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 Xxxxxx 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. Evaluation — The additional ROW required additional field work, mapping and report preparation for the Wetland Delineation and Biological Studies.
Environmental Setting. 9 5.1 Topography............................................................... 9 5.2 Soils.................................................................... 9 5.3 Geology & Hydrology...................................................... 9 5.4 Groundwater.............................................................. 9
Environmental Setting. 5.1 TOPOGRAPHY The topographic map of the Site area was not readily available.
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 Xxxxxxx Hills project site is located in the southeastern portion of Sacramento County on approximately 2,668.7 acres, adjacent to the City of Rancho Xxxxxxx. The project site is currently vacant and occasionally used for cattle grazing. The elevation of the site ranges from approximately 130 feet to 270 feet with the highest elevation occurring at the university designated site (i.e., southwest corner of site). The topography on the western third of the project site is relatively flat consisting of a plateau that slopes westerly towards Grant Line Road. The eastern edge of this plateau slopes easterly into an intermittent drainage which traverses north and south in the center of the project site. The topography climbs east of the central drainage where the ground then starts to undulate into gentle rolling hills up to the eastern edge of the project site. At this point, the topography then drops into the Xxxxxx Creek floodplain area. A 120KV PG&E tower line traverses the eastern edge of project site in a north to south direction and runs parallel to Xxxxxx Creek. A majority of Xxxxxxx Hills’ notable biological resources, including clustered wetlands that support fairy shrimp and other species, are located on a plateau along the western third of the project site. The remainder of the site is relatively free of wetlands features with the exception of a few small depressional features scattered along the central drainage corridor. In total, there are approximately 89.1 acres of wetland resources on the project site.
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 xxxxx lands, wetlands, streams, oceans, forests, etc.
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 Xxxxxxxxxx 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 Xxxxxxxxxx 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 Xxxxxxx 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 Xxxxxxxxxx Act contracts; therefore these impacts were identified as significant and unavoidable in the previous EIR. There is no known additio...
Environmental Setting. The CLSP EIR described the air quality setting of the project vicinity in detail. Since the certification of the EIR, regional air quality conditions have improved somewhat, per-vehicle emissions have been reduced, and additional air quality protection regulations are in place. These setting changes are incidental and generally encompassed by the EIR analysis, especially mitigation measures as discussed below that tend to reduce the overall air quality effects of the larger CLSP project. There are no known changes in air quality circumstances that would result in new or potentially more severe environmental effects than were identified in the CLSP EIR.
Environmental Setting. The CLSP EIR provided a very detailed inventory of the occurrence and protection status of terrestrial and aquatic biological resources that could be affected by the CLSP. These included general biological resources, special-status plants, special-status wildlife species, special-status fish, sensitive habitats and fish and wildlife movement corridors. The resources of the CLSP area, including the adjacent San Joaquin River were described in detail. The EIR also described the San Xxxxxxx County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (SJMSCP) and its role in mitigating potential losses of important biological resources. Since certification of the EIR, the project site and surrounding CLSP lands have been converted from agricultural and related land uses to vacant land that has been graded and otherwise developed in preparation for urban use. Consequently, the biological values of the project site and surrounding lands have been substantially reduced or eliminated. The SJMSCP remains in force and will require contributions as development of the CLSP proceeds.
