SU0004094 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

6.2 Cumulative Impacts 6.2 Cumulative Impacts 6.2.1 Introduction The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15130(a)) require that an EIR discuss the cumulative impacts of a project when the project's incremental effect is "cumulatively considerable," meaning that the r project's incremental effects are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current,and probable future projects. The CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)requires that discussions of cumulative impacts reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence.The CEQA Guidelines note that the cumulative impacts discussion does not need to provide as much detail as is provided in the analysis of project-only impacts and should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness. r In addition, Section 15130(b) of the CEQA Guidelines identifies that the following three elements are necessary for an adequate cumulative analysis: INN • A list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including those projects outside the control of the Lead Agency (i.e.,the list approach); or a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document designed to evaluate regional or area-wide conditions(i.e., the plan approach). Any such planning document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the lead agency. • A summary of expected environmental effects to be produced by those projects.The summary shall include specific reference to additional information stating where that information is available. • A reasonable analysis of the cumulative impacts of the relevant projects. An EIR ` shall examine reasonable options for mitigating or avoiding any significant cumulative effects of a proposed project. 11. 6.2.2 Cumulative Setting For the purposes of this EIR,the cumulative setting is based on a cumulative growth scenario that incorporates development anticipated under both the San Joaquin County General Plan, in which the planning horizon year is 2010,and the Stanislaus County General Plan, in which the planning horizon year is 2015, as well as reasonably foreseeable future development projects at the time of publication of the NOP, as shown in Table 6-1. While it is unlikely that the regional aggregate market demand would cause production levels at the project site to reach 4 million tons per year, ` it has been considered as a"worst case" scenario. The cumulative setting is based on other anticipated mining-related development within the ` vicinity of the project, specifically within the Vernalis and Tracy areas. These areas were selected since they represent the areas where other proposed and approved mining projects NNAP RMC Pacific Vernalis Cuany Mining and Reclamation Project 6-3 ESA/203015 Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2006