 and 112:
5 Environmental Analysis 5.1 Introd
Page 113 and 114:
5. Environmental Analysis or Ms. El
Page 115 and 116:
5. Environmental Analysis 5.2.3 Ass
Page 117 and 118:
5. Environmental Analysis 5.2.4.2 G
Page 119 and 120:
5. Environmental Analysis Populatio
Page 121 and 122:
5. Environmental Analysis − Creat
Page 123 and 124:
5. Environmental Analysis Trail and
Page 125 and 126:
5. Environmental Analysis have a on
Page 127 and 128:
5. Environmental Analysis • Incor
Page 129 and 130: 5. Environmental Analysis Table 5-1
Page 131 and 132: 5. Environmental Analysis density i
Page 133 and 134: 5. Environmental Analysis to wildla
Page 135 and 136: 5. Environmental Analysis 5.4.2.4 M
Page 137 and 138: 5. Environmental Analysis discussed
Page 139 and 140: 5. Environmental Analysis • Alter
Page 141 and 142: 5. Environmental Analysis greater t
Page 143 and 144: 5. Environmental Analysis O’Neill
Page 145 and 146: 5. Environmental Analysis • Distu
Page 147 and 148: 5. Environmental Analysis could dis
Page 149 and 150: 5. Environmental Analysis occur at
Page 151 and 152: 5. Environmental Analysis • Groun
Page 153 and 154: 5. Environmental Analysis Alternati
Page 155 and 156: 5. Environmental Analysis Goal RES-
Page 157 and 158: 5. Environmental Analysis 5.4.5.3 E
Page 159 and 160: 5. Environmental Analysis specific
Page 161 and 162: 5. Environmental Analysis recreatio
Page 163 and 164: 5. Environmental Analysis visitor d
Page 165 and 166: 5. Environmental Analysis reduce re
Page 167 and 168: 5. Environmental Analysis When spec
Page 169 and 170: 5. Environmental Analysis major; ho
Page 171 and 172: 5. Environmental Analysis signage t
Page 173 and 174: 5. Environmental Analysis reduce cr
Page 175 and 176: 5. Environmental Analysis plan, in
Page 177 and 178: 5. Environmental Analysis Impact Lo
Page 179: 5. Environmental Analysis Impact Ta
Page 183 and 184: 5. Environmental Analysis sensitivi
Page 185 and 186: 5. Environmental Analysis environme
Page 187 and 188: 5. Environmental Analysis Full impl
Page 189 and 190: 5. Environmental Analysis Quinto So
Page 191 and 192: 5. Environmental Analysis Developme
Page 193 and 194: 6 Consultation, Coordination, and D
Page 195 and 196: 6. Consultation, Coordination, and
Page 205 and 206: 7 References ABAG (Association of B
Page 207 and 208: 7. References Borba, P. 2003.Water
Page 209 and 210: 7. References ———. 2010. iADA
Page 211 and 212: 7. References CSP, Architectural Co
Page 213 and 214: 7. References Archaeological Report
Page 215 and 216: 7. References Kyle, D.E. 2002. Hist
Page 217 and 218: 7. References MWH and Jones & Stoke
Page 219 and 220: 7. References ———. 2011d. San
Page 221 and 222: 7. References ———. 2007. 2007
Page 223 and 224: 7. References ———. 2000. Enda
Page 225 and 226: 8 Glossary of Terms Aesthetics: The
Page 227 and 228: 8. Glossary of Terms Fish and Wildl
Page 229 and 230: 8. Glossary of Terms Runoff: That p
Page 231 and 232:
9 Report Contributors 9.1 Bureau of
Page 233 and 234:
9. Report Contributors 9.5 Consulta
Page 235:
Appendix A Reclamation List of Agre
Page 238 and 239:
Appendix A. Reclamation List of Agr
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
This page intentionally left blank
Page 259 and 260:
Appendix B. Biological Survey Forms
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267:
Appendix C Public Involvement Progr
Page 270 and 271:
Appendix C. Public Involvement Prog
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308:
This page intentionally left blank
show all

Draft EIS/EIR for the San Luis Reservoir SRA Resource ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?