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

6.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action
and climate change would be impacted in about the same fashion but to a smaller degree than if
the General Plan were implemented. Visual resources and cultural resources would be impacted
differently because facilities would likely be built in different locations, but this would not change
the degree of potential impact.
Implementing the Reduced Developed Use Area Alternative would cause different types of impacts
to water quality, biological resources, and geological resources (e.g. erosion) than implementing
the proposed project. With less area available for developed uses, less natural habitat (e.g. annual
grassland) would be converted. Also, because developed uses would occur only in areas of the
SVRA where no water features (e.g. vernal pools) exist, none of this habitat would be filled.
However, although the proposed project would allow developed uses in some areas where water
features exist, goals and guidelines in the General Plan require that these features be avoided to
the extent feasible (e.g. Water Guideline 1.1, Wildlife Guideline 1.4). Therefore, in practice, if none
of these features were filled then there would be no difference in this regard between the Reduced
Developed Use Area Alternative and the proposed project.
Because development often increases erosion and water quality degradation, the smaller amount
of Developed Use Area in the Reduced Developed Use Area Alternative could improve water
quality in comparison with the proposed project. However, because under the proposed project
developed OHV facilities at the SVRA would concentrate OHV use in areas with the fewest water
features, and because water treatment facilities (e.g. sediment basins) would be incorporated into
OHV facility designs, developing OHV facilities as described in the General Plan (i.e., in suitable
locations and with suitable methods) may reduce water quality degradation (e.g. turbidity) by
reducing the amount of bare soil exposed to erosion.
6.4 Identification of the Environmentally Superior Alternative
Under the proposed project and all of the alternatives except the No‐Project Alternative, the
headquarters buildings, maintenance yard, entrance kiosk, and relocated entrance would be
constructed, and Goals and Guidelines generally would be implemented as described in the
General Plan. Under the No‐Project Alternative, many of the management goals and guidelines for
preserving and restoring natural resources would not be implemented beyond that required by
laws or regulations. For this reason, the No‐Project Alternative is not considered the
environmentally superior alternative.
The Conservation Alternative was developed to preserve many of the vernal pools found on Clay
Pit SVRA. However, the tradeoffs of this alternative include more widely spread development, and
the potential fill of more sensitive habitat (e.g. vernal pools) on the SVRA. For this reason, the
Conservation Alternative is not considered the environmentally superior alternative.
The Reduced Developed Use Area Alternative was developed to prevent the fill of any vernal pools
found on Clay Pit SVRA. Because the facilities that would be developed would be similar under the
Clay Pit State Vehicular Recreation Area
Draft EIR 6-7 February 2012