Final Staff Report and Recommendations on Agricultural Burning



# Appendix C

Initial Study and Negative DeclarationFinal Staff Report and Recommendations on Agricultural Burning 

### This page intentionally blank



# .

# San Joaquin Valley
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT



# Proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

(District Project# 

## 201001

## 75 )



# Initial Study and Final

Negative Declaration

May 201

# 0

### SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD 2010



### CHAIR: TONY BARBA Supervisor, Kings County
VICE CHAIR: J. STEVEN WORTHLEY Supervisor, Tulare County
MEMBERS:
DAVID G. AYERS Councilmember, City of Hanford
JUDITH G. CASE Supervisor, Fresno County
RONN DOMlbllCl Supervisor, Madera County
HENRY JAY FORMAN, PH.D Appointed by Governor
ANN JOHNSTON Mayor, City of Stockton
MIKE LANE Councilmember, City of Visalia RANDY IWILLER Councilmember, City of Taft
MICHAEL G. NELSON Supervisor, Merced County
WILLIAM O'BRIEN Supervisor, Stanislaus County
LEROY ORNELLAS Supervisor, San Joaquin County
JOHN 

### G. TELLES, M.D. Appointed by Governor
CHRIS VIERRA Cou~icilmember, City of Ceres
RAYMONDA. WATSON Supervisor, Kern County

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER
SEYED SADREDIN

### San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Initial Study 1 

### Final Negative Declaration Pronosed Recommendations toAaricultural Burnina 

### May 20,2010



### A. PROJECT BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. 

### Project Title: Proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning
2. 

### Lead Agency Name and Address: San Joaquin Valley UnifiedAir Pollution Control District 1990 E. GettysburgAvenue Fresno CA 93726-0244
3. 

### Contact Person:
CEQA: Mark Montelongo (559) 230-6000 Planning: Koshoua Thao (559) 230-61 00
4. 

### Project Location: The proposed recommendations apply to open burning conducted with the exception of prescribed burning and hazard reduction burning as defined in Rule 4106 (Prescribed Burning and Hazard Reduction Burning) in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. (See Exhibit 1, Map of District Boundaries)


### 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: San Joaquin Valley UnifiedAir Pollution Cor~trol District 1990 E. GettysburgAvenue Fresno CA 93726-0244
6. 

### Assessor's Parcel Number:
Not applicableto this project.

7. 

### General Plan DesignationIZoning:
Not applicableto this project.

Page 1

### San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20,201 0 

### Initial Study / 

### Final Negative Declaration Proposed Recommendations to Agricultural Burning



### Exhibit 1 

### San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Boundaries

San 1

pnard San Bernad~no Los Angeles

anta Ana



# . Chula V~sl 

# u

Page 

## 2

### San Joaquin Valley UnifiedAir Pollution Control District May 20,2010 Initial Study/ 

### Final Negative Declaration 

### Proposed Recommendations to Agricultural Burning


### 8. 

### Project Description:
In2003, California state law required the District to regulate open burning for diseased crops, establish best management practices for other weeds and maintenance, and prohibit open burningfor several crop categories. In additionto those requirements, California state law authorizes the District to postpone the burn prohibition dates for specific types of agriculturalwaste material if the District makesthree specific determinations and the Air Resources Board concurs. The determinationsare: (1) there are no economically feasible alternatives to open-burningthat type of material; (2) open-burningthat type of materialwill not cause or substantially contributeto a violation of a NationalAmbient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS); and (3) there is no long term federal or state funding commitment for the continued operation of biomass facilities in the Valley or the development of alternatives to burning. District staff has prepared Proposed 

### Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report (Report)for consideration by the District's Governing Board. The purpose of the Report is to identify economically feasible alternatives to open burning of various agricultural materials and to meet its legal obligation under the California Health & 

### Safety Code (CH&SC). The Report is intendedto satisfy the requirementsfrom CH&SC Section 4.1855.6, by presenting the District's recommendeddeterminations for specified crops and materials, particularly those that don't have an economically feasible alternative to open burning. The proposed recommendationsapply to open burning conducted in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basinwith the exception of prescribed burning and hazard reduction burning as defined in Rule 4106 (Prescribed Burning and Hazard Reduction Burning). Adoption of the proposed 

### RecommendationsonAgricultural Burning Reportby the District's Governing Board is a discretionary approval and as such is subject to the provisions of the California EnvironmentalQuality Act (CEQA).


### 9. 

### Other Agencies Whose Approvals Are Required and Permits Needed: Adoption of the proposed 

### Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report by the District's Governing Board does not require permits from any agency, however the Air Resources Board must concur with the District'sdeterminations regarding alternativesto open-burning. 

### 10.

### Name of PersonWho Prepared InitialStudy: Mark Montelongo Air Quality Specialist 

### B. 

### FINDINGS
Districtstaff has prepared a 

### Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Reportwhich considers potential impactsthat adoption of the proposed recommendations could have on air quality. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 915063(a), District staff prepared an Initial Study for the proposed project, which considers additional environmental impacts. The District finds that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the District, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. District staff has prepared a Draft Negative Declaration for the project. Upon approval of the proposed recommendations by the District's Governing Board, District staff will file a Notice of Determination with each County Clerk within the boundariesof the District, CEQA Guidelines 915075(d).


### Page 

### 3

### San Joaquin Valley UnifiedAir Pollution Control District May 20,2010 Initial Study 

### I Final Negative Declaration Proroosed RecommendationstoAariculturalBurnina


### C. ENVIRONMENTALFACTORSPO'TEN'TIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by the proposed project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact"or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated", as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Biological Resources Cultural Resources Greenhouse Gas Hazards & 

### Hazardous Emissions Materials Land UseIPlannir~g Mineral Resources PopulationIHousing Public Services Transportationfrraffic UtilitiesIService Systems Air Quality GeologyISoils HydrologyNVater

Quality Noise Recreation Mandatory Findingsof Significance


### D. DETERMINATION

I

### certify that this project was independently reviewed and analyzed and that this document reflects the independentjudgment of the District.
I find that the proposed project is exempt from CEQA requirements under Public Resource Code 15061 (b)(3), and a Notice of Exemption has been prepared.
I

### find that the proposed project COLILD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATIOIV has been prepared.


### I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been addedto the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONwill be prepared.


### Ifindthat the proposed project MAY have a significant effecton the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.


### Ifind that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) 

### has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if 

### the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be

Date: 5/~//0



### Page 

### 4

### San Joaquin Valley UnifiedAir Pollution Control District May 20,201 0 

### Initial Study / 

### Final Negative Declaration 

### Proposed Recommendations to Agricultural Burning


### E. 

### ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST

Page 

## 5 I. AESTHETICS Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact X X 

### X Potentially Significant Impact

Discussion: Adoption of the proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Reportdoes not impose regulatory requirements that would affect aesthetics, as identified above (a-c). Mitigation: None Reference: Supporting Proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report. Potentially Significant lmpact Unless Mitigated

II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES Indetermining whether impacts to 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 Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmlandof Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California ResourcesAgency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a W~lliamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Discussion: Adoption of the proposed Recommendations Potentially Significant

Impact

on Mitigation: None Reference: Supportivg Proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report. Potentially Significant

lmpact Unless Mitigated

Agricultural Burning Less Than Significant

Impact

Reportdoes

Potentially Significant

Impact Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant

Impact Ill. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality managementor air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact

X

X

X

not impose

No Impact X Potentially Significant

ImpactSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Initial Study 

### / Final Negative Declaration 

### Pro~osed Recommendations to Aaricultural Burnina May 20,2010



### Page 6 Ill. AIR QUALITY (Continued)

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions



### . which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptorsto substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Discussion: The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is classified as serious for 8-hour ozone nonattainment area and is classified as nonattainmentfor particulate matter 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5)for the health-based air quality standards established by the federal Clean Air Act. The serious ozone classification and nonattainment PM classification are the worst possible categories.
District staff has proposed Recommendationson Agricultural Burning Report (Report) for consideration by the District's Governing Board. The purpose of the report is to identify economically feasible alternatives to open burning of various agricultural materials and to meet its legal obligation under the California Health & Safety Code (CH&SC). The report is intended to satisfy the requirements from CH&SC Section 41855.6, by presenting the District's recommended determinationsfor specified crops and materials, particularly those that don't have an economically feasible alternative to open burning. The proposed recommendations apply to open burning conducted in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basinwith the exception of prescribed burning and hazard reduction burning as defined in Rule 4106 (Prescribed Burning and Hazard Reduction Burning). Proposed recommendations identify biomass facilities and soil incorporation as feasible alternatives to open burning. The identified alternatives have the potential to result in changes in criteria pollutant emissions. District staff has conducted a preliminary assessment on the potential air emissions associated with proposed alternatives. The analysis demonstratesthat implementationof the proposed alternatives to open burning will result in annual net emission reductions of 39.2 tons of NOx; 123.1 tons PM2.5; and 105.2tons VOC. The analysis demonstrates approval of the proposed recommendationswould result in a benefit to air quality. Thus, the District concludes that the proposed amendmentswould have a positive impact on air quality as identified above (a-e). Mitigation: None Reference: Supporting Proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Repot?. Potentially Significant

Impact Potentially Significant

lmpact Unless Mitigated LessThan Significant

Impact No Impact

X

X

X

X

### San Joaquin Valley UnifiedAir Pollution Control District Initial Study 

### / Final Negative Declaration 

### Proposed Recommendations to Aaricultural Burnina May 20,201

### 0



### Page 

### 7 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Departmentof Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulationsor by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, Potentially Significant

Impact

filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or w~ldlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict w~th any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Discussion: Adoption of the proposed 

### Recommendationson Agricultural Burning Potentially Significant

lmpact Unless Mitigated

regulatory requirementsthat would affect biological resources, as identified above (a-f). Mitigation: None Reference: Supporting Proposed 

### Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report. 

## ---

Reportdoes not X

X

X

impose Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

X

X

X

### San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20,2010 

### Initial Study/ 

### Final Negative Declaration 

### Proposed Recommendations to Agricultural Burning



### Page 

## 8 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significanceof a historical resource as defined in '15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to '15064.5? c) Directlyor indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

X

X

X

X Potentially Significant Impact

Discussion: Adoption of the proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Reportdoes not impose regulatory requirements that would affect cultural resources, as identified above (a-d). Mitigation: None Reference: Supporting Proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report. Potentially Significant

lmpact Unless Mitigated

VI. GEOLOGYISOILS Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquakefault, as delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologistfor the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or so11 that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Potentially Significant

Impact Potentially Significant

lmpact Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

X

X

X
X
X
X

X

### San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20,201

### 0 Initial Study 

### 1 Final Negative Declaration Proposed Recommendations to Agricultural Burning



### Page 

## 9 VI. GEOLOGYISOILS (Continued)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1

994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not 

### available for the disposal of wastewater? Potentially Significant

Impact No Impact

X

X Potentially Significant

lmpact Unless Mitigated

Discussion: Adoption of the proposed 

### Recommendationson Agricultural Burning Reportdoes not impose regulatory requirementsthat would affect geology/soils, as identified above (a-e). Mitigation: None Reference: Supporting Proposed 

### Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report.LessThan Significant

Impact

VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict w~th any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Discussion: Global Climate Change (GCC), which is now generally accepted by the scientific community to be caused by Greenhouse Gases (GHGs), is a widely discussed scientific, economic, and political issue in the United States. Briefly stated, GCC is the cumulative change in the average weather of the earth that may be measured by changes in temperature, precipitation, storms, and wind. GHGs are gases that trap heat in the atmosphere. Some greenhouse gases such as water vapor occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes as well as through human activities, such as electricity production, vehicle use, etc. The most common GHG that results from human activity is carbon dioxide, followed by methane and nitrous oxide.
District staff has prepared proposed 

### Recommendationson Agricultural Burning Report (Report)for consideration by the District's Governing Board. The purpose of the report is to identify economicallyfeas~ble alternativesto open burning of various agricultural materials and to meet its legal obligation under the California Health & Safety Code (CH&SC).The report is intendedto satisfy the requirementsfrom CH&SC Section 41855.6, by presenting the District's recommended determinationsfor specified crops and materials, particularly those that don't have an economically feasible alternative to open burning. The proposed recommendationsapply to open burning conducted in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basinw~th the exception of prescribed burning and hazard reduction burning as defined in Rule 4106 (Prescribed Burning and Hazard Reduction Burning). Proposed recommendations identify biomass facilities and soil incorporation as feasible alternatives to open burning. The identified alternatives have the potential to result in changes in GHG emissions because of Potentially Significant

Impact Potentially Significant lmpact Unless Mitigated LessThan Significant

Impact



### x

X No Impact

### San Joaquin Valley UnifiedAir Pollution Control District May 20,2010 

### Initial Study/ 

### Final Negative Declaration Proposed Recommendations to Agricultural Burning
possible increased fuel consumption associatedwith equipment usedto grindlchip and transport agricultural biomass. District staff examined the proposed recommendationsto determine their potential to have a cumulatively significant impact on global climate change, results of which are presented below. The analysis demonstratesthat implementationof the proposed recommended alternatives to open burning will not have a cumulative significant impact on global climate change.
Potential Greenhouse Gas Impacts The primary existing practice for disposing of orchard removal material is to burn it in place (open burning). The proposed alternative to open burning of orchard removal materials is chipping the organic matter and using the chipped material as fuel in a biomass plant to produce electricity. Sources of GHG emissions from this alternative include fuel consumed in chipping the plant material; fuel consumed in transporting the chipped material to a biomass plant; fuel consumed in processing the chipped material at the biomass plant; and combustion of the chipped material to produce electricity at the biomass facility. Because the current practice is open burning, the alternative practice of burning chipped material in a biomass power plant would not result in an increase in GHG emissions compared to the status quo. In fact, burning the material in a biomass plant would produce a net GHG benefit by producing electric power from a renewable source of energy rather than a fossil fuel. This concept is one of the strategies adopted by the State of California to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020 by requiring the state's load serving entities to meet a 33 percent renewable energy target by 2020 (Executive Order S-21-09). Biomass fuels burned in existing facilities are currently transported from various locations outside and within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. Use of locally produced fuel could reduce VMT associated with transporting materials, and thus result in a net GHG benefit. GHG emissions associatedwith chipping orchard removal material are expected to be offset by the benefits associated with displacing fossil fuels and reducingVMT. The alternative to the open burning of orchard prunings is shredding the material in place and allowing it to remain in the orchard as a land application or mulch. Sources of GHG emissions for this alternative include the fuel consumed to shred the plant material. It is reasonable to conclude, land application of shredded orchard pruning materials will reduce GHG emissions by sequestering some amount of carbon, offsetting any GHG emissions associatedwith the chipping operation and potentially resulting in a net GHG benefit. The District concludes, GHG emissions resulting from alternativesto open burning of orchard removal materials and prunings are expected to have a net positive benefit on global climatic change compared to the status quo of open burning. Therefore, the District concludes that implementation of the proposed recommendations would have a less than cumulatively significant impact on global climatic change. Mitigation: None Reference: Supporting Proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report.



### Page 10

### San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

### Pollution Control District May 20,2010 

### Initial Study/ 

### Final Negative Declaration Proposed Recommendations to Agricultural Burning



### Page 1

### 1 VIII. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazardto the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazardfor people residing or working inthe project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazardfor people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementationof or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving w~ldland fires, includingwhere wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixedwith wildlands? Discussion:Adoption of the proposed Recommendations regulatory requirements that would affect hazards and Mitigation: None Reference: Supporting Proposed Recommendationson Agricultural Burning Report. Potentially Significant

Impact

on Agricultural hazardous Potentially Significant

lmpact Unless Mitigated

Burning materials, as Less Than Significant

Impact

Reportdoes not identified above No Impact

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

impose (a-h).San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Initial Study

### / Final Negative Declaration 

### Proposed Recommendations to Agricultural Burning May 20,2010



## I I Potentially 

## I I

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantiallywith groundwater recharcre such that there would be a net IX. HYDROLOGYNATER QUALITY Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearbywells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Potentially Significant

Impact

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or ~i~nificani lmpact Unless Mitigated

X amount of surface runoff in a mannerwhich would result inflooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoffwater which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X

X g) Place housing within a 100-yearflood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

I I I I Discussion:Adoption of the proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Reportdoes not impose regulatory requirements that would affect hydrologytwaterquality, as identified above (a-i). Mitigation: None Reference: Su~~ortina Pro~osed Recommendations on Aaricultural Burnina Reoort. Less Than Significant

Impact

X

h) Placewithin a 100-year flood hazard area structureswhich would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?



### Page 12 No lmpac X

X

X

### San Joaquin Valley UnifiedAir Pollution Control District Initial Study 

### / Final Negative Declaration Pro~osed Recommendations to Aaricultural Burnina 

### May 20, 2010



### Page 13 X. LAND USEIPLANNING Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limitedto the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact X

X

X Potentially Significant Impact

Discussion: Adoption of the proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Reportdoes not impose regulatory requirements that would affect land uselplanning as identified above (a-c). Mitigation: None Reference: Supporting Proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report. Potentially Significant

lmpact Unless Mitigated

XI. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of avallabll~ty of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of ava~lab~lity of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Potentially Significant

Impact

Discussion: Adoption of the proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Reportdoes not impose regulatory requirements that would affect mineral resources, as identified above (a-b). Mitigation: None Reference: Supporting Proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report. Potentially Significant

lmpact Unless Mitigated

XII. NOISE Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established inthe local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant

Impact

Potentially Significant

Impact No Impact

X

X

Potentially Significant

lmpact Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

X

### San Joaquin Valley UnifiedAir Pollution Control District Initial Study 

### 1 Final Negative Declaration 

### Pro~osed Recommendations toAaricultural Burnina May 20,201 0



### Page 14 XII. NOISE (Continued)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two m~les of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residingor working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Discussion: Adoption of the proposed Recommendations Potentially Significant Impact

on regulatory requirements that would affect noise, as identified above (a-f). Mitigation: None Reference: Supporting Proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report. Potentially Significant lmpact Unless Mitigated

Agricultural Burning

XIII. POPULATlONlHOUSlNG Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? LessThan Significant

Impact

Reportdoes

Discussion: Adoption of the proposed Recommendationson Agricultural Burning Reportdoes not impose regulatory requirementsthat would affect population/housing,as identified above (a-c). Mitigation: None Reference: Supporting Proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report. Potentially Significant lmpact Unless Mitigated Potentially Significant

Impact No Impact

X

X

X

X

X

not impose

Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

X

X

X

### San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20,201 0 

### Initial Study/ 

### Final Negative Declaration Proposed Recommendations to Agricultural Burning



### Page 

## 15 XIV. PLIBI-IC SERVICES Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associatedwith the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectivesfor any of the public services:

Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? b) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? c) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? d) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? Discussion: Adoption of the proposed Recommendations regulatory requirements that would affect public services, as identified above (a-d). Mitigation: None Reference: Supporting Proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report.Less Than Significant

Impact

Reportdoes not No Impact

X

X X X X X X

X

X impose Potentially Significant

Impact

on Potentially Significant

lmpact Unless Mitigated

Agricultural Burning

### San Joaquin Valley UnifiedAir Pollution Control District May 20,2010 

### Initial Study 

### 1 Final Negative Declaration 

### Proposed Recommendations toAgricultural Burning



### Page 16 XV. RECREATION

a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreationalfac~lities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

X

X Potentially Significant

Impact

Discussion: Adoption of the proposed Recommendationson Agricultural Burning Reportdoes not impose regulatory requirementsthat would affect recreation, as identified above (a-b). Mitigation: None Reference: Supporting Proposed Recommendationson Agricultural Burning Report. Potentially Significant

lmpact Unless Mitigated

XVI. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, e~ther individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? Potentially Significant

Impact Potentially Significant

lmpact Unless Mitigated LessThan Significant

Impact No Impact

X

X

X

X

X X

### San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Initial Study 

### 1 Final Negative Declaration Proposed Recommendations to Aaricultural Burnina 

### May 20,2010



### Page 17 No Impact

X XVI. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC (Continued)
g) Conflictwith adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Potentially Significant

Impact

Discussion: Adoption of the proposed 

### Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Reportdoes not impose regulatory requirements that would affect transportationttraffic,as identified above (a-g). Mitigation: None Reference: Supporting Proposed 

### Recommendations onAgriculturalBurning Report.

XVII. UTILITIESISERVICESYSTEMS Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable RegionalWater Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
c) Requireor result in the constructionof new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existingfac~lities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficientwater supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in add~tion to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfillwith sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Potentially Significant

lmpact Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant

Impact

Potentially Significant

Impact Potentially Significant

lmpact Unless Mitigated LessThan Significant Impact No Impact

X

X

X

X

X

X

### San Joaquin Valley UnifiedAir Pollution Control District Initial Study 

### 1 Final Negative Declaration 

### Prooosed Recommendations toAaricuIturaI Burning May 20,2010



### Page 18 XVII. UTILITIESISERVICESYSTEMS (Continued)
g) Comply w~th federal, state, and local statutes and regulations relatedto solid waste? Potentially Significant

lmpact Unless Mitigated Potentially Significant

Impact

Discussion:Adoption of the proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Reportdoes not impose regulatory requirements that would affect utilitieslservice systems, as identified above (a-g). Mitigation: None Reference: Supporting Proposed Recommendationson Agricultural Burning Report.Less Than Significant

Impact

XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively Considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connectionwith the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion:Adoption of the proposed Recommendations No Impact X

regulatory requirementsthat would have adverse environmental impacts as identified above (a-c). Mitigation: None Reference: Supporting Proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report. Potentially Significant

Impact

on Agricultural Potentially Significant

lmpact Unless Mitigated

Burning Less Than Significant

Impact

Reportdoes not No Impact

X



### X

X
impose