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 Conclusion: Less than Significant With Mitigation. Impact WQ-2: Degradation of Surface Water and Sediment Quality due to Increased Methyl Mercury Formation Activities that would lower pH, oxidize sediments and attract sulfate-reducing bacteria, orwould increase the methylation process and decrease the demethylation process wouldand potentially increase the concentration of bioavailable mercury, which could result in increased concentrations of mercury in fish tissue and exceedance of TMDL targets. A significantly larger concentration of methyl mercury ismay be formed in marsh areas compared to open water. Proposed Project It is possible that mercury methylation could increase as a result of construction of the proposed tidal wetlands, as compared to the existing agricultural and seasonal wetlands uses. It is not currently possible, although models are being developed, to precisely estimate the methyl mercury concentrations and bioaccumulation and biomagnification in the food chain that may occur due to tidal wetland restoration. Although it is generally thought that restoring large areas of salt marsh throughout the San Francisco Bay region is beneficial to the environment, large-scale restoration projects could also expose populations of fish and wildlife species to increased levels of methyl mercury. In addition, there is a potential for human health risks should increased production of methyl mercury occur that results in increased mercury concentrations in fished species. However, as discussed earlier, current research appears to indicate that tidal salt marshes are less prone to mercury methylation than freshwater marshes, and that concentrations in biota are relatively low, and monitoring for methyl mercury would be included in the project monitoring plan. Because the scientific understanding of these processes is still developing, there is a need for adaptive management of this issue. This impact is potentially significant. To minimize this effect, the following mitigation measure should will be implemented. Mitigation Measure WQ-MM-32: Develop and Implement a Methyl Mercury Adaptive Management Plan. Due to the uncertainties regarding mercury methylation and bioaccumulation processes, potential methyl mercury production at the project site is best managed adaptively. SLT its successors in interest (e.g. CDFG and USFWS) shall develop and implement an adaptive management plan to address methyl mercury production and accumulation in the restoration site. The methyl mercury adaptive management plan shall be developed in collaboration with other agencies with jurisdiction over contaminants in the Bay, and shall include review by a Technical Advisory Committee or Group; preferably an existing Sears Point Wetland and Watershed Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement 3.3-16 April 2012
California Department of Fish and Game U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 3.3. Water Quality group that includes representatives from multiple agencies and projects, such as the South Bay Salt Pond Project Technical Advisory Committee. The methyl mercury adaptive management plan shall include a methyl mercury monitoring plan as well as triggers for further action. To evaluate the potential effects of the Proposed Project on mercury in biota, methyl mercury monitoring shall focus on biota, with an emphasis on resident sentinel species, preferably biosentinel fish. The proposed monitoring shall be coordinated with other methyl mercury biological monitoring conducted as part of the Regional Monitoring Program (RMP), and any other methyl mercury monitoring efforts that may be implemented in the North Bay during the designated monitoring period for the Proposed Project. The methyl mercury monitoring plan shall be developed in more detail during the permitting phase, to ensure that it meets resource and regulatory agency needs. The monitoring effort may be similar to that included in the example monitoring plan in Appendix D. The goal of the adaptive management plan is to create a framework to review monitoring results and to develop corrective actions, in coordination with a technical advisory committee, based both on the best available science and feasibility to help ensure that tidal restoration at the Sears Point site does not substantially increase the risk of bioaccumulation for fish and wildlife species and does not substantially increase the risks related to human consumption of fish from San Pablo Bay or Tolay Creek. Physical changes that could be made to reduce methyl mercury production, if needed, could include change in water inundation management and vegetation conditions (Brostoff 2007 and Best, Ely and Team 2010). The plan should be developed in consultation with the responsible regulatory agencies implementing and permitting other wetland restoration projects in the Bay (RWQCB, BCDC, Corps, NMFS, USFWS, federal EPA, CDFG, etc.), potentially including the Hamilton Wetland Restoration Project and the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project (which has an Adaptive Management Plan that includes specific measures on methyl mercury). Staff of these agencies should be part of the adaptive management team to guide development of the plan; determine the duration, frequency of monitoring, constituents to be monitored, and monitoring protocols; and develop corrective actions as needed to minimize the adverse effects of methyl mercury. As noted above, water quality models are currently being developed to evaluate methyl mercury concentrations. Once appropriate models are developed and adopted, they will be used to help develop the proposed methyl mercury adaptive management plan. Key elements of this plan would include water- and sediment-quality monitoring, hydrodynamic monitoring, and benthic invertebrate monitoring. Monitoring would be conducted for at least 10 years post-breach. The purpose of the monitoring would be to determine whether methyl mercury concentrations are found at substantially greater concentrations in the water column, sediments, or benthic invertebrate population at the restoration site than at reference sites. A further goal of monitoring is to identify sentinel species that can provide early Sears Point Wetland and Watershed Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement 3.3-17 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:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130: 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 179: California Department of Fish and G
Page 193 and 194: Section 3.4 Public Health and Safet
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 231 and 232:
Table 3.5-2. Continued Page 9 of 12
Page 233 and 234:
Table 3.5-2. Continued Page 11 of 1
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?