Agmt13 Environmental Science Associates

Browse Search

� a� _ t �� s� �' ��'� '� � '�"".�3°�iju h ��r�r . : � '. ... y s 'F �' r� �[ ��. H a"`��_ v fi a ...'�� ' � p,{.. , ` �— �� ,, '!.�_ t r� � � a€g �- . d � E .�t� �t[ r�— �",. ��. , j3tz'�.3�'�«�_ * , a...s '�E u...... „}�a�v�ett.. .^. � ..� ^ ra:r: �,. , �� Act among others).It will also have � Project site through this task. R� ; for this project analysi's.�' identified potential program level , . Specify federal,state,and local poliaes and regulations that � effects and mitigation measures. would apply to the Project,given any habitat onsite no � Development of the Project is not previously identified. expected to involve direct impacts to Describe onsite non-native species onsite that may be wetlands,waters,special aquatic sites, ` + �masive or considered a threat to s ecial status as none exist on or adjacent to the s ecies.Also describe as ects of the Pro ect that may project site.It may,however,effect p P ! trees or other avian use areas improve habitat conditions or create additional speaal status speaes habitat. • Discuss the Project relative to biological resources goals F and policies identified in the IHSP. : � Identify the potential pro�ect-level effects of the on special- status plants, commumties,or wildlife or wildlife migratory ," use areas. _ , - - -_ __ _�_______ 5.4 Cultural Resources � Context: i To assess whether the Project would have project-level The IHSP EIR would have described ! �mpacts or contribute to any cumulative impact,ESA will: �qssumptions: the IHSP cultural resources setting ; * Input and lists from the that would also apply to the Project, • Identify potential impacts to cultural resources from NAHC provided for the IHSP specifically information regarding any ; development of the Project. will also apply to this project- known sacred sites(from input by the ' „ Discuss the Pro ect relative to cultural resources oals and level analysis;no new Native American Heritage Commission � � 9 consultation would be for the IHSP EIR or other resources policies identified in the IHSP. � � initiated. that may be an important to the history , qs appropriate,identify project-level mitigation measures to ; of the area. address accidental discovery of cultural resources during � * Due to the developed and ground-disturbing construction efforts,based on the ; paved nature of the site,no program-level mitigation measures identified in the IHSP i field surveys of the site are EIR. proposed. � = No historic architectural � resources are assumed onsite. ' • No fiederal Section 106(i.e., � consultation with SHPO)is � required. _._. . _ _ _� �.n. 5.5 Geology,Soils,and Seismicity ° Context: To assess whether the Project would have project-level The IHSP EIR would have desaibed impacts or contribute to any cumulative impact,ESA wilL• �pssumption: the IHSP geology,soils,and seismic � ` . No soils testing is included setting that would also apply to the • Evaluate geological and seismic safety effects related to � in this scope of work. Project,specifically information construction and operation of the Project � regarding types and depths of materials i „ Discuss the Pro ect relative to eob ical or seismic o j ihat underlie the site;all site soils, J 9 9 g als geologic conditions and materials; ; and policies identified in the IHSP ! major earthquake fault systems in the E . qs appropnate,identify project-level mitigation measures to � region and relative to the plan area;and � address geological and seismic conditions,specifically from other potential hazards such as project and site-specific requirements or recommendations � liquefaction, F for geotechnical preparations and foundation systems iden6fied in the Project-specific geotechnical/soils report ` prepared by a qualrfied consultant of the project sponsor. REV:06-15-15 VR Page il of 18 ATTY/AGR.Amend No. 2/ESA Inner Harbor EIR Amendment No.2