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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Appendix C. Public Involvement Program Meeting Summary: January 11, 2003, Scoping Meeting GENERAL PLAN/RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN and EIR/EIS SCOPING MEETING FOR SAN LUIS RESERVOIR STATE RECREATION AREA AND PACHECO STATE PARK January 11, 2003 Four Rivers District Headquarters MEETING SUMMARY Issue Date: February 21, 2003 ______________________________________________________________________________ Participants Robert Epperson, RMP Coordinator, USBR Michael Mulligan, Compliance Specialist Dan Holsapple, Resource Management DFG Specialist, USBR Daniel Applebee, DFG Ricardo Cortesa, USBR Tom Young, DWR Donna Plunkett, Project Manager, EDAW Mandeep Bling, DWR Corrina Kweskin, Project Planner, EDAW Julie Vance, DWR Ian Ferguson, Project Planner, EDAW Cheryl Johnson, Caltrans/USFWS Leo Edson, Wildlife Biologist, EDAW John Fulton, USFWS Wayne Woodroof, Statewide Coordinator, Robert King, Merced County Planning Dept. DPR Lynn Hurley, SCVWD Warren Wulzen, Associate State Frances Mizuno, "SLDMWA" Archaeologist, DPR Clyde Strickler, Retired DPR Superintendent Dave Gould, Chief Ranger, DPR Steve Pearl, Wild Fro Racing Mary Stokes, Interpretive Specialist, DPR Sam Halsted, Landowner Dennis Imhoff, Chief Ranger, DPR George Stricker Dave Milam, Ranger, DPR Bruce Hochuli, SLSPP Lee Sencenbaugh, DPR George Ground, SLSPP Steve Skram, DPR Vern Masse Curtis Climer, DPR ______________________________________________________________________________ The meeting began at approximately 10:00 a.m. The agenda follows the summary below. Public comments are indicated in italics. Two poster maps were on display: "Sensitive Biological Species" and "Existing Conditions." In addition, the following handouts were distributed: 1. Agenda 2. General Plan Table of Contents 3. San Luis Reservoir Resource Inventory (January 1973) 4. San Luis SRA Preliminary Scoping Document (11/20/01) 5. San Luis Reservoir SRA General Plan and RMP EIR/EIS Notice of Preparation (11/22/02) 6. Pacheco SP Preliminary Scoping Document (11/2001) 7. Fatjo Project Resource Summary (May 1996) C-15 San Luis Reservoir SRA Draft RMP/GP and Draft EIS/EIR
Appendix C. Public Involvement Program 8. Pacheco State Park General Plan/EIR Notice of Preparation (11/22/02) 9. Contact List 10. California State Parks Planning Handbook Pages 29-37 (February 2002) Sign-In and Introduction Dave Gould provided a team overview, introducing the team members that were present from the various agencies. Dennis Imhoff provided an overview of the General Plan process. The current General Plan on file for San Luis Reservoir SRA is from 1971, with a 1985 amendment. There is no General Plan on file for Pacheco State Park since it is a relatively new addition to the State Parks system. The ultimate goal of the General Plan process is a "broad brush" look at desired facilities and resources. The General Plan is scheduled to be completed by April/May 2004. Dennis also discussed the use of planning consultants for completing the General Plan work and introduced EDAW team members for the subject park units. Planning Process Overview & Public Participation Donna Plunkett from EDAW thanked everyone for attending and provided an overview of the General Plan process and EDAW's role as the consultant. She described that there are two separate processes for the General Plan/RMP and for the EIR/EIS and that there will be a separate Plan for Pacheco and San Luis Plan. The latter will be joint effort of DPR and Reclamation. She also described the difference between a State Park and a State Recreation Area. She referenced the State Parks Planning Handbook and distributed the section on the planning process. EDAW is currently putting together the existing conditions, noting that this a particularly appropriate time to get feedback on maps and other data. This meeting is also considered a formal scoping meeting and comments made at this meeting will become part of the formal CEQA/NEPA record. The next step in the process will be to develop alternatives over the next few months with the goal of a preferred alternative by summer of this year. The San Luis Reservoir State Recreation Area General Plan and the Pacheco State Park General Plan currently are on a joint track but they may diverge since the San Luis Reservoir State Recreation Area General Plan also needs to comply with NEPA and this may take more time. It was noted that there will be two other public workshops and opportunities for public comment. It was also noted that the EIR for Pacheco and the EIR/EIS for San Luis will be program-level analysis and that future projects implemented as part of this process may require a project-level analysis. Vern Massy asked whether the O 'Neill Forebay water levels would be addressed at this level. Donna replied that desired water levels and seasonal recommendations could be included. Bob Epperson commented that the Reclamation's primary goal for the project is to collect and distribute water. Recreation is a secondary use and, therefore, will not have as much influence on water level recommendations. However, USBR will entertain concerns. Bruce Hochuli asked whether water supply goals for CVP users and increased water levels were mutually exclusive. Bob responded that they may or may not be mutually exclusive, depending on how much water was available at different times of the year. The water levels will be affected by the operating contracts. Wayne Woodroof commented that this planning process is an opportunity to look at these conflicting goals and uses to see whether they can be brought together. Bob added that they have made some minor changes in the way that flows are released at Millerton. Steve Pearl asked whether the primary goal of the planning process is to ascertain the highest use value and had this been decided already. It was noted that the planning process is not about determining highest use; however, it is an opportunity to try to balance and reconcile conflicting issues about uses. Mandeep Bling, DWR operates and maintains the SLR project. He reiterated that the primary purpose of the prefect is to distribute water to consumers through existing San Luis Reservoir SRA C-16 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 and 180:
5. Environmental Analysis Impact Ta
Page 181 and 182:
5. Environmental Analysis 5.5 NEPA/
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 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
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 256 and 257: This page intentionally left blank
Page 259 and 260: Appendix B. Biological Survey Forms
Page 267: Appendix C Public Involvement Progr
Page 270 and 271: Appendix C. Public Involvement Prog
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?