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 excavated and sequestered during levee construction. This impact is considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Conclusion: Less than Significant. Impact WQ-9: Degradation of Water Quality due to Residual Herbicides in Proposed Tidal Basin Proposed Project A portion of the proposed new tidal wetland would be located on land currently used for oat hay production. Herbicides such as Roundup have been used in conjunction with hay production activities, and may have been stored or handled in the existing structures onsite (Wetlands and Water Resources 2005b). Roundup strongly adsorbs to soils particles, giving it little potential for leaching to surface waters. In addition, it is rapidly broken down by soil microorganisms (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2006). The potential for elevated herbicide concentrations to enter San Pablo Bay through wetlands pathways would therefore be minimal. If pesticides were to enter the Bay, elevated concentrations would be limited to a localized area near the wetlands restoration site. Given the vast area of San Pablo Bay relative to the small area of the proposed tidal wetland, and tidal action within the Bay, and the type of pesticides and limited quantity that have been applied, any pesticides entering surface waters would dissipate very rapidly. Potential overall pesticide impacts on San Pablo Bay due to the proposed restoration Project are therefore considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Conclusion: Less than Significant. Full-Tidal Alternative As above, residual pesticides located within soils of the new tidal basinarea are likely to strongly adsorb to soils particles, and rapidly break down and/or be adequately diluted by tidal flushing, giving little potential for leaching to surface waters. Although the Full-Tidal Alternative will inundate a larger area of former agricultural fields, potential overall pesticide impacts on San Pablo Bay are considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Conclusion: Less than Significant. Sears Point Wetland and Watershed Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement 3.3-26 April 2012
California Department of Fish and Game U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 3.3. Water Quality Impact WQ-10: Potential for Changes in Salinity Levels within Tolay Creek Proposed Project Salinity levels in Tolay Creek are directly related to tidal flow from San Pablo Bay and freshwater inflow from the surrounding watershed. Tidal range indicates the amount of tidal exchange and can therefore be used as a baseline for determining salinity impacts. The Project could result in dampening of tidal cycles in Tolay Creek (depending on breaching/dredging option selected) due to diversion. The breach(es) would divert a portion of flows through the levee breaches and across the Sears Point site (see Section 3.2, Surface-Water Hydrology, Tidal Hydraulics, and Sedimentation). These changes in tidal flow in the Project area could potentially result in slight salinity changes in upstream areas of Tolay Creek. Construction of Breach 2 and potentially Breaches 3 and/or 4, could result in cChanges in salinity levels within Tolay Creek and could have detrimental effects on water supply for agriculture in the Project vicinity if local groundwater aquifers are subject to salt water intrusion. The main facilities potentially impacted would be the Paradise Vineyard property and associated residential parcels west of Tolay Creek and south of Highway 37. Water supply to these properties is currently pumped from two groundwater wells located at the North Point Joint Venture (NPJV) property and conveyed to the vineyard property via water supply lines. However, because these wells are located upgradient from Tolay Creek and its associated groundwater aquifer, there is little potential for salinity changes in the creek to affect these wells. The Tolay Creek system historically had greater connectivity to tidal flow from San Pablo Bay. As a result of reduced tidal flows in the creek, salinity levels in upper Tolay Creek are most likely depressed due to the influence of freshwater inflows, particularly during the wet season. However, as a result of the Tolay Creek restoration project, some tidal flow has been restored to upper Tolay Creek, which has increased salinity levels in the Upper Lagoon. Because it would not substantially affect salinity of agricultural water supplies and would not increase salinity beyond historical conditions in Tolay Creek, Project-related effects to Tolay Creek salinity levels resulting from increased tidal muting are considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Conclusion: Less than significant. Full-Tidal Alternative Effects to salinity levels in Tolay Creek due to the Full-Tidal Alternative would be comparable to that of the Project. Nearby water users pumping water from groundwater wells would not likely be affected by changes in salinity. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Sears Point Wetland and Watershed Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement 3.3-27 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:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140: 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 189: 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 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?