Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOROVILLE GOLD LLC ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORMAPPENDIX G Environmental Checklist Form 1.. Project title: 'Oroville Gold LLC 1 2.Lead agency name and address: Butte County Planning 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 :3.-. 'Contacter n h p so and phone number: Mr. Tim.Snelling ' 4. Project location: Ophir.Road . Assessor's Parcel. Numbers: 078=100-015, 078-100-046; 078100-047, 078=090- 014, 035-470-012.- 5. 35-470=012:5. Project sponsors name and address: Oroville Gold LLC 4801 feather River Boulevard, #29 Oroville, CA 95965 6. General lari de i nati n: M2 7. Zoning: Heavy Industrial ' 8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its 'implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) . ' Oroville Gold LLC will be an organic comoosting facilitylocated on property hPermitted under the current.M-2 zoning for use as a Class III wood waste landfill. The landfill was previously ' owned and operated by Louisiana Pacific Corp (LP). LP developed 3 active Waste Management . Units (WMUs) on the subject property. The proposed project facilities will occupy approximately 63.3 acres, most of which are currently included in the Class. III wood waste ' landfill waste discharge requirements (WDRs).� The proposed composting facility operations (office, storage, processing and active composting) will be situated on Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) 078=100-015, 078-100-046, 078-100-047, 078-090-014, and 035-470-012. For the EN1li ONMENTAL HEALT' -�- JUN m ' 202 MIRA LOMA DRIVE OROVILLE, CA purposes of this project description, the APN numbers are used to identify the property to reflect the description used in the existing WDRs. ' Tiie existing WDRs include the property identified as APNs 078-100-015 & -046, and 078-090= 014 .(Figure 2 attached): What are identified as APNs 078-10.0-047,& 035-470-12 on Figure 2 were removed from the WDRs by the Water Quality Control Board (WQCB) on May 4th 2007 .when they issued their. most recent Order (R5-2007-0042), which permits the clean'closure. operations for the landfill. The portions of the property: Where. the new compost. facility will be located have never been.used as:WMUs. ' In a letter dated November 19 2008 the WQCB outlined the requirements for removal: of Q additional portions of the subject property from the WDR (Figure 2, APNs 078-100-015 & =046, and 078=090-014): A composting facility cannot be permitted on land permitted for WMUs.: In. order to separate the area proposed for the composting facility, the WQCB required that Oroville Gold, "work with the local land use agencies regarding splitting parcels to separate landfill area ' land from the area east of the landfill central access road." The new compost facility will be sited on. the land that either has already been, or will be, removed from the WDR. The area to be removed from the WDR will be surveyed so that a County -approved legal description can be developed and provided to the WQCB to accommodate the permitting requirements. All of the subject parcels are currently zoned M-2 (Heavy Industrial). The activities and ' operational processes undertaken by a compost facility have similar or less impact on the surrounding neighborhood than the anticipated industrial operations allowed in an area zoned for heavy industrial use. The boundary of the compost facility will be at least 800 feet from commercially -zoned districts. There is a minimum distance of 2,000 feet from the proposed ' composting area to the closest residential areas, and one mile to the nearest school.. Through the use of Pathogen Reduction Windrows, Aerated Static Piles and other composting techniques, organic waste material will be recycled into premium quality compost. Operations at the site will be compatible with the heavy industrial zoning of the surrounding property. The likely impacts of the operation are not significantly different from the impacts of a landfill 1 operation: odor mitigation and -traffic volumes along with leachate and storm water collection will the focus of the primary management and operational controls and are discussed in more detail below: The moisture content of the materials will be managed to prevent anaerobic conditions, and ' odiferous materials will be appropriately covered. Additional measures such as biofilters, aeration of leachate ponds and the use of misting systems may also be introduced as necessary. An Odor Impact Minimization Plan and Report of Composting Site Information have been developed to set out the operational processes and controls that will be implemented. ' The potential of the facility to generate both traffic and noise is also a consideration. The need to haul materials to and from the site will generate truck traffic (estimated 80 trucks/day), and there will be a small number of car trips generated by employees (approximately 15) arriving and leaving work. However, this will not differ greatly from the traffic previously generated when the ' landfill was open or anticipated when the environmental review was completed for the area allowing M-2 (Heavy Industrial) zoning. -2- The use of operational equipment will create some increase in noise above the current,ambient level in keeping with the noise generated in a fully -utilized industrial area. Assuming the maximum site utilization of 25 acres, with half of the material placed in pathogen - reduction windrows (PRWs) and the other half in aerated static piles (ASPs); the facility will .be, able to process approximately 290,000 cubic yards of material at any one time. The volume' of incoming feedstocks may be reduced bya factor of five by end of the composting process. The composting process takes approximately 90 days to complete. Assuming steady state operation (5 cubic yards ofmaterial into 1 cubic yard of material out), the Oroville Gold compost facility will be able to intake approximately 1,160,000 cubic yards of material a year in order to produce 232,000 cubic yards of compost. Sample calculations based on a compost recipe using five of the. most common feedstocks are presented below. All calculations are based on available on-site wood waste and a.Carbon to Nitrogen Ratio (C:N) of 30:1 for composting..This basis.provides amass ratio of 1.1: 1:'1: 1: 1 of wood waste: cattle manure: poultry manure: green waste: fruit waste: This ratio may be adjusted depending on material availability. Estimated daily tonnage is calculated by dividing the tonnage needed to creat( . .232,000 cubic yards of finished compost by 365 days. Wood waste (532 lbs/cubic yd): 57.3 tons/day Cattle manure (14581bs/cubic yd): 51.$ tons/day Poultry manure (1400 lbs/cubic yd): 51.8 tons/day Green waste (5 50 lbs/cubic yd): 51:8 tons/day Fruit waste (1200 lbs/cubic yd) 51.8 tons/day This gives a total estimated daily tonnage of 264.5. The compost produced will be a high=quality soil amendment that repairs and replenishes nutrient losses. in the native soil. This will greatly, assist the agricultural growers in this area. Its local availability will reduce transportation costs, benefiting both growers and the environment. Furthermore, development of -the facility will create new job 'opportunities (facility employees, trucking and associated services): Finally, the recycling of landfill wood waste is both effective and environmentally productive as a. means of assisting with the. clean closure of the closed LP site. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: The subject project location is due east of Highway 70. The project. area is a large "v" in shape and is bordered by Ophir Road to the south; Oroville Landfill to the north, the Union Pacific railway line to the west; and the abandoned Southern Pacific railway right of way to the east ' (Figure 1). -3- 1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least. one impact that is a."Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources- Cultural Resources Geology /Soils. Hazards & Hazardous Hydrology / Water Land Use / Planning - Materials Quality Mineral Resources Noise Population / Housing'— Public ousing .Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by Lead Agency) ' On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the.environment; and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Lfind that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment; there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made. by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment; and an ENVIRONMENTAL IWACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect .I) 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. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR'or ' NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. , -4- '. Signature Date Signature _ Date EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HAPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each. question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources ' show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on . project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive ' receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as ' operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a .particular physical impact may occur, then the ' checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. 'Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more 'Potentially ' Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated". applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from 'Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and , briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less.than significant level (mitigation measures ' from Section XVII, 'Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses maybe used where, pursuant. to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section ' 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. C) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the. earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the ' project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources ' for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared -5- r SAMPLE QUESTION Issues: - Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with . Significant Impact . Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation.•. I. AESTHETICS'= -.Would the project: ' a) Have a substantial adverse effect'on a scenic . vista? The proposed compost facility location'is X 'zoned Heavy Industrial. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, . including, but not limited'to, trees; rock X •. outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing -visual character or quality of the site and its R surroundings? d) Create anew source of substantial light or. _ glare which would adversely affect day or R' o nighttime views'in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the'California X ' 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 Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), X as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the , Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? The site is zoned for and used as M-2 Heavy Industrial: b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural ' use, or a. Williamson Act contract? X c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or X nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? _ III. AIR QUALITY.-- Where available, the' significance criteria. established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control 1 _7 district may be relied upon to make the, following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct.implementation,of the applicable airquality plan? 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 receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? The compost facilitymust manage moisture to prevent anaerobic conditions, and appropriately cover odiferous materials. Additional measures such as biofilters, aeration of leachate ponds and the use of misting systems are also reliable and proven methods of preventing odor.. An Odor Management Plan has been prepared and attached. 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 Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Operations at the site will.be compatible with the heavy industrial zoning of the surrounding property. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Potentially Less Than ' Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation X X' X X X X X 0 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, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? - d) Interfere substantially with the movement of . any native resident or migratory fish or. wildlife . species or with established native resident or migratory wildlifecorridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? . e) Conflict with 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? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? Operations at the site will be. compatible with the heavy industrial zoning.of the surrounding property. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064:5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- 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 earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation In Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seisinic 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 soil that is: unstable, or that would: become. unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off-sitelandslide, lateral spreading; subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal. systems where sewers.are not available, for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND 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 hazard to the Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant . . Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation X X X i X X X X X R -10- ' Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact ' Incorporation 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 hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of'a private ' airstrip, would the project result in a safety % hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of 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 wildland X fires including where wildlands are adjacent to ' urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ' -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ' discharge requirements? A Report of Waste % Discharge (RoWD) has been prepared for this site. The RoWD cannot be submitted until the CEQA determination. A copy is available for ' review and in draft form has been submitted to Mike-Huerta at County Environmental Health. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or ' interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- % existing nearby wells 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? 1 d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the % -11- 1 1 Potentially Less Than Less Than No. Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact 1 Incorporation alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of 1 surface runoffin a manner which would result in ` flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would 1 exceed the capacity of existing or planned X stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? - Storm water ponds are on site and will be . 1 expanded:: f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard X 1 Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other . flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area 1 structures which would impede or redirect flood X flows? i) Expose people or'structures to a'significant risk 1 of loss, injury or death involving flooding, X including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or.dam? 1 j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X 1 IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 1 X. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, 1 . policy, or regulation of an agency with X 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 1 environmental effect? Operations at the site will be 'compatible with the heavy industrial zoning of 1 the surrounding property. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community X . 1 conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the 1 -12- ' PotentiallY Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant. Impact Impact Mitigation Impact. ' Incorporation project: ' a) Result in the loss'of availability of a known . mineral resource that would be of value to the X . region and the residents of the, state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site X delineated on a local general plan, specific plan ' or other land use plan? XI. NOISE `Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise ' levels in excess of standards established in the : X local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? ' b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or gr(oundborne X noise levels?. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels X existing without the project? The use of _ operational equipment will create some increase in noise above. the current ambient level. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in X ambient.noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?'The use of -operational equipment will create some increase in noise above the current ambient level.- evel:e) e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, X t within two miles 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 residing X ' or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII: POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would - the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an t area, either directly (for example, by proposing X new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for -13- example,. through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 1 b) Displace substantialnumbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ' c) Displace substantial numbers of people, . . necessitating the construction of replacement ' housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse ' physical impacts associated with 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 objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? ' Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XIV. 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 . recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ' XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC --. Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant . . Impact Impact' Mitigation impact: Incorporation X. _ X X -14- 15 Le Than Less Than No Potentially ss , Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation 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 iri a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion'at intersections)? This will ' not differ greatly from the traffic previously generated when the landfill was open or anticipated when the environmental review was ' completed for the area allowing.M-2 (Heavy Industrial) zoning. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the, X 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 ora X change in location that results. in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves. or dangerous X ' intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ' X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation X (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control X ' Board? An ROWD has been prepared for the site and is. available for review. b) Require or result'm the construction of new ' water or wastewater treatment facilities or X expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental ' effects? A leachate pond will be built on site. c)Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of X 15 existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Thele is an existing storm water pond on site. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are'new or expanded entitlements needed7. 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 project0s projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project0s .solid waste disposal needs? This facility will help the local landfill in meeting. State diversion requirements g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes And regulations related to solid waste? Management Plans completed and ready for review: XVII. 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 connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Potentially .Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact, Incorporation X X X X ' c Does thero'ect have environmental effects P J which will cause substantial adverse effects on ' human beings, either directly or indirectly? This -16- . X