Environmental Setting. Evaluation — The additional ROW required additional field work, mapping and report preparation for the Wetland Delineation and Biological Studies.
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. The project site is located in the Northwest Neighborhoods Focus Area (Figure CD-13: Urban Design District Map) in the City of Brea, County of Orange. The immediate project area is developed and primarily residential north of Central Avenue. The project site terrain is generally level and 36-41 feet above mean sea level (msl) but slopes to the southeast. Central Avenue, a Primary Arterial of four-lanes, and Xxxxxxx Road, a Major Arterial of six lanes, are the major east-west access routes to the project site. Brea Boulevard and Xxxxx Street (north of Central Avenue) are four-lane Primary roadways in the project area. Two major fault zones traverse the City, the Whittier Fault and Elysian Park Thrust Fault. The Whittier Fault (a designated Xxxxxxx-Xxxxxx Earthquake Zone fault) cuts across the hills and through the eastern half of the City in a northwesterly direction. The Whittier Fault is approximately two miles from the project site. The Elysian Park Thrust Fault, a buried fault approximately 6 to 10 miles below the ground surface, is considered to be more threatening with a greater potential to cause a large magnitude earthquake in the City. The maximum credible earthquake (MCE) predicted from the Elysian Park Thrust Fault within the City is 6.7 MCE, for the Whittier Fault, 7.3 MCE and for the San Andreas,
Environmental Setting. Existing information from relevant environmental documents will be used to describe the baseline environmental conditions within the project vicinity. This section describes those aspects of the environment that may be affected by implementation of the Proposed SVIP Project. This section focuses on existing conditions within and surrounding the SVIP Project site with specific reference to the following topics: ■ Biological environment - vegetation and wildlife, including migratory birds and forestry resources. ■ Social environment - cultural and tribal resources; land use; noise; population and housing; public services, utilities, and energy; recreation; and transportation and traffic.
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 xxxx://xxx.xxxxx.xx.xxx/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. Environmental characteristics including topography, geology and hydrogeology were evaluated based on Site observations, published literature and maps.
Environmental Setting. Existing information from relevant environmental documents will be used to describe the baseline environmental conditions within the project vicinity. This section describes those aspects of the environment that may be affected by implementation of the Proposed SVIP Project. This section focuses on existing conditions within and surrounding the SVIP Project site with specific reference to the following topics:
Environmental Setting. US 301 Section 1 lies almost entirely within the Mid-drainage Zone of the Upper Coastal Plain physiographic province, with its westernmost extreme extending into the Midpeninsular Drainage Divide Zone. The Mid-drainage Zone is a relatively narrow strip of Coastal Plain containing the middle reaches of streams that flow from the Midpeninsular Drainage Divide east to the Delaware River. It is a flat to gently rolling region of low relief, with the greatest elevation differences exhibited along the major stream courses. Elevations at the western end of Section 1 are generally 70-75 feet above sea level (asl), gently decreasing to the east to 40-50 feet asl at its northeastern terminus. The lowest point on the Section 1 alignment is the Xxxxx Run floodplain (near the northeast end), which lies at about 30 feet asl. Most of the land crossed by Section 1 is under active cultivation, but a few areas of secondary forest and thick brush are present. Disturbance is limited primarily to existing road crossings at Route 896, Xxxxxxx Corner Road, Hyetts Corner Road, and the northeastern end of the alignment where it joins existing Route 1. In the vicinity of the crossing over Xxxxx Run, additional disturbance has resulted from the installation of a sewer main and utility lines. Six stream crossings occur along the alignment, most of which are flanked by wooded riparian zones. South of Route 896, drainage from the corridor is to the Appoquinimink River, via Drawyer Creek. Crossings in this part of the alignment include an unnamed first-order tributary of Spring Mill Branch, Drawyer Creek (a second-order stream), and a first-order tributary of Drawyer Creek known historically as Xxxxxx Xxxxxx. North of Route 896, the alignment passes within 100 m of the source of Xxxxx Run, later crossing a middle reach of Xxxxx Run, at which point it is a second-order stream. A short distance to the northeast, the alignment crosses two unnamed first-order tributaries of Xxxxx Run. Xxxxx Run flows to the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, joining it just west of where the canal enters the Delaware River. The area traversed by US 301 Section 1 is underlain by the fluvial sands of the middle Pleistocene Columbia Formation. Along the alignment these may be capped to varying depths by the late Pleistocene Xxxxx Heights and Scotts Corner Formations, both associated with marine transgressions. Cobbles are present on the surface in several areas in the western half of the project LOD. In all likeli...
Environmental Setting. The SWP is a water storage and conveyance project of statewide significance that includes aqueducts, canals, pipelines, and storage and pumping facilities. The California Legislature authorized the SWP in 1959. Passage of the Xxxxx-Xxxxxx Act by the public expressly authorized the State of California to enter into contracts for the sale, delivery, and use of SWP water made available by the operation of the SWP facilities (Water Code, Section 12937[b][4]).
Environmental Setting. The geographic area that would be affected by implementing the Proposed Project extends across six of the 11 geomorphic provinces in California: the Sierra Nevada, the Great Valley, the Coast Ranges, the Transverse Ranges, the Peninsular Ranges, and the Colorado Desert (California Geological Survey 2002). The service areas of the four Plaintiff Water Contractors are located primarily in the Great Valley Geomorphic Province, a valley trough more than 50 miles wide and 400 miles long that includes the Sacramento and the San Xxxxxxx Valleys. The Sacramento Valley is drained by the Sacramento River from the north. The San Xxxxxxx Valley is composed of the San Joaquin River basin, drained by the San Joaquin River from the south, and the Tulare basin, a hydrologically closed basin drained only during extremely wet periods. The confluence of these two major river systems and lesser streams and systems forms the Delta, which is drained through Suisun Bay and the narrow Carquinez Strait to San Pablo and San Xxxxxxxxx Xxxx and eventually into the Pacific Ocean (CALFED 2000:5.5-4). Lake Oroville is located in the Sierra Nevada Geomorphic Province. The Feather River watershed, which lies in the northern portion of this geomorphic province, drains the western slope of the Sierra Nevada and is tributary to the Sacramento River. San Luis Reservoir and portions of the SCWA and Napa water contractor service areas are situated in the 600-mile-long Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province. The western portion of the Napa Valley is drained by the Napa River and its tributaries to San Pablo Bay, and the eastern portion is drained by Putah Creek and its tributaries into Lake Berryessa. The Suisun Valley, composed of portions of Suisun City and Fairfield, is drained by Suisun Creek to Suisun Xxxxx and Suisun Bay. Landslides can occur in a variety of rock and soil types but are more prevalent in areas where a distinct zone of weakness separates the slide material from more stable underlying material. Risk of landslide in reservoirs is increased by rapid drawdown conditions and by the submergence of the slope toe (Xxxxxx and Xxxxxx 2011). Slope instabilities around reservoirs, whether induced or not by stored water, create additional risks, such as damage to the dam and its foundation or partial or complete blockage of storage water intake pumps (Xxxxxx and Pinyol 2011). Landslides are common along the banks of Lake Oroville and are concentrated along the North Fork arm (Xxxxxxx Xxxx area...