DOCSLIB.ORG

Land Use and Planning Policies

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Land Use and Planning Policies 3.7 LAND USE 3.7 LAND USE This section describes existing land uses on the Project site and surrounding vicinity, and evaluates potential land use effects associated with the amount, location, and type of future development that could occur under the proposed East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan (Project). This section also evaluates the consistency of the proposed Project with applicable adopted programs and policies adopted by the jurisdiction within which the Project site is located. 3.7.1 Environmental Setting 3.7.1.1 Project Vicinity The Project site is entirely within the City of Arroyo Grande (City) jurisdiction, located at the southeastern extent of the City, an area characterized by a mix of urban and agricultural uses. The Project site is located approximately 300 feet of the U.S. Highway 101 Traffic Way 186 off-ramp on the southeast corner of Traffic Way and East Cherry Avenue in a predominantly residential area. Residential neighborhoods border the Project site to the east, north, and south, with commercial uses along Traffic Way west of the site. 3.7.1.2 Project Site The Project site is composed of three parcels referred to as Subarea 1, Subarea 2, and Subarea 3 (Table 3.7-1). Subarea 1 is the western-most 2.16-acre subdivision that is currently designated as Traffic-Way Mixed Use. Subarea 2 is the middle and largest parcel at 11.62 acres, which is currently designated as Agriculture and used for row crops. The smallest parcel, Subarea 3, consists of 1.51 acres of vacant and fallow agricultural land owned by the Arroyo Grande Valley Japanese Welfare Association (JWA) and is designated Agriculture, although it has not been historically used for this purpose. Together, the Project site consists of 15.29 acres of undeveloped land. Table 3.7-1. Project Site Land Use Designations and Zoning Subarea Ownership Land Use Designation/Zoning Acres 1 SRK Hotels Mixed Use/ Traffic Way Mixed-Use 2.16 2 Mangano Homes, Inc. Agriculture/ Agriculture 11.62 3 Arroyo Grande Valley JWA Agriculture/ Agriculture 1.51 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.7-1 Draft EIR 3.7 LAND USE AND PLANNING 3.7.2 Regulatory Setting 3.7.2.1 Federal No federal policies or regulations related to land use would apply to the Project. 3.7.2.2 State Government Code Section 63450 State law (Government Code §63450) authorizes cities to adopt specific plans for implementation of their general plans in a defined area. All Specific Plans must comply with Sections 65400-65457 of the Government Code. These provisions require that a Specific Plan be consistent with the adopted General Plan and that all subsequent subdivisions and development, public works projects, and zoning regulations must be consistent with the Specific Plan. Specific plans are required to include distribution, location and types of uses, development, and improvements to public facilities and infrastructure. Tailored regulations, conditions, programs, standards and guidelines help implement the vision for long-range development of the specific plan area. 3.7.2.3 Local City of Arroyo Grande General Plan In accordance with California State law, the City adopted a general plan to guide development within the City. The General Plan expresses the City’s development goals, state public policy in regards to future land uses, provides the basis for local government decision making, and informs citizens and decision-makers of policies pertaining to development. The purpose of the General Plan is to identify appropriate location of land uses, as well as basic design and function of circulation, open space, and infrastructure policies, as well as public service needs. The City’s General Plan consists of eight state- mandated and optional elements: Fringe and Urban Land Use Element (2001) Circulation Element (2001); Housing Element (2013); Noise Element (2001); Safety Element (2001); Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element (Amended 2007); and, Parks and Recreation Element (2001). Project consistency with specific policies from the General Plan are analyzed below in Table 3.7-3. 3.7-2 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Draft EIR 3.7 LAND USE Land Use Element Policy LU10-2 – For relatively large properties or sites involving diverse adjoining land uses or unusual or unique features, the City may utilize a “Planned Development” or “Specific Plan” combining designation or land use classifications. Policy LU10-2.1 – Planned Development (PD) combining designation shall require any use or development (more than one dwelling) to be subject to PD zoning approval as described in the City of Arroyo Grande Development Code. Policy LU10-2.2 – Specific Plan (SP) classification shall require any use or development (more than one dwelling) be subject to preparation and adoption of a Specific Plan pursuant to Article 8 (Sections 65450-65456) of State of California Planning, Zoning and Development Laws. Policy LU10-2.3 – Encourage appropriate use of Specific Plans, and/or Planned Development combining designation with beneficial features that could not otherwise be achieved. Examples of such features include clustering houses and maintaining open spaces, mixed use, and a design that is sensitive to the site as a whole and its setting. 3.7.3 Environmental Impact Analysis 3.7.3.1 Thresholds of Significance With respect to land use, Appendix G of the 2015 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states that a project would have a significant impact on the environment if it would: 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 limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; or, c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.7-3 Draft EIR 3.7 LAND USE AND PLANNING 3.7.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology Consistency with relevant General Plan and Municipal Code goals, policies, and programs are evaluated in Table 3.7-3 below, as well as within individual sections of this EIR. Only those stated goals, policies, or programs that are most relevant to the Project are highlight in this section. In accordance with CEQA and the purpose of this EIR, this discussion primarily focuses on those goals and policies that relate to avoiding or mitigating environmental impacts, and an assessment of whether any inconsistency with these standards creates a significant physical impact on the environment. CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(d) requires that an EIR discuss inconsistencies with applicable plans that the decision-makers should address. A project need not be consistent with each and every policy and objective in a planning document. Rather, a project is considered consistent with the provisions of the identified regional and local plans if it is compatible with and will further the objectives and policies of the plans. 3.7.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Table 3.7-2. Summary of Project Impacts Land Use Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance Impact LU-1. The proposed Project would None required Less than Significant not result in the physical divide of an established community. Impact LU-2. The proposed Project would None required No Impact not conflict with any habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans as none exist within the Project vicinity. Impact LU-3. The proposed Project is MM AG-1a Less than Significant potentially inconsistent with adopted City MM HAZ-4a-e with Mitigation policies in the General Plan designed to MM REC-1a protect agricultural resources, public views, MM VIS-1a recreational resources, and reduce the threat MM VIS-4a to new developments from fire. Impact LU-1 The proposed Project would not result in the physical divide of an established community (Less than Significant). The Project site is located in the southern urban fringe of the City, adjacent to residential communities that lie to the north and east. Implementation of the Project is intended to be 3.7-4 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Draft EIR 3.7 LAND USE compatible with the existing residential developments located to the north and east of the Project site. Currently, the site consists of undeveloped Traffic Way Mixed Use and Agriculture zoned lands, which would be developed with residential and commercial uses consistent with the existing land use pattern of the City. Given the Project would be developed on the edge of existing development, and would provide a smooth transition with respect to existing nearby land uses, the Project would not divide any established communities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Impact LU-2 The proposed Project would not conflict with any habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans as none exist within the Project vicinity (No Impact). No Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans (HCP or NCCP) have been adopted that apply to the Project site or immediately surrounding areas. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on these conservation plans. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Impact LU-3 The proposed Project is potentially inconsistent with adopted City policies in the General Plan designed to protect agricultural resources, public views, recreational resources, and reduce the threat to new developments from fire (Less than Significant with Mitigation). Consistent with the purpose of this EIR, this discussion primarily focuses on those goals and policies that relate to avoiding or mitigating environmental impacts, and an assessment of whether any inconsistency with these standards creates a significant physical impact on the environment. Discussion of each applicable General Plan policy is provided in Table 3.7-3.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Please Scroll Down for Article
    This article was downloaded by: [American Planning Association] On: 16 June 2009 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 787832967] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of the American Planning Association Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t782043358 Preserving Prime Farmland in the Face of Urbanization: Lessons from Oregon Arthur C. Nelson Online Publication Date: 31 December 1992 To cite this Article Nelson, Arthur C.(1992)'Preserving Prime Farmland in the Face of Urbanization: Lessons from Oregon',Journal of the American Planning Association,58:4,467 — 488 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/01944369208975830 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944369208975830 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
    [Show full text]
  • TABLE of CONTENTS Page 4.18 FARMLAND
    TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 4.18 FARMLAND ................................................................................................................................... 4.18-1 4.18.1 Affected Environment................................................................................................. 4.18-1 4.18.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................... 4.18-3 4.18.2.1 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................ 4.18-3 4.18.2.2 Freeway Alternative............................................................................................. 4.18-3 4.18.2.3 Tollway Alternative ............................................................................................. 4.18-3 4.18.2.4 Regional Arterial Alternative.............................................................................. 4.18-3 4.18.2.5 Combined Alternative (Recommended Alternative) ..................................... 4.18-3 4.18.3 Suggested Mitigation .................................................................................................... 4.18-4 4.18.4 Summary of Impacts .................................................................................................... 4.18-4 Table of Contents i LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 4.18-1 Farmland within the Study Area................................................................................................ 4.18-2 LIST OF TABLES Page Table 4.18-1 Gross Acres of Farmland
    [Show full text]
  • USDA-NRCS's ROLE for SOILS INFORMATION in the SURFACE MINING CONTROL and RECLAMATION ACT of 1977 (PUBLIC LAW 95-87) ___
    Proceedings America Society of Mining and Reclamation, 2004 USDA-NRCS's ROLE FOR SOILS INFORMATION IN THE SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 1977 (PUBLIC LAW 95-87)1 H. Raymond Sinclair, Jr.2 Abstract. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-87) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to implement a regulatory program to control the environmental impacts of mining operations. The Secretary of Interior administers this program through the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) with assistance from state and other federal agencies as specified in the law. All functions and responsibilities assigned to USDA by Public Law 95-87 were delegated by the Secretary of Agriculture to the Chief of USDA-NRCS (formerly the SCS), except those that relate to the National Forest Service System Lands and to the USDA-Agriculture Research Service. This paper briefly presents the role USDA-NRCS had in the development of the rules, regulations, and guidelines to comply with Public Law 95-87 that pertained to soils before, during, and after surface mining for coal. Additional Key Words: Historically used as cropland, Soil Conservation Service, State Regulatory Authority, Prime Farmland, Code of Federal Regulations, High Capability Land, policy and procedures3, and Proof of Restoration. _____________________ 1 Paper was presented at the 2004 National Meeting of the American Society of Mining and Reclamation and The 25th West Virginia Surface Mine Drainage Task Force , April 18-24, 2004. Published by ASMR, 3134 Montavesta Rd., Lexington, KY 40502. 2 H. Raymond Sinclair, Jr. is a Soil Scientist at the National Soil Survey Center, United States Department of Agriculture-National Resources Conservation Service, Federal Building, Lincoln, NE 68508-3866 3 The history presented in this paper happened when the agency’s name was the Soil Conservation Service (SCS).
    [Show full text]
  • Pub. 324 Agricultural Resources Evaluation Handbook
    THE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Agricultural Resources Evaluation Handbook Publication No. 324 March 2016 PUB 324 (3-16) THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................. i TABLES AND FIGURES ............................................................................................................. iii APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................... iv LIST OF ACRONYMS ...................................................................................................................v AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES EVALUATION HANDBOOK PREFACE .......................... vii SECTION I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1 SECTION II. OVERVIEW OF PROTECTED RESOURCES AND GOVERNING LEGISLATION ...............................................................................................................................3 A. Protected Agricultural Resources .....................................................................................3 1. FPPA Farmland ........................................................................................................3 a. Prime farmland ................................................................................................3 b. Unique farmland ..............................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • HARP Solar Project
    Exceptions Element HARP Solar Project OneEnergy Renewables, founded in 2009, is a privately held company actively developing a significant pipeline of utility scale solar projects nationwide. Pioneers of the offsite solar project model, we specialize in pre-construction development of ground mounted solar PV projects. AS A CERTIFIED B-CORP, ONEENERGY ENTHUSIASTICALLY EMBRACES AND MEETS RIGOROUS STANDARDS OF BUSINESS, SOCIAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND TRANSPARENCY. IT’S HOW WE DO BUSINESS, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. Our experienced team of renewable energy professionals pair de-risked projects with advanced energy procurement and financial solutions to deliver construction-ready and operational solar assets. oneenergyrenewables.com @oneenergyinc ACTIVE MARKETS + PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS WYE MILLS SOLAR CAMBRIDGE SOLAR LOCATION LOCATION QUEEN ANNE’S COUNTY, MD DORCHETER COUNTY, MD SIZE SIZE 13.6 MW 4.3 MW OPERATIONAL OPERATIONAL FALL 2016 SPRING 2015 CUSTOMER CUSTOMER JOHNS HOPKINS MEDICINE NATIONAL AQUARIUM OWNER OWNER SOLAR CITY CONSTELLATION BLUE BASIN POWER STEEL BRIDGE SOLAR LOCATION LOCATION KLAMATH COUNTY, OR POLK COUNTY, OR SIZE SIZE 4 MW 3 MW OPERATIONAL OPERATIONAL FALL 2016 SPRING 2016 CUSTOMER CUSTOMER PACIFIC POWER PORTLAND GEN. ELECTRIC OWNER OWNER SOLAR CITY NRG oneenergyrenewables.com @oneenergyinc PROJECT HARP SOLAR OE SOLAR 1, LLC N LANDOWNER: 01N25E00003404 HUGHES, RANDY MAP TAXLOT NUBMER: 20' SIDE LOT SETBACK YARDS (MCZO 3.010(M)) RIGHT OF WAY PROJECT FENCELINE BASELINE ROAD ADDRESS LEXINGTON, OR 97839 ALTERNATE
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA § 657.5
    Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA § 657.5 § 657.2 Policy. unique farmlands. Copies are to be fur- It is NRCS policy to make and keep nished to NRCS Field Offices and to current an inventory of the prime National Soil Survey Center. (see 7 farmland and unique farmland of the CFR 600.2(c), 600.6) (4) Coordinate soil mapping units Nation. This inventory is to be carried that qualify as prime farmlands with out in cooperation with other inter- adjacent States, including Major Land ested agencies at the National, State, Resource Area Offices (see 7 CFR 600.4, and local levels of government. The ob- 600.7) responsible for the soil series. jective of the inventory is to identify Since farmlands of statewide impor- the extent and location of important tance and unique farmlands are des- rural lands needed to produce food, ignated by others at the State level, feed, fiber, forage, and oilseed crops. the soil mapping units and areas iden- § 657.3 Applicability. tified need not be coordinated among States. Inventories made under this memo- (5) Instruct NRCS District Conserva- randum do not constitute a designation tionists to arrange local review of of any land area to a specific land use. lands identified as prime, unique, and Such designations are the responsi- additional farmlands of statewide im- bility of appropriate local and State of- portance by Conservation Districts and ficials. representatives of local agencies. This § 657.4 NRCS responsibilities. review is to determine if additional farmland should be identified to meet (a) State Conservationist. Each NRCS local decisionmaking needs.
    [Show full text]
  • Agriculture, 8
    ChapterChapter 8. Agriculture, 8. Agriculture Forestry, and Food Element Security Element A. OVERVIEW Agriculture and forestry are critical components of both the landscape and the economy of Oconee County. Based on Oconee County tax data, 51% of the County’s land area is currently in use for agriculture or forestry. However, of County land that is not included in the Sumter National Forest, nearly two-thirds is in agriculture or forestry use. According to the Oconee Economic Alliance, Oconee County has nearly 900 farms encompassing more than 67,000 acres of land.Together, these farms have a market value in products worth more than 121 million dollars. In addition to the economic benefits of agriculture and forestry, both land uses can contribute social, environmental, and health benefits. These benefits are explored in more detail throughout this element. Figure 8-1. Oconee County Land in Farms by Land Use, 2012 and 2017 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 34.7% Woodland 30.0% 22.7% Cropland 30.0% 36.6% Pastureland 34.0% 6.0% Other Uses 6.0% 2012 2017 Source: U.S. Census of Agriculture Forestlands are important to the economy, character, environment, and overall health of Oconee County. Agricultural and forested lands are home to many of the area’s critical natural resources and provide valuable wildlife habitat, windbreaks, enhanced water quality, decreased ambient temperatures, groundwater recharge areas, mitigation of stormwater run-off and erosion, and open space. This link to natural resource protection should be respected and enhanced when possible through the use of easements, education, and value-added land use policies such as proper regulation, prevention and mitigation of incompatible land uses, and the appropriate location of public lands and infrastructure.
    [Show full text]
  • Agricultural Land, Urban Growth, and the Need for a Federally Organized Comprehensive Land Use Planning Model Jess M
    Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy Volume 16 Article 2 Issue 1 Fall 2006 A Modern Disaster: Agricultural Land, Urban Growth, and the Need for a Federally Organized Comprehensive Land Use Planning Model Jess M. Krannich Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cjlpp Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Krannich, Jess M. (2006) "A Modern Disaster: Agricultural Land, Urban Growth, and the Need for a Federally Organized Comprehensive Land Use Planning Model," Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy: Vol. 16: Iss. 1, Article 2. Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cjlpp/vol16/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A MODERN DISASTER: AGRICULTURAL LAND, URBAN GROWTH, AND THE NEED FOR A FEDERALLY ORGANIZED COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLANNING MODEL Jess M. Krannich* INTRODUCTION ............................................. 57 I. THE CORRELATION BETWEEN THE DEVELOPMENT OF PRODUCTIVE AGRICULTURAL LAND AND SUBURBAN SPRAWL .................... 60 II. A MODEL OF INEFFECTIVENESS: FEDERAL AND STATE LAND USE PLANNING SCHEMES ........... 66 A. FEDERAL PROTECTION FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND ..... 66 B. STATE AND LOCAL PROTECTION FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND ................................................. 72 1. Land Use Planning "Tools" for State and Local Governm ents ................................... 73 2. Oregon: An (Almost) Effective Statewide Land Use Planning Model ........................... 81 III. LAND USE REGULATIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL "TAKINGS" CHALLENGES ........................... 85 IV. SUGGESTIONS FOR A COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLANNING MODEL ............................
    [Show full text]
  • Minimizing Development Impacts to Prime Farmland
    Designing Solar Land Use Laws that Protect Productive Farmland June 17, 2019 Samantha Levy, NYS Policy Manager, American Farmland Trust Samantha Levy is New York Policy Manager for American Farmland Trust. Samantha advises state and local lawmakers, planners, and other leaders on policies and programs that save the land that sustains us by keeping land in farming, keeping farmers on the land, and helping farmers adopt sound farming practices. George R. Frantz, AICP, ASLA , Cornell University George Frantz, has worked as a land use and environmental planner in small town and rural communities in Upstate for 30 years, in both the public and private sector. His primary areas of expertise are in land-use planning and zoning, with particular emphasis on addressing the needs of agriculture and the protection of environmentally sensitive lands. Since 2017 he has been an associate professor of the practice in the Department of City & Regional Planning at Cornell. Matilda Larson, Planner II, St. Lawrence County Matilda manages the County’s annual and eight-year reviews for its Agricultural District program, and was the lead on the preparation of the County’s 2016 Agricultural Development Plan. Matilda assists with project reviews for the County Planning Board, and assists local governments with the preparation and revision of local land use regulations including, most recently, with the preparation of solar regulations with a focus on the preservation of prime farmland. What is Smart Solar Siting? Designing Solar Laws to Protect Farmland and Promote
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Soil Disturbance on Farmland
    Assessment of Soil Disturbance on Farmland Presented to New Jersey State Agriculture Development Committee by Dr. Daniel Gimenez Daniel Kluchinski Dr. Stephanie Murphy Loren S. Muldowny April, 2010 Authors Dr. Daniel Gimenez Associate Professor, Soil Science/Soil Physics Department of Environmental Science Rutgers – The State University of New Jersey Ph.D. Soil Science/Soil Physics, University of Minnesota M.S. Agrohydrology), Agricultural University of Wageningen (The Netherlands) B. S. Agronomy, National University of Tucumán (Argentina) Daniel Kluchinski County Agent I (Professor) and Chair Department of Agricultural and Resource Management Agents Rutgers – The State University of New Jersey Assistant Director Rutgers Cooperative Extension, New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station M.S. Weed Science, Purdue University B.S. Plant Science/Agronomy, Rutgers University Dr. Stephanie Murphy Director, Soil Testing Laboratory Rutgers Cooperative Extension, New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station Instructor, Physical Properties of Soils, Soils and Water Department of Environmental Science Rutgers – The State University of New Jersey Ph.D. Soil Biophysics. Michigan State University M.S. Soil Erosion and Conservation, Purdue University B.S. Agriculture, The Ohio State University Loren S. Muldowny Lab Technician, Soil Testing Laboratory Rutgers – The State University of New Jersey, New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station M.S. Environmental Science, Rutgers‐The State University of New Jersey B.S. Biochemistry, Rutgers‐The State University of New Jersey Page 1 of 19 Assessment of Soil Disturbance on Farmland Purpose of the Summary This summary was produced to assist in decision‐making by the State Agriculture Development Committee (SADC) about the impact that selected farm activities have on soil characteristics, how negative impacts on soil properties may be remediated, and whether these activities should be encouraged or discouraged on New Jersey preserved farmland.
    [Show full text]
  • Agricultural Lands (Prime Farmland and Timberland)
    TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 7.3 Agricultural Lands (Prime Farmland and Timberland) 7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies 7.3 AGRICULTURAL LANDS (PRIME FARMLAND AND TIMBERLAND) 7.3.1 Introduction Agricultural lands include the nation’s farmlands and timberlands, which are unique natural resources that provide food, fiber, wood, and water. Conversion of agricultural lands to nonagricultural uses, such as a transportation use, results in the loss of these lands for agricultural purposes. This section describes agricultural lands in the NEC FUTURE Study Area (Study Area) and identifies potential impacts on agricultural lands associated with each of the Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Tier 1 Draft EIS) Action Alternatives. Also included within this section is a qualitative evaluation of the effects on agricultural lands associated with the No Action Alternative. Appendix E, Section E.03, provides the methodology for evaluating agricultural lands and the data supporting the analysis presented. 7.3.1.1 Definition of Resources Agricultural lands include prime farmland soils and prime timberlands as defined below: 4 Prime farmland is considered land underlain by soil identified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS) as having the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food and other agricultural crops. 4 Prime timberland is land designated by the USDA NRCS as having the capability of growing a significant volume of timber when left in natural conditions. This designation also applies to lands that are not currently in forest but realistically could be vegetated with timber. Appendix E, Section E.03, provides more detailed definitions of prime farmland and prime timberland.
    [Show full text]
  • Existing Yakama Forest Products to Dekker Service Line
    Appendix L USDA Soils Information Drop 4 Hydropower Project July 13, 2012 Environmental Assessment United States A product of the National Custom Soil Resource Department of Cooperative Soil Survey, Agriculture a joint effort of the United Report for States Department of Agriculture and other Yakama Nation Irrigated Federal agencies, State Natural agencies including the Area, Washington, Part of Resources Agricultural Experiment Conservation Stations, and local Yakima County Service participants WIP Drop 4 Vicinity June 4, 2012 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/) and certain conservation and engineering applications.
    [Show full text]