Chapter 1 - Caltrans - State of California

) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
Potentially
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
Appendix A CEQA Checklist
Less than
significant
impact
Short-term impacts to air quality are expected during construction due to types of work performed,
construction equipment and motor vehicles used. Temporary air quality impacts are considered less
than significant with the mitigation proposed in the Air Quality section of this IS/EA.
A comprehensive analysis of potential air pollutants has concluded that the proposed project
alternatives do not pose any significant operational impact on the ambient air quality in the project
vicinity.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment
under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
X
X
No
Impacts
Operation of the proposed project would comply with all applicable air quality plans, and be expected to
improve traffic circulation in the area, which would result in improved air quality. Therefore, project
contributions to cumulative air quality impacts are considered less than cumulatively considerable.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
During construction adjacent communities will be exposed to pollutants from grading and construction
equipment. Construction air quality pollutants would dissipate rapidly. Mitigation measures identified in
the Air Quality Section of this IS/EA would reduce the impacts to “less than significant”.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
Construction equipment exhaust may create temporary intermittent odors to nearby communities. The
odors should dissipate rapidly.
4. 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?
The Department’s biologist conducted surveys of the project area. No habitat or special status species
or listed species are present within the project area. The project would not conflict with any local or
regional plans or polices for wildlife.
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?
No sensitive natural communities or riparian habitats were located within the project site.
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?
Surveys for federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act were
conducted. No wetlands were identified in the project area, but jurisdictional “waters of the U.S.” are
within the project vicinity. FULL BUILD Alternative would require extension of a box culvert. Refer to
section 2.3.1 Wetlands and Other Waters of the IS/EA for mitigation measures to reduce impacts to
IS/EA VEN-SB US101 HOV Project 227
X
X
X
X
X