DOCSLIB.ORG

G. Other Ceqa and Nepa Requirements

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
G. Other Ceqa and Nepa Requirements Devers–Palo Verde No. 2 Transmission Line Project G. OTHER CEQA AND NEPA REQUIREMENTS G. Other CEQA and NEPA Requirements Section G includes discussions of various topics required by CEQA and/or NEPA, including an envi- ronmental justice analysis (Section G.1), a description of growth inducing effects (Section G.2), and a discussion of significant irreversible and irretrievable changes (Section G.3). Section G.4 describes the significant and unavoidable impacts (Class I) identified in Sections D.2 through D.14. Section G.5 pre- sents the relationship between short-term uses and long-term productivity of the environment with regard to the project. Section G.6 describes the energy requirements and conservation potential of the project and Section G.7 presents the effects found not to be significant. G.1 Environmental Justice On February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued an “Executive Order on Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (Executive Order 12898, 1994). This Order is designed to focus Federal attention on environmental and human health conditions in minority communities and low-income communities. The Order is further intended to promote non- discrimination in Federal Programs substantially affecting human health and the environment and to provide for information access and public participation relating to such matters. The approach in this EIS/SEIR is to achieve compliance with the letter and spirit of the President's Executive Order by addressing the question of whether and how the impacts of the Proposed Project and alternatives (as described in Section D of this EIR/EIS) may disproportionately affect minority (sometimes referred to as people of color) populations and low-income populations. This section analyzes the distributional patterns of minority populations and low-income populations on a regional basis and characterizes the distribution of such populations adjacent to the proposed and alter- native pipeline corridors. We then focus on the existing environmental conditions and impacts relative to these populations and analyze how project impacts affect these populations, focusing on possible disproportionate effects and potential exacerbation of existing conditions. The aim of the analysis in this section is to achieve compliance with the letter and spirit of Executive Order 12898 and to address any community concerns raised in the scoping process for this EIS/EIR. The Environmental Justice analysis is based on a three-step process: 1. Perform a screening level analysis to determine the general areas in which a potential for environ- mental justice impacts occurs 2. Review comments collected during public scoping meetings and agency consultation for the Pro- posed Project to determine if other, previously unidentified areas should also be analyzed 3. Perform a detailed environmental justice impact analysis for each area identified in steps 1 and 2, using demographic data for U.S. Census block groups1 (or if necessary U.S. Census blocks2) to eval- uate impacts of the transmission line on surrounding neighborhoods. 1 A census block group is a statistical subdivision of a census tract. Block groups generally contain between 300 and 3,000 people, with an optimum size of 1,500 people. 2 A census block is a geographic area bounded by visible and/or invisible features shown on a map prepared by the U.S. Census Bureau. Generally, the boundary of a census block must include at least one addressable feature; that is, a street or road. A block is the smallest geographic entity for which the Census Bureau tabulates decennial census data. October 2006 G-1 Final EIR/EIS Devers–Palo Verde No. 2 Transmission Line Project G. OTHER CEQA AND NEPA REQUIREMENTS Each of these steps is described further below. G.1.1 Screening Level Analysis The purpose of an environmental justice screening analysis is to determine whether a low-income and/or minority (people of color) population exists within the potential affected area of a proposed Action. As defined by the “Final Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns” con- tained in EPA’s NEPA Compliance Analysis (Guidance Document) (EPA, 1998), minority (people of color) and low-income populations are identified where either: • The minority or low-income population of the affected area is greater than 50 percent of the affected area’s general population; or • The minority or low-income population percentage of the area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis. In 1997, the President’s Council on Environmental Quality issued Environmental Justice Guidance that defines minority and low-income populations as follows: • “Minorities” are individuals who are members of the following population groups: American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian or Pacific Islander; Black not of Hispanic origin; or Hispanic (without double- counting non-white Hispanics falling into the Black/African-American, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Native American categories) • “Low-income populations” are identified as populations with mean annual incomes below the annual statistical poverty level. All jurisdictions within one-half mile of the Proposed Project and its alternatives are included in the screening analysis in this section. In the screening analysis, the percentages of minority and low-income populations were examined for each jurisdiction. For purposes of consistency and in compliance with U.S. BLM guidelines, U.S. Census data is used to determine minority and low-income population per- centages along the entire ROW. If the jurisdiction has a population of greater than 50 percent for either the low-income or minority categories, it is identified for more detailed analysis. If a jurisdiction's minority and low-income populations are less than 50 percent for any of these categories, no further environmental justice analysis was performed on the jurisdiction. No jurisdictions were identified for further analysis during Public Scoping and outreach activities. Table G-1 lists the jurisdictions within one-half mile of the Proposed Project and its alternatives, along with the low-income percentage and minority percentage of the population of each jurisdiction. The low-income percentage is the percentage of a jurisdiction's population with a median annual income below the statistical poverty threshold determined by the U.S. Census Bureau. The minority percentage is the percentage of a jurisdiction's population categorized in the 2000 U.S. Census as Black/African- American, Asian, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Native American, Hispanic/Latino (without double-count- ing non-white Hispanics falling into the Black/African-American, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Native American categories), or two or more races. Final EIR/EIS G-2 October 2005 Devers–Palo Verde No. 2 Transmission Line Project G. OTHER CEQA AND NEPA REQUIREMENTS Table G-1. Population Characteristics of Communities along Project Route Low-Income Minority Project Area Jurisdiction Percentage Percentage California – San Bernardino County 15.8% 56.2% West of Devers Colton 19.6% 79.5% Grand Terrace 7.4% 38.4% Loma Linda 15.1% 54.3% Redlands 10.5% 36.5% Riverside County 14.2% 49.0% Calimesa 12.2% 18.1% Beaumont 20.2% 42.2% Banning 19.9% 47.6% Morongo Indian Reservation 18.0% 85.5% San Gorgonio Pass, CCD* 17.4% 39.4% Romoland 25.9% 56.2% Nuevo 10.2% 33.8% San Jacinto 20.3% 47.7% Cabazon 32.3% 45.0% California – Desert Hot Springs, CCD* 21.3% 45.8% Devers–Harquahala Palm Springs 15.1% 32.9% Cathedral City 13.6% 57.6% Agua Caliente Indian 10.5% 17.5% Reservation Cathedral City–Palm Desert, 10.0% 35.6% CCD* Indio 21.5% 80.7% Rancho Mirage 5.9% 12.8% Chuckwalla, CCD* 22.4% 69.9% Palo Verde, CCD* 21.2% 58.2% Arizona La Paz County 19.6% 36.3% Colorado River Indian 21.8% 57.8% Reservation Ehrenberg 22.7% 33.9% Quartzsite 13.5% 7.6% Maricopa County 11.7% 33.8% Buckeye, CCD* 17.1% 41.7% * CCD (Census County Division) is a subdivision of a county that is a relatively permanent statistical area established cooperatively by the Census Bureau, State, and local governments. The CCD for a particular county region was used if data specific to unincorporated commu- nities within that region were not available. Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=DEC&_lang=en) None of the jurisdictions listed above in Table G-1 have low-income populations of greater than 50 per- cent. However, nine of the jurisdictions have minority populations of greater than 50 percent. Conse- quently, the following jurisdictions have been identified under the screening level analysis for further detailed analysis to determine if the Proposed Project and its alternatives would result in dispropor- tionate impacts in these areas: October 2006 G-3 Final EIR/EIS Devers–Palo Verde No. 2 Transmission Line Project G. OTHER CEQA AND NEPA REQUIREMENTS • San Bernardino County • City of Colton • City of Loma Linda • Morongo Indian Reservation • Town of Romoland • City of Cathedral City • City of Indio • Chuckwalla Census Collection District (CCD) • Palo Verde CCD • Colorado River Indian Reservation. G.1.2 Environmental Justice Analysis G.1.2.1 Methodology Significance Criteria for Environmental Justice Impacts An environmental justice impact resulting from the Proposed Project or its alternatives could potentially occur if: • More high minority block groups are within one-half mile of the ROW than either medium minority block groups or low minority block groups • More low-income block groups are within one-half mile of the ROW than either medium-income block groups or high-income block groups. Either of these conditions would constitute a disproportionate impact on these populations by the proj- ect. Identification of an area which would be disproportionately affected by the project does not by itself, however, constitute an environmental justice impact.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Community Economic Profile Blythe
    COMMUNITY ECONOMIC PROFILE for BLYTHE RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared in conjunction with the City of Blythe and Blythe Area Chamber of Commerce Blythe, incorporated July 24, 1916, is located 227 miles east of Los Angeles, 626 miles south of San Location Francisco and 150 miles west of Phoenix in the Palo Verde Valley along the Colorado River. 1980 1990 2000 2009 Economic Growth Population-County 663,166 1,170,413 1,545,387 2,107,6531 Taxable Sales-County $3,274,017 $9,522,631 $16,979,449 $26,003,5952 and Trends Population-City 6,805 8,428 20,463 21,3291 Taxable Sales-City $69,134 $102,364 $129,240 $160,4762 Housing Units-City 2,433 2,783 4,103 4,5871 Median Household Income-City $14,777 $22,847 $35,324 $42,8503 School Enrollment K-12 4,000 3,772 3,706 3,6104 1. California Department of Finance, January 1, 2009. Population fi gures include Ironwood and Chuckawalla Valley State Prisons populations. Housing count refl ects occupied dwellings. 2. California State Board of Equalization, calendar year 2008. Add 000. 3. WITS, 2009. 4. California Department of Education, 2009. Enrollment count is for 2008-09. AVERAGE TEMPERATURE RAIN HUMIDITY Climate Period Min. Mean Max. Inches 4 A.M. Noon 4 P.M. January 37.4 52.6 67.8 0.48 57 32 32 April 53.4 70.9 88.3 0.13 55 22 19 July 75.7 92.1 108.4 0.21 60 28 25 October 55.4 73.4 91.4 0.27 58 27 28 Year 55.2 71.9 88.5 3.96 58 27 26 RAIL: Arizona & California Railroad serves the Palo Verde Valley, with connections to Burlington Transportation Northern Santa Fe Railroad out of Barstow and Phoenix for transcontinental destinations.
    [Show full text]
  • ATTACHMENT B Dams and Reservoirs Along the Lower
    ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT B Dams and Reservoirs Along the Lower Colorado River This attachment to the Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria DEIS describes the dams and reservoirs on the main stream of the Colorado River from Glen Canyon Dam in Arizona to Morelos Dam along the international boundary with Mexico. The role that each plays in the operation of the Colorado River system is also explained. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT COLORADO RIVER DAMS AND RESERVOIRS Lake Powell to Morelos Dam The following discussion summarizes the dams and reservoirs along the Colorado River from Lake Powell to the Southerly International Boundary (SIB) with Mexico and their specific roles in the operation of the Colorado River. Individual dams serve one or more specific purposes as designated in their federal construction authorizations. Such purposes are, water storage, flood control, river regulation, power generation, and water diversion to Arizona, Nevada, California, and Mexico. The All-American Canal is included in this summary because it conveys some of the water delivered to Mexico and thereby contributes to the river system operation. The dams and reservoirs are listed in the order of their location along the river proceeding downstream from Lake Powell. Their locations are shown on the map attached to the inside of the rear cover of this report. Glen Canyon Dam – Glen Canyon Dam, which formed Lake Powell, is a principal part of the Colorado River Storage Project. It is a concrete arch dam 710 feet high and 1,560 feet wide. The maximum generating discharge capacity is 33,200 cfs which may be augmented by an additional 15,000 cfs through the river outlet works.
    [Show full text]
  • Sonny Bono Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge Complex
    Appendix J Cultural Setting - Sonny Bono Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge Complex Appendix J: Cultural Setting - Sonny Bono Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge Complex The following sections describe the cultural setting in and around the two refuges that constitute the Sonny Bono Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge Complex (NWRC) - Sonny Bono Salton Sea NWR and Coachella Valley NWR. The cultural resources associated with these Refuges may include archaeological and historic sites, buildings, structures, and/or objects. Both the Imperial Valley and the Coachella Valley contain rich archaeological records. Some portions of the Sonny Bono Salton Sea NWRC have previously been inventoried for cultural resources, while substantial additional areas have not yet been examined. Seventy-seven prehistoric and historic sites, features, or isolated finds have been documented on or within a 0.5- mile buffer of the Sonny Bono Salton Sea NWR and Coachella Valley NWR. Cultural History The outline of Colorado Desert culture history largely follows a summary by Jerry Schaefer (2006). It is founded on the pioneering work of Malcolm J. Rogers in many parts of the Colorado and Sonoran deserts (Rogers 1939, Rogers 1945, Rogers 1966). Since then, several overviews and syntheses have been prepared, with each succeeding effort drawing on the previous studies and adding new data and interpretations (Crabtree 1981, Schaefer 1994a, Schaefer and Laylander 2007, Wallace 1962, Warren 1984, Wilke 1976). The information presented here was compiled by ASM Affiliates in 2009 for the Service as part of Cultural Resources Review for the Sonny Bono Salton Sea NWRC. Four successive periods, each with distinctive cultural patterns, may be defined for the prehistoric Colorado Desert, extending back in time over a period of at least 12,000 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Motorized Transportation Plan Update
    FINAL COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE Prepared by: Ryan Snyder Associates, LLC In Association with Urban Crossroads September 2010 Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 PROCESS 2 Public Outreach ....................................................................................................................... 2 Fieldwork ................................................................................................................................. 5 Meetings with Local Jurisdictions ........................................................................................... 5 Other Planning Efforts ............................................................................................................ 5 PLAN ORGANIZATION 7 CHAPTER 2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................ 8 GOAL 1: BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION 8 Goal 1 Objectives: ................................................................................................................... 8 GOAL 2: THE PEDESTRIAN REALM 12 Goal 2 Objectives: ................................................................................................................. 12 GOAL 3: HIKING AND EQUESTRIAN RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES 14 Goal 3 Objectives: ................................................................................................................. 14 CHAPTER
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report Operation of the Colorado River Basin 1979 Projected Operations 1980 Colorado River Basin
    Annual Report Operation of the Colorado River Basin 1979 Projected Operations 1980 Colorado River Basin Wyoming Nevada New Mexico o 50 100 150 Scale of Miles Contents U.S. Department of the Interior Cecil D. Andrus, Secretary Water and Power Resources Service (Formerly the Bureau of Reclamation) R. Keith Higginson, Commissioner January 1980 (Prepared pursuant to the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, Public Law 90-537) Morrow Point Dam, Colo. Avocet Introduction 2 Authority for Report ............................................................. .. 2 Actual Operations Under Criteria • Water Year 1979 ................................. .. 2 Projected Plan of Operation Under Criteria· Water Year 1980 ........................ .. 3 Determination of "602(a) Storage" .............................................. .. 3 Mexican Treaty Obligations. ................................................... .. 3 Regulatory Wastes ~ ............................................... .. 4 Additional Releases ............................................................. .. 4 Projected Plan of Operation· Water Year 1980 ..................................... .. 5 Upper Basin Reservoirs .......................................................... .. 6 Fontenelle Reservoir..... ..................................................... .. 6 Flaming Gorge Reservoir. ..................................................... .. 8 Curecanti Unit - Blue Mesa, Morrow Point and Crystal Reservoirs 10 Navajo Reservoir 12 Lake Powell 14 Lower Basin Reservoirs Lake Mead 16 Lake
    [Show full text]
  • QUALITY of WATER COLORADO RIVER BASIN Progress Report No. 21 U.S. Department of the Interior January 2003
    QUALITY OF WATER COLORADO RIVER BASIN Progress Report No. 21 U.S. Department of the Interior January 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 3 AUTHORIZATION FOR REPORT .............................................................................................. 3 LEGAL ASPECTS ....................................................................................................................... 4 Water Quantity........................................................................................................................ 4 Water Quality .......................................................................................................................... 5 CHAPTER 2 - DESCRIPTION OF BASIN....................................................................................... 8 CLIMATE..................................................................................................................................... 8 HYDROLOGY.............................................................................................................................. 8 RESERVOIR STORAGE........................................................................................................... 10 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Interview with Gerald Davisson Colorado River Water Users Association
    Interview with Gerald Davisson Colorado River Water Users Association Q: Alright, this is February the 26th, 2007. We’re at the Palo Verde Irrigation District in Blythe, California, and our subject today is Gerry Davisson, who retired recently as general manager of Palo Verde Irrigation District, and has been involved, with Colorado River Issues for a long time. Gerry, thanks for joining us today. A: You’re welcome. Q: To begin with, I know for a fact that you’re not from Blythe, you’re not from this area. How did you happen to come here to PVID? Tell us a little bit about your background. A: Well, I was at Colorado State University working on my master’s degree and I answered an ad in the Denver Post for an assistant engineer at the Palo Verde Irrigation District. Came out for an interview on February the 1st, 1971 with, John Blakemore was the manager at that time. And, after the interview, I went back home and he called me up and offered me the job. So I came to work on the 16th of April 1971 as an assistant engineer. Q: Is there anything in particular that attracted you, aside from having a job offer, anything in particular that attracted you to this area or to the issues that you were going to deal with? A: Well, my wife always reminds me that I was (recording skips) southern California, that was one place in the whole dang country I didn’t want to go to. But I did want to go to an operating irrigation district.
    [Show full text]
  • MWD ICS Table of Contents
    Table of Contents DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE CREATION, DELIVERY, AND ACCOUNTING OF THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA’S (MWD) INTENTIONALLY CREATED SURPLUS (ICS) 1. MWD’s Extraordinary Conservation ICS Plan of Creation for Calendar Year 2019. 2. Reclamation’s letter to MWD dated August 13, 2019, approving MWD’s Extraordinary Conservation ICS Plan of Creation for Calendar Year 2019. 3. Calendar Year 2019 Fallowed Land Verification Report PVID/MWD Forbearance and Fallowing Program dated May 7, 2020. 4. Reclamation’s letter to MWD dated May 15, 2020, verifying the amount of Extraordinary Conservation ICS created by MWD in Calendar Year 2018. THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Office of the General Manager June 17, 2019 Mr. Steven C. Hvinden Office Chief Boulder Canyon Operations Office U.S. Bureau of Reclamation P.O. Box 61470 Boulder City, NV 89006-1470 Dear Mr. Hvinden: Metropolitan's 2019 Plan for the Creation of Extraordinary Conservation Intentionally Created Surplus In accordance with Section 3.B.1 of the Interim Guidelines for the Operation of Lake Powell and Lake Mead, enclosed is The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California's (Metropolitan) Plan for the Creation of Extraordinary Conservation Intentionally Created Surplus (ICS) During Calendar Year 2019 (Plan). On January 2, 2019, during negotiations of the Colorado River Basin States' (Basin States) Drought Contingency Plan (DCP), Metropolitan submitted a preliminary 2019 Plan. With the execution of the DCP on May 20, and pursuant to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's (Reclamation) request, this letter rescinds and replaces the previously submitted preliminary 2019 Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • County of Riverside General Plan Palo Verde Valley Area Plan
    County of Riverside General Plan Palo Verde Valley Area Plan COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE Transportation and Land Management Agency 4080 Lemon Street, 12th Floor Riverside, CA 92501-3634 Phone: (951) 955-3200, Fax: (951) 955-1811 October 2011 County of Riverside General Plan Palo Verde Valley Area Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Vision Summary.......................................................................................................................................................... iv Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 1 A Special Note on Implementing the Vision ........................................................................................................ 2 Location ........................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Features ........................................................................................................................................................................ 9 Setting ....................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Unique Features ........................................................................................................................................................ 9 The Palo Verde Mesa and Valley ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Mr. George Colangeli, General Manager Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency 415 N
    Salud Mr. George Colangeli, General Manager Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency 415 N. Main Street Blythe, CA. 92225 Facsimile number 760-922-0491 Dear Mr. Colangeli: The City of Blythe is pleased to support the Blythe Wellness Express 5310 grant application submitted by the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA) for funding to support this specialized transportation project. With this funding PVVTA will able to provide safe transportation to and from the Coachella Valley area's hospitals and clinics. Blythe Wellness Express will fill a critical transportation gap for Blythe residents to access health care. The planned lifeline transportation service, operating two to three days weekly, will travel to the Coachella Valley’s three hospitals and selected medical clinics more than 100 miles to the west. Currently there is no public transportation between Blythe and the Coachella Valley, with very limited Greyhound service. With temperatures in excess of 110 degrees in our summer months it is the City's belief that having a well purposed means of transportation with a bus designed to make the more than 200 mile trips to and from the Coachella Valley is a much needed addition to PVVTA's Fleet. Blythe is an isolated rural community in the Palo Verde Valley of the Lower Colorado River Valley region, part of the Colorado Desert, and does not score well on numerous health indicators. Additionally, Blythe is a designated Mental Health and Primary Care Health Professional Shortage Area (HPSA). We expect that better access to health care specialists, treatments and facilities in the Coachella Valley, via the Blythe Wellness Express, will do much to improve Blythe residents’ health.
    [Show full text]
  • Palo Verde Diversion Project History
    Palo Verde Diversion Project Lara Bickell Bureau of Reclamation 1999 Table of Contents Palo Verde Diversion Dam ......................................................2 Project Location.........................................................2 Historic Setting .........................................................2 Prehistoric Setting .................................................2 Historic Setting ...................................................3 Project Authorization.....................................................6 Construction History .....................................................7 Schedule One: The Dam ............................................7 Schedule Two: The Levee System.....................................9 Post-Construction History................................................12 Settlement of the Project .................................................12 Uses of Project Water ...................................................13 Conclusion............................................................13 About the Author .............................................................13 Bibliography ................................................................14 Archival Collections ....................................................14 Government Documents .................................................14 Articles...............................................................14 Books ................................................................14 Index ......................................................................16
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5__1-12-02 Er REV2
    5.0 Other CEQA and NEPA Considerations This chapter discusses other CEQA and NEPA considerations including cumulative impacts; growth-inducing impacts; applicable regulations, policies, and required permits; significant and unavoidable impacts; relationship between short-term uses of the environment and long-term productivity; and irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. 5.1 Cumulative Impacts This section assesses the cumulative impacts of implementing the Proposed Project when combined with other projects that could result in impacts to the same environmental resources as the Proposed Project. Both CEQA and NEPA provide guidelines for assessing cumulative impacts. The State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15355) provides the following definition of cumulative impacts: The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. CEQA requires that EIRs discuss cumulative impacts if a project's incremental effect is “cumulatively considerable,” which means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15065[c]). The CEQ regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR Section 1508.7) define a “cumulative impact” for purposes of NEPA as follows: Cumulative impact is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.
    [Show full text]