Environmental Impact Statement - Sonoma Land Trust

More documents

Recommendations

Info

California Department of Fish and Game U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 3.3. Water Quality promulgated by the EPA through the National Toxics Rule and through the California Toxics Rule, and for priority pollutant objectives established by the RWQCB in its Basin Plan. Regional Water Quality Conditions San Pablo Bay is the receiving water for all drainage from the Project site, including adjacent Tolay Creek. San Pablo Bay receives substantial inflow from the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, as well as smaller amounts of inflow from the Petaluma and Napa Rivers and Sonoma and Tolay Creeks. Water quality is maintained by circulation and flushing as a result of tidal action and freshwater inflow. Water quality and salinity in the Bay are determined by the relative mix of these water sources. Water circulation and salinity in the northern and central reaches of San Francisco Bay, which includes San Pablo Bay, are controlled by inflows from the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. Salinity levels in the southern reach of San Francisco Bay are more influenced by a combination of ocean and Northern Bay waters, making salinity levels in this area higher and more uniform (California Academy of Sciences 2007). Salinity levels in Tolay Creek are influenced by tidal levels in San Pablo Bay and surface runoff from the surrounding watershed. During the wet season (approximately November through April), the influences of surface runoff substantially reduce salinity in the creek, whereas during the dry season, salinity is mainly controlled by tidal influx. In a natural system, surface water quality depends primarily on the mineral composition of the rocks in the upper source areas of the stream. Farther downstream, the water quality is influenced by the mineral characteristics of the materials through which it flows and by contributions from tributaries. In an urban or developed system such as San Francisco Bay, water quality is also affected by discharges from point and nonpoint sources. Under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, the State Water Board presents the EPA with a list of “impaired water bodies,” defined as those water bodies that do not meet water quality standards, even after point sources of pollution have installed the minimum required levels of pollution control technology. Table 3.3- 1 lists waters in the San Pablo Bay region that have been designated by the State Water Board as impaired. The designation can be the result of pollutants, such as heavy metals or pesticides, or a physical property of the water, such as dissolved oxygen or temperature. Sears Point Wetland and Watershed Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement 3.3-6 April 2012
California Department of Fish and Game U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 3.3. Water Quality Table 3.3-1. Waters in the San Pablo Bay and Tributaries to the Bay Listed as Impaired by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act Water Body/Waterway San Pablo Bay Napa River Novato Creek Petaluma River Sonoma Creek San Francisco Bay, North Listed Impairment (Pollutant) Chlordane, DDT, Diazinon, Dieldrin, Furan, Dioxin, PCBs, Hg, Ni, Se, exotic species Nutrients, Pathogens, Sedimentation/Siltation Diazinon Diazinon, Nutrients, Pathogens, Sedimentation/Siltation Nutrients, Pathogens, Sedimentation/Siltation Diazinon, Chlordane, DDT, Dieldrin, Dioxin, Furan, PCBs, Hg, Se, exotic species Source: San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board 2006a. The water quality in the San Pablo Bay tributaries is influenced by past and present agricultural activities. The Petaluma and Napa Rivers and Sonoma Creek are impaired by sediment, nutrients, and pathogens that are all related to the abundant agricultural activities found in their watersheds. The North San Francisco Bay and San Pablo Bay are also impaired by persistent agricultural chemicals, such as DDT and Chlordane, which may have been used anywhere in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers watersheds. These areas are also impaired by metals and PCB’s from past industrial and mining activities. Water quality in the area is further impaired because of mercury, and some bay fish are considered unsafe for human consumption because of mercury levels in aquatic life (State Water Resources an Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board 2006b). Smaller drainages that drain primarily urban areas, such as Novato Creek, are impaired by persistent household insecticides, such as Diazinon. A TMDL for Diazinon impairment in San Francisco Bay Area urban creeks was approved in 2005 (San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board 2005). San Pablo Bay receives Diazinon and other pesticides through sediment transport from urban creeks; these contaminants can accumulate in bottom sediments. TMDLs to address sediment and pathogens in the Napa River and Sonoma Creek watersheds are awaiting final state approval.part of the Basin Plan. The TMDL and basin plan amendment for mercury impairment in San Francisco Bay was adopted by the SWRCB in 2007. TMDLs currently in development include: PCBs and selenium in the San Francisco Bay and nutrients in the Napa River and Sonoma Creek watersheds. In addition to impaired water bodies identified by the State Water Board, the RWQCB has identified toxic hot spots where Bay sediments are contaminated. Table 3.3-2 lists the toxic hot spots in the San Pablo Bay and the contaminants found at each site. Sears Point Wetland and Watershed Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement 3.3-7 April 2012
Page 1 and 2:
Sears Point Wetland and Watershed R
Page 3 and 4:
Sears Point Wetland and Watershed R
Page 5 and 6:
Contents List of Tables ...........
Page 7 and 8:
California Department of Fish and G
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Executive Summary This summary prov
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Table ES-1. Summary of Impacts and
Page 33 and 34:
Table ES-1. Continued Page 3 of 141
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Table 1-1. List of Local, State, an
Page 53 and 54:
Table 1-1. Continued Page 3 of 3 Ag
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Table 2-2. Action Alternatives Cons
Page 71 and 72:
Table 2-2. Continued Page 3 of 4 Ut
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120: Chapter 3 Affected Environment and
Page 121 and 122: Section 3.1 Geology, Soils, and Pal
Page 123 and 124: California Department of Fish and G
Page 143 and 144: Section 3.2 Surface-Water Hydrology
Page 165 and 166: Section 3.3 Water Quality Introduct
Page 169: California Department of Fish and G
Page 193 and 194: Section 3.4 Public Health and Safet
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Table 3.5-2. Special-Status Species
Page 225 and 226:
Table 3.5-2. Continued Page 3 of 12
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Section 3.6 Land Use and Public Uti
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Section 3.7 Agricultural Resources
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Section 3.11 Air Quality Introducti
Page 349 and 350:
Table 3.11-1. Ambient Air Quality S
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Table 3.11-32, Continued Page 2 of
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363 and 364:
Page 365 and 366:
Page 367 and 368:
Page 369 and 370:
Page 371 and 372:
Page 373 and 374:
Page 375 and 376:
Page 377 and 378:
Section 3.12 Noise Introduction Thi
Page 379 and 380:
Page 381 and 382:
Page 383 and 384:
Page 385 and 386:
Page 387 and 388:
Section 3.13 Cultural Resources Int
Page 389 and 390:
Page 391 and 392:
Page 393 and 394:
Page 395 and 396:
Page 397 and 398:
Page 399 and 400:
Page 401 and 402:
Page 403 and 404:
Page 405 and 406:
Section 3.14 Aesthetics Introductio
Page 407 and 408:
Page 409 and 410:
Page 411 and 412:
Page 413 and 414:
Page 415 and 416:
Section 3.15 Environmental Justice
Page 417 and 418:
Page 419 and 420:
Page 421 and 422:
Page 423 and 424:
Chapter 4 Consultation and Other Re
Page 425 and 426:
Sonoma Land Trust Chapter 4. Consul
Page 427 and 428:
Page 429 and 430:
Page 431 and 432:
Page 433 and 434:
Page 435 and 436:
Page 437 and 438:
Page 439 and 440:
Page 441 and 442:
Page 443 and 444:
Chapter 5 Public Involvement and Sc
Page 445 and 446:
Page 447 and 448:
Page 449 and 450:
Page 451 and 452:
Page 453 and 454:
Sonoma Land Trust Chapter 7. Refere
Page 455 and 456:
Page 457 and 458:
Page 459 and 460:
Page 461 and 462:
Page 463 and 464:
Page 465 and 466:
Page 467 and 468:
Page 469 and 470:
Page 471 and 472:
show all

Environmental Impact Statement - Sonoma Land Trust

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?