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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Source: AECOM 2010 6.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action Project Alternatives Figure 6-1 Clay Pit State Vehicular Recreation Area Draft EIR 6-3 February 2012
Page 1 and 2:
STATE VEHICULAR RECREATION AREA Dra
Page 3 and 4:
CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS Draft Enviro
Page 5 and 6:
TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
LIST OF ACRONYMS μg/l micrograms p
Page 13 and 14:
Lmax maximum noise level Ln statist
Page 15 and 16:
VELB valley elderberry longhorn bee
Page 17 and 18:
Chapter S.0 - Summary S.0 Summary T
Page 19 and 20:
S.0 Summary No mitigation measures
Page 21 and 22:
Chapter 1.0 - Introduction 1.0 Intr
Page 23 and 24:
Source: Adapted by AECOM 2011 1.0 I
Page 25 and 26:
State Parks, California Department
Page 27 and 28:
Safety proximity to California Dep
Page 29 and 30:
1.7 DEIR Contents and Organization
Page 31 and 32:
Chapter 2.0 - Project Description 2
Page 33 and 34:
Source: AECOM 2011 2.0 Project Desc
Page 35 and 36:
2.0 Project Description The OHMVR D
Page 37 and 38:
2.0 Project Description the signifi
Page 39 and 40:
Natural Resources Management (NRM)
Page 41 and 42:
Open OHV Recreation Area 2.0 Projec
Page 43 and 44:
TABLE 21. USE AREA MATRIX TOPICS
Page 45 and 46:
Source: Topographic information pro
Page 47 and 48:
Chapter 3.0 - Environmental Analysi
Page 49 and 50:
3.1 Transportation and Traffic 3.1
Page 51 and 52:
3.1 Transportation and Traffic cont
Page 53 and 54:
Source: KD Anderson & Associates 20
Page 55 and 56:
TABLE 3.11. DEFINITION OF LEVEL O
Page 57 and 58:
TABLE 3.13. EXISTING ROADWAY LEVE
Page 59 and 60:
3.1 Transportation and Traffic A tr
Page 61 and 62:
TABLE 3.14. PEAKHOUR LOS VOLUME
Page 63 and 64:
Trip Distribution 3.1 Transportatio
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
3.1 Transportation and Traffic TABL
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
3.1 Transportation and Traffic Othe
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Clay Pit State Vehicular Recreation
Page 79 and 80:
3.1.5 Summary of Significant Impact
Page 81 and 82:
3.2 Air Quality 3.2 Air Quality Thi
Page 83 and 84:
3.2 Air Quality During this 3‐yea
Page 85 and 86:
3.2 Air Quality geographic barriers
Page 87 and 88:
3.2 Air Quality Rule 205, “Fugit
Page 89 and 90:
3.2 Air Quality URBEMIS2007 also in
Page 91 and 92:
3.2 Air Quality Substitute electri
Page 93 and 94:
3.2 Air Quality Implementation of t
Page 95 and 96:
3.2 Air Quality Fugitive Dust All f
Page 97 and 98:
3.2 Air Quality the project area, t
Page 99 and 100:
3.2.6 Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Q
Page 101 and 102:
3.3 Noise 3.3 Noise This section pr
Page 103 and 104:
3.3 Noise the way humans perceive s
Page 105 and 106:
3.3 Noise nonauditory health effect
Page 107 and 108:
3.3 Noise Vegetation can be used to
Page 109 and 110:
Source: Data collected by AECOM in
Page 111 and 112:
3.3 Noise Table 3.3‐2 summarizes
Page 113 and 114:
Source: City of Oroville 1990 3.3 N
Page 115 and 116:
3.3 Noise existing or proposed noi
Page 117 and 118:
General Plan Impact Analysis IMPACT
Page 119 and 120:
3.3 Noise The extent to which noise
Page 121 and 122:
3.3 Noise equipment. Noise levels f
Page 123 and 124:
3.3 Noise the headquarters faciliti
Page 125 and 126:
3.4 Visual Resources 3.4 Visual Res
Page 127 and 128:
3.4 Visual Resources resource ident
Page 129 and 130:
3.4 Visual Resources scenic vistas
Page 131 and 132:
3.4.6 Mitigation Measures 3.4 Visua
Page 133 and 134:
3.5 Biological Resources 3.5 Biolog
Page 135 and 136:
Source: TRA 2004, 2007, 2008, AECOM
Page 137 and 138:
3.5 Biological Resources An AECOM b
Page 139 and 140:
Source: CNDDB April 2011 3.5 Biolog
Page 141 and 142:
3.5 Biological Resources The annual
Page 143 and 144:
3.5 Biological Resources Central Va
Page 145 and 146:
3.5 Biological Resources Plan conta
Page 147 and 148:
3.5 Biological Resources or during
Page 149 and 150:
3.6 Cultural Resources 3.6 Cultural
Page 151 and 152:
California Public Resource Code 3.6
Page 153 and 154:
Section 7050.5 Section 7050.5 inclu
Page 155 and 156:
3.6 Cultural Resources directly or
Page 157 and 158:
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation
Page 159 and 160:
3.7 Geology and Soils 3.7 Geology a
Page 161 and 162:
3.7 Geology and Soils a designated
Page 163 and 164:
3.7 Geology and Soils 19, On‐Site
Page 165 and 166:
3.7 Geology and Soils constructed i
Page 167 and 168:
3.7 Geology and Soils As noted unde
Page 169 and 170:
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 3.8
Page 171 and 172:
State Plans, Policies, Regulations,
Page 173 and 174:
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality to
Page 175 and 176:
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Im
Page 177 and 178:
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality dra
Page 179 and 180:
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality DMA
Page 181 and 182:
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality So
Page 183 and 184:
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality IE
Page 185 and 186:
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Bec
Page 187 and 188:
3.9 Public Services and Utilities 3
Page 189 and 190:
3.9.2 Regulatory Setting 3.9 Public
Page 191 and 192: 3.9 Public Services and Utilities I
Page 193 and 194: 3.9 Public Services and Utilities r
Page 195 and 196: IMPACT 3.9-4 Risk of Exceeding Wast
Page 197 and 198: 3.10 Hazards and Hazardous Material
Page 199 and 200: Federal Plans, Policies, Regulation
Page 201 and 202: Regional Plans, Policies, Regulatio
Page 203 and 204: General Plan Impact Analysis IMPACT
Page 205 and 206: 3.10 Hazards and Hazardous Material
Page 207 and 208: 3.11 Climate Change 3.11 Climate Ch
Page 209 and 210: 3.11 Climate Change New developmen
Page 211 and 212: 3.11 Climate Change This informatio
Page 213 and 214: 3.11 Climate Change increased atten
Page 215 and 216: Headquarters Facilities Impact Anal
Page 217 and 218: Chapter 4.0 - Cumulative Analysis 4
Page 219 and 220: 4.0 Cumulative Analysis extend far
Page 221 and 222: TABLE 43. CUMULATIVE PROJECTS Pro
Page 223 and 224: 4.0 Cumulative Analysis Year 2030 P
Page 225 and 226: 4.0 Cumulative Analysis display the
Page 227 and 228: Clay Pit State Vehicular Recreation
Page 229 and 230: 4.0 Cumulative Analysis future anal
Page 231 and 232: 4.0 Cumulative Analysis generated b
Page 233 and 234: 4.0 Cumulative Analysis The potenti
Page 235 and 236: 4.0 Cumulative Analysis required to
Page 237 and 238: Chapter 5.0 - Other CEQA-Required A
Page 239 and 240: 5.0 Other CEQA Required Analysis an
Page 241: Chapter 6.0 - Alternatives to the P
Page 245 and 246: 6.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Ac
Page 247 and 248: 6.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Ac
Page 249 and 250: Chapter 7.0 - References Summary St
Page 251 and 252: 7.0 References Kamian, Armen. Assoc
Page 253 and 254: 7.0 References Ecologist, Off‐Hig
Page 255 and 256: 7.0 References California Departmen
Page 257 and 258: 7.0 References CalRecycle. 2010. Fa
Page 259 and 260: 7.0 References City of Oroville. 20
Page 261 and 262: Chapter 8.0 - Report Contributors 8
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?