Draft Environmental Impact Report - California Off Highway Vehicle ...

6.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d) permits alternatives to be evaluated in less detail than
is used to evaluate the proposed project. The project alternatives, including the No‐Project
Alternative, are described in this DEIR to allow for a meaningful evaluation, analysis, and
comparison of these alternatives with the proposed project, the Clay Pit SVRA General Plan..
The following discussion is intended to inform the public and decision makers of alternatives to
the proposed project and the positive and negative aspects of those alternatives when compared
with the General Plan. Section 6.4 summarizes these findings and makes a conclusion about which
alternative is the environmentally superior alternative.
6.1 No-Project Alternative
6.1.1 Description
CEQA requires an evaluation of the “no project” alternative and its impact (State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15126.6[e][1]). The purpose of describing and analyzing the No‐Project Alternative is to
allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the Clay Pit SVRA General Plan with
the impacts of not approving the General Plan.
The following describes the physical conditions likely to exist in the future if the project (the Clay
Pit SVRA General Plan) were not approved and implemented. Without a general plan for Clay Pit
SVRA, the existing patterns of operation and management would be expected to continue and no
major recreational or operational facilities, such as the headquarters or OHV tracks, would be
developed. Likewise, none of the management activities designed to improve environmental
conditions at the SVRA (e.g. water quality and habitat improvements) would occur. Social
gathering would continue as it does currently. Visitation increases would be smaller than under
the proposed project because the SVRA would have fewer recreational opportunities. However,
overall use would still be expected to increase as the statewide and regional populations grow.
6.1.2 Evaluation
If the General Plan was not implemented, impacts related to traffic, air quality, noise, visual
resources, utilities, hazards, and climate change would be less than those that would occur under
the proposed project. Impacts to cultural resources and public services would remain largely the
same, while impacts to water quality, biological resources, and geological resources potentially
would be greater.
Although the regional population would grow, and OHV use might continue to grow within the
state, thus causing use of the SVRA to increase, no new OHV facilities would be constructed that
would by their presence cause an increase in the number of visitors to the SVRA. Therefore, less
traffic would be generated, fewer vehicles would emit pollutants at the SVRA, fewer vehicles
would generate noise at the SVRA, no buildings or facilities would affect visual resources, fewer
Clay Pit State Vehicular Recreation Area
February 2012 6-2 Draft EIR