OCR Text |
Show 6. Land Current Situation ( CS) Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 6.2 Consider geologic hazards in all sovereign land- use decisions. Feasibility/ Effectiveness In place, based on RDCC Requires UGS review of proposed Same as A. Not effective in satisfying the review. Costs contingent upon actions not currently reviewed by intent of state law action taken by the developer. RDCC. Not a significant time commitment, but may increase developers costs. requirements regarding disclosure of geologic hazards. Possible Impacts Most geologic hazards taken into account, but not mitigation and risk reduction necessarily prior to project approval. Some damage potential exists. All geologic hazards would be taken into account and mitigation or risk reduction would be prerequisites to project approval. Less potential for damage caused by hazards and reduced long- term costs. Same as A. Same as CS. Conflicts/ Coordination Routine RDCC coordination and little follow- up with developers. Closer coordination required with UGS and developers. Same as A. Same as CS. Public Trust/ Protection Public trust resources are at risk from damage to project development caused by geologic hazards. Highest level of public trust resource protection. Same as A. Same as CS. 189 |