Draft EIS/EIR for the San Luis Reservoir SRA Resource ...
Draft EIS/EIR for the San Luis Reservoir SRA Resource ...
Draft EIS/EIR for the San Luis Reservoir SRA Resource ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
4. Plan Overview<br />
Utilities<br />
Table 4-1<br />
Proposed Management Actions by Alternative and Area<br />
Element Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4<br />
Upgrade utilities over time to meet current standards. • • • •<br />
Provide <strong>for</strong> additional utility connections to accommodate additional<br />
hookups and electrical demand in areas of new or expanded<br />
development.<br />
Maintain and repair existing lighting.<br />
Maintain and repair existing lighting using energy-efficient fixtures;<br />
add carbon-reducing features such as solar panels to offset carbon<br />
footprint.<br />
•<br />
• •<br />
• • •<br />
Add new lighting as necessary <strong>for</strong> additional development. • •<br />
WATER OPERATIONS<br />
Provide in<strong>for</strong>mation about how to obtain wind and water level<br />
in<strong>for</strong>mation.<br />
• • •<br />
Clarify allowable visitor access to sensitive areas such as dams and<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r water conveyance structures and facilities.<br />
• • • •<br />
Explore engineering solutions <strong>for</strong> shallow areas at low water levels,<br />
including dredging and removal of sandbars.<br />
• •<br />
4.4.1 Alternative 1: No Action/No Project Alternative<br />
NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1502.14(d)) and CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6)<br />
require that a No Action (NEPA) and No Project (CEQA) alternative be analyzed<br />
in an <strong>EIS</strong> and an <strong>EIR</strong>, respectively, to allow decision-makers to compare <strong>the</strong><br />
impacts of not approving <strong>the</strong> action with those of approving <strong>the</strong> action.<br />
For Alternative 1, <strong>the</strong> current resource and recreation management direction and<br />
practices in <strong>the</strong> Plan Area would continue unchanged. The management elements<br />
listed <strong>for</strong> Alternative 1 in Table 4-1 are existing, ongoing activities in <strong>the</strong> Plan<br />
Area and represent <strong>the</strong> expected future condition if <strong>the</strong> Plan were not<br />
implemented. The previous plans described in Section 3.1 and Appendix A, Table<br />
A-1 would remain in effect.<br />
Although water and land management zones <strong>for</strong> Alternative 1 are shown in Map<br />
8, <strong>the</strong> proposed Plan would not be implemented, and no Plan measures would be<br />
applied to manage those zones. None of <strong>the</strong> new facilities or focused management<br />
plans identified in <strong>the</strong> action alternatives would be implemented. Utility upgrades<br />
would be necessary over time to adhere to current standards, but no provisions<br />
would be made to accommodate any increase in demand <strong>for</strong> electricity and<br />
potable/drinking water, or to add lighting in <strong>the</strong> Plan Area. The use of<br />
noncon<strong>for</strong>mant two-stroke marine engines would not be phased out.<br />
The existing invasive mussel inspection program in <strong>the</strong> Plan Area, launched by<br />
CSP on October 1, 2011, will continue <strong>for</strong> three years. If no funding is available<br />
4-50 <strong>San</strong> <strong>Luis</strong> <strong>Reservoir</strong> <strong>SRA</strong><br />
<strong>Draft</strong> RMP/GP and <strong>Draft</strong> <strong>EIS</strong>/<strong>EIR</strong>