Agricultural Resources. Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact
Agricultural Resources. Would the project:
Agricultural Resources. Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact In determining whether impacts on agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation. Would the project:
Agricultural Resources. It was concluded that the approved water bank project would not contribute considerably to a cumulatively significant impact on agricultural resources. Compared to the approved project, the modified project would similarly not contribute considerably to a cumulatively significant impact on agricultural resources. Therefore, the conclusion of less-than-significant cumulative impact in the 2006 EIR remains valid. As for mitigation, there will be steps taken with regard to agricultural resources. The Antelope Valley Water Bank monitoring committee shall provide a written report to the relevant parties on an annual basis after commencing operations. The owner/operator will constrain or adjust the locations of recharge operations to prevent the impact or to reimburse the affected xxxxxx for any impacts. Air Quality The cumulative impacts associated with the approved project in the 2006 EIR would be significant and unavoidable. Xxxx County approved the project. However, since overall emissions from the modified 2018 water bank project are far less than the 2006 approved project, the cumulative impact associated with the modified project is also lower than the approved project. Therefore, the 2018 modified project and the APH project would not result in substantially more severe significant impact with regard to air quality. Following receipt of a grading permit, the owner/operator will implement mitigation measure 4.2-1 dust control measures during construction. Written evidence from the grading contractor of the type of equipment used on the site shall be submitted before site grading. Also, the owner/operator shut off diesel engines when not in use. Finally, fugitive dust plan approval shall be submitted. Biological Resources The 2006 EIR concluded that the biological resources impacts of the approved project would be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation measures. It was concluded the approved project would not contribute considerably to a cumulatively significant impact to biological resources. The modified project would implement the same biological mitigation measures as the approved project, with the addition of updated provisions. It is expected that the same or similar biological mitigations, along with regulatory requirements for resource protection, would be required for other cumulative projects. Therefore, the modified project would not contribute considerably to a cumulatively significant impact to biological resources, and the cu...
Agricultural Resources. No Mitigation Required III. AIR QUALITY Prior to Approval of Each Grading or Building Permit; Ongoing During Demolition, Grading, and Construction AQ-1 Prior to the approval of each grading plan or issuance of each grading or building permit, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for the placement of a note on the project plans and specifications requiring the contractor to comply with SCAQMD Rules 403 and 402 to assist in reducing short-term air pollutant emissions. South Coast Air Quality Management District; Public Works Department, Field Engineering Division; Planning Department, Planning Division Complete / On Plans Mitigation Measure Number Measure Department Clearance Status ▪ Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). ▪ Water active sites at lease twice daily. (Locations where grading is to occur will be thoroughly watered prior to earth moving.) ▪ All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered, or should maintain at lease two feet of freeboard in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23114. (Freeboard means vertical space between the top of the load and top of the trailer.) ▪ Install a wheel shaker/wheel spreading device consisting of raised dividers (rails, pipes, or grates) at least 24 feet long and 10 feet wide to remove bulk material from tires on vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the site. ▪ Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads shall be reduced to 15 mph or less. Prior to Approval of Each Grading Plan or Issuance of Each Grading or Building Permit AQ-2 Prior to the approval of each grading plan or issuance of each grading or building permit, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for the placement of a note on the project plans and specifications requiring the contractor to comply with the following procedures during construction: ▪ All excavating and grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph. South Coast Air Quality Management District; Public Works Department, Field Engineering Division; Planning Department, Planning Division Complete / On Plans Mitigation Measure Number Measure Department Clearance Status ▪ All streets shall be swept once a day if visible soil materials are carried to adjacent streets (recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water). ▪ All on-...
Agricultural Resources. No Mitigation Required
Agricultural Resources. The proposed Agreement will have less than significant impact on agricultural resources. The project and the Agreement will not result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. The power plant facility will result in conversion of a relatively small area of productive timberland to non-timber use. The project will have less than significant impact. As an aside, this project is expected to benefit the surrounding forestlands in the region by converting residues to renewable energy. Air Quality The County found less than significant construction and operational air quality impacts due to net emissions analysis and with certain mitigation incorporated. The project and the Agreement would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan with mitigation measures incorporated. The amount of net emissions produced by the facility including operations and fuel transportation are significantly less than the emissions from pile and burn. Mitigation measures include reducing dust emissions and implementing Feather River Air Quality Management District (FRAQMD) standard construction phase mitigation measures. Biological Resources Xxxxx Environmental Consulting (Nevada City, CA) performed a complete biological inventory and assessment in February 2019. They identified no protected special status species or protected resources found on the relatively small parcel. The proposed Agreement will not have any significant impacts on biological resources, and will not change the impacts identified in the County’s CEQA documents. The proposed project site is not located in the Yuba-Xxxxxx Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) boundary. The Yuba-Xxxxxx NCCP/HCP plans are in the process of being prepared, however, no conservation strategies have been proposed to date which would be in conflict with the project. Therefore, the project will have no impact to conservation plans. Mitigation measures include: (1) requiring any fencing constructed as a perimeter barrier around the project site to adhere to design requirements to preserve the site for wildlife, such as a fencing height no greater than 38 inches above the ground to the top of the top wire or rail, and wood or similar material for top rails, and either wood rails or wire strands as horizontal elements in the fence (2) contractor shall exercise precaution to protect the streamside from pollution with sediments, fuel, oil etc.
Agricultural Resources. ▪ Important Farmland in Fresno County: data is from 2014 ▪ Protected agricultural lands in Fresno County (Xxxxxxxxxx Act): data is from 2016 ▪ Top ranked crops in Fresno County: data is from 2014
Agricultural Resources. The site is surrounded by scarce agricultural land, wetlands and critical wildlife habitat, which federal, state and local law seek to protect from urban uses. The introduction of civilian aviation facilities at this location threatens the agricultural land and wildlife habitat surrounding the base. Due to these concerns, Xxxxxxxxxx advocates embarked on a major campaign to oppose the County’s plans two decades ago, and several groups engaged in successful litigation to overturn County actions. In December 1997, the Air Force stood up for the federal interests in the region and determined that the widespread objections and concerns about the impacts of allowing the County to operate civilian airport operations required a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). The three cooperating federal agencies in the SEIS process, the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), opposed the commercial airport and supported a mixed-use development alternative. The National Marine Fisheries Service, the South Florida Water Management District, and Florida’s Department of Environmental Protection also objected to the airport project because of its potential environmental impacts. In the resulting January 15, 2001 “Second Supplemental Record of Decision – Disposal of Portions of the Former Homestead Air Force Base, Florida,” the Air Force wisely decided that “the [HARB] surplus property should not be conveyed for airport purposes” and that “[t]he runway and taxiways will be retained by the Air Force.” (ROD, p. 5) The Record of Decision explained that: ● Base redevelopment involves “special circumstances” as a result of being “proximate to and located between two national parks.” (ROD, p. 6) ● “The parks are under assault from urbanization and other pressures.” (ROD, p. 6) ● “There is a huge national and state investment being made in protecting and restoring the south Florida ecosystem.” (ROD, pp. 6-7) ● “Given [that reasonable alternatives for economic development exist in the form of mixed-use development] the Air Force will not allow the environmental impacts of a commercial airport in this unique location between two national parks….” (ROD, p. 7) ● “…the development of a commercial airport … in such close proximity to Biscayne and Everglades National Parks, when development alternatives with lesser impacts are available, poses unacceptable risks to these natural resources.” (ROD, p. 7) ● “…a...
Agricultural Resources. The proposed Agreement will not have any impact on agricultural resources, and will not change the impacts identified in the County’s CEQA documents.
