Environmental Setting Clause Samples

Environmental Setting. The issue of combating climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) has been the subject of recent state legislation (AB 32 and SB 375). The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research has recommended changes to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, and the environmental checklist which is used for Initial Studies such as this one. The changes to the checklist are incorporated above in the two questions related to a project’s GHG impacts. A third question has been added by Yolo County to consider potential impacts related to climate change’s effect on individual projects, such as sea level rise and increased wildfire dangers. To date, specific thresholds of significance to evaluate impacts pertaining to GHG emissions have not been established by local decision-making agencies, the Yolo ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Air Quality Management District, the State, or the federal government. However, this absence of thresholds does not negate CEQA’s mandate to evaluate all potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed project. Yolo County has adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) which addresses these issues. The following discussion of GHG/climate change impact relies upon the draft CAP and “tiers off” the analysis, conclusions, and measures included in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) of the 2030 Yolo Countywide General Plan (Yolo County, 2009b). The FEIR assumed th conversion of over 4,200 acres for open space uses including parks, trails, and habitat. While the FEIR analysis concluded that the severity of impacts related to planned urban growth and GHG/climate change could be reduced by some policies and some available mitigation measures, the overall impact could not be reduced to a less than significant level. The impacts of countywide cumulative growth on GHG emissions, and the impacts of climate change on cumulative growth, are considered significant and unavoidable at this time. The adopted 2030 Yolo Countywide General Plan (Yolo County, 2009a) contains several policies and implementation programs that require proposed development projects to reduce GHG emissions and conserve energy. The policies and action programs that are relevant to the proposed wetlands and wildlife habitat project include the following:

Environmental Setting. The maintenance and operation of SWP facilities, including dams, storage reservoirs, pump stations, and other diversion facilities, require minor amounts of hazardous materials. SWP water used for municipal purposes is disinfected, commonly by using hazardous substances, such as chlorine or hypochlorite, before it is distributed to end users. SWP water supplies provided to SCWA, Napa, and Yuba City are used for municipal use, and SWP water provided to Butte County is used for both municipal and agricultural uses.

Environmental Setting. 4.1 Location/Land Use Discuss facility size, location and adjacent land use. Include a rough demographic profile of the human population who use or have access to the facility and adjacent lands. Provide approximate distance to nearest residential areas, schools, nursing homes, hospitals, parks, playgrounds, etc. 4.2 Local Ecology Describe any endangered or threatened species near the facility. Include a description of the ecological setting on and adjacent to the facility. Provide approximate distance to nearest environmentally sensitive areas such as ▇▇▇▇▇ lands, wetlands, streams, oceans, forests, etc.

Environmental Setting. Heritage resources are indicators of past human activities. They provide valuable information about past lifeways, are a link between past and present generations, and are the surviving tangible products of past culture. Culture can be described as the fabric of human existence and is the source of one’s identity. Heritage resources were an important component of the environmental impact assessment. The assessment considered a number of sources of information, including previous heritage resource surveys, predictive modeling, and preparatory research including a literature review. Field research was undertaken specifically for the Wuskwatim Project. These are described in Volume 9 of the Environmental Impact Statement. The assessment concluded: Undiscovered sites may remain. The Partnership has concluded that it is important to develop and implement this Aniskowatesewe Ketapahchikewe Othaschikekwin (Heritage Resources Protection Plan) to achieve its commitment to protect heritage resources and to ensure that any human remains or heritage objects that may be found, discovered or disturbed during the development of the Wuskwatim Project are treated in the manner set out in section 5.2 of this Aniskowatesewe Ketapahchikewe Othaschikekwin (Heritage Resources Protection Plan), which is consistent with the principles of Nisichawayasihk Nehethowuk customary law, and in accordance with applicable laws.

Environmental Setting. In May 2012, DWR adopted its Climate Action Plan Phase 1: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions Plan (GGERP), which details DWR’s efforts to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions consistent with Executive Order S-3-05 and the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32) (DWR 2012). DWR also adopted an IS/ND prepared for the GGERP in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines review and public process. Both the GGERP and the IS/ND are incorporated herein by reference and are available at ▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇.▇▇▇/climatechange/CAP.cfm. The GGERP provides estimates of historical (back to 1990), current, and future GHG emissions related to operations, construction, maintenance, and business practices (e.g., building-related energy use). The GGERP specifies aggressive 2020 and 2050 emission reduction goals and identifies a list of GHG emissions reduction measures to achieve these goals. DWR specifically prepared its GGERP as a “Plan for the Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions” for purposes of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. That section provides that such a document, which must meet certain specified requirements, “may be used in the cumulative impacts analysis of later projects.” Because climate change, by its nature, is a global cumulative impact, an individual project’s compliance with a qualifying GHG reduction plan may suffice to mitigate the project’s incremental contribution to that cumulative impact to a level that is not “cumulatively considerable” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064[h][3]). More specifically, “[l]ater project-specific environmental documents may tier from and/or incorporate by reference” the “programmatic review” conducted for the GHG emissions reduction plan. “An environmental document that relies on a GHG reduction plan for a cumulative impacts analysis must identify those requirements specified in the plan that apply to the project, and, if those requirements are not otherwise binding and enforceable, incorporate those requirements as mitigation measures applicable to the project” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5[b][2]).

Environmental Setting. The CLSP EIR described the agricultural setting of the project site and vicinity as it existed at the time, and which was predominantly used for agriculture. The entire specific plan area, including the project site, has since been converted from agricultural use, and graded and developed with streets and utilities in anticipation of urban development and consistent with the CLSP and the CSLP EIR. This change in circumstances was anticipated in the EIR and does not involve any potential for new or more severe significant effects on agriculture. The CLSP EIR addressed each of the agriculture-related environmental issues identified in the above checklist section, detailing the effect of CLSP development on agriculture, including the conversion and cancellation of ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Act contracts on over 1,500 acres of agricultural land, including those parcels subject to the proposed amendments to the DA. Agricultural effects, including impacts relating to the conversion of farmland, conflicts with ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Act Contracts, and potential conflicts between agricultural and nonagricultural uses, were identified in the EIR as potentially significant. Adopted mitigation measures require payment of San ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ County Multi-Species Habitation Conservation Plan (SJMSCP) fees (Mitigation Measure 4.13-a), which would be used to purchase easements over agricultural land for habitat enhancement purposes. The project proponents also agreed to pay an additional agricultural mitigation fee that would purchase additional agricultural land easements. Both fees will be payable in conjunction CLSP development. In addition, Mitigation Measure 4.13-b minimizes impacts on agricultural production by requiring the project applicant to continue to allow/promote farming operations as long as possible on portions of the CLSP plan area until an area is to be developed. Mitigation Measure 4.13-c also requires the project applicant to phase development of agricultural lands in the CLSP area in such a way as to avoid the fragmentation of continuing agricultural operations. Although Mitigation Measure 4.13-c reduces potential impacts associated with land use conflicts to a less than significant level, the above measures would only partially mitigate loss of agricultural lands; agricultural land conversion effects and effects related to the cancellation of ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Act contracts; therefore these impacts were identified as significant and unavoidable in the previous EIR. There is no known additio...

Environmental Setting. The area surrounding the proposed burn is very sparsely populated. Most of the local residents are in the livestock business. The closest towns are Soledad, located 8 miles to the west, and King City, located 15 miles to the south. There is not public vehicular access to the area, but hikers from Pinnacles National Monument can reach public lands from the north. Topography is mountainous. Vegetation consists of scattered pockets of annual grass in rock outcrops and cliffs, heavy brush and grass along ridges, decadent chamise, grass and and grassland scrub. Annual grass species include wild oats, red brome, and fescue. Some remnant perennial grasses such as foothill stipa, desert needle grass and California melic are also present. No rare or endangered plants are located in the area to be burned. Wildlife in the project area is typical of the chaparral/oak woodland ecosystem. Golden eagles have been sighted in the area. Although the Peregrine falcon and condor have inhabited the afed historically, there have been no confirmed sightings in the project area of either species in recent years. No cultural resources are known to be located in the area proposed for burning, BLM's District Archaeologist will check the area prior to and following the burn. . Alternative Actions A. Mechanical or herbicidel brush control.

Environmental Setting. The CLSP EIR described applicable existing noise standards and noise conditions in and around the Specific Plan area, including ambient noise levels and transportation noise generated by I-5, the principal noise source in the project area. There has been no change in the applicable noise standards since the certification of the EIR. I-5 noise levels have likely increased with annual increase in traffic; however, progressive traffic and associated noise increases were considered in the EIR’s impact analysis.

Environmental Setting. Environmental characteristics including topography, geology and hydrogeology were evaluated based on Site observations, published literature and maps.