Environmental Impact Statement - Sonoma Land Trust

More documents

Recommendations

Info

California Department of Fish and Game U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 3.5. Biological Resources Impact BIO-16: Potential for Construction-Related Water Quality Effects on Special-Status Fish Species Proposed Project Excessive sediment quantities deposited in or near stream channels can degrade aquatic habitats. Dredging and levee breaching can also release sediments into Tolay Creek and San Pablo Bay. Sediments can decrease food production and increase turbidity in the immediate area. Increased turbidity can increase fish mortality; reduce feeding opportunities for fish; and cause fish to avoid biologically important habitat. Although such an event is unlikely, refueling, operation, and storage of construction equipment and materials could result in accidental spills of pollutants, such as concrete, sealants, and oil into Tolay Creek and San Pablo Bay. Pollutants entering waterbodies in the Action area cwould cause mortality to, and reduced growth of, the egg, larval, and juvenile life stages of fish. Furthermore, these pollutants could adversely affect the movement of specialstatus species, including juvenile Chinook salmon, steelhead, longfin smelt and sturgeon. Material excavation and grading associated with levee construction could potentially increase erosion processes, thereby increasing the potential for releasing sediment and other water quality constituents into Tolay Creek and San Pablo Bay. Water quality impacts resulting from the Project are potentially significant. Implementation of water quality mitigation measure WQ-MM-21 (Implement Water Quality Control Measures for Project Construction), which requires compliance with regulatory agency construction permit conditions to protect beneficial uses of water resources and WQ-MM-43 (Implement Water Quality Control Measures for Project Dredging) which requires dredging water quality monitoring and controls would assure that potential impacts of the Project remain less than significant. Conclusion: Less than Significant with Mitigation. Full-Tidal Alternative Water quality impacts under the Full-Tidal Alternative are the same as those described for the Project. Therefore, impacts of the Full-Tidal Alternative are considered potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure WQ- MM-21 and WQ-MM-43 would reduce potential impacts to a less -than - significant level. Conclusion: Less than Significant with Mitigation. Sears Point Wetland and Watershed Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement 3.5-52 April 2012
California Department of Fish and Game U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 3.5. Biological Resources Impact BIO-17: Potential for Construction-Related Mortality of Special-Status Fish Species Proposed Project BreachingExcavating Breaches 1 and 2, lowering the perimeter levee, and dredging the Connector Channel and if required by the Adaptive Management Plan, constructing Breaches 3 – 4 to Tolay Creek channel under all breaching options could result in direct mortality of rearing special-status fish species such as juvenile salmonids, long fin smelt, and green sturgeon, if individuals are present when construction occurred. Dredging is an activity that removes material from the benthic environment and thus would be more likely to impact benthic species such as green sturgeon. The potential for entrainment depends on many factors, including: the abundance, swimming ability (which is positively related to size), and behavioral response of species such as green sturgeon to dredging activities; the total area dredged; the speed at which dredging is conducted; and possibly other factors. Lack of information on the behavioral response and numbers of green sturgeon in San Pablo Bay makes it difficult to estimate with any certainty the number of green sturgeon that potentially would be entrained during dredging activities. However, their susceptibility to entrainment may be higher than that for other fish species (e.g., Chinook salmon) because of their strong association with bottom substrates. The type of dredging equipment employed also can influence susceptibility of fish to entrainment. For example, fish entrainment rates generally have been shown to be greater for hydraulic dredges than for mechanical dredges, due to the strong suction field associated with hydraulic dredges (Nightingale and Simenstad 2001). Therefore, the potential for entrainment of green sturgeon would be greater when hydraulic dredging methods are employed. In a study done with white sturgeon on the Columbia River, sturgeon did not move out of the area during dredging or hopper dredge disposal operations. In fact, there seemed to be an increased movement towards dredging operations, possibly due to increased prey availability (Parsley and Popper 2004). Dredging inIf required by the Adaptive Management Plan, construction of up to two additional breaches to Tolay Creek is anticipated to have minimal impact on adult green sturgeon because: • The proportion of Tolay Creek that would be dredgedaffected is very small compared to the entire length of the creek. The total length of creek proposed for dredgingbank that may be excavated is 0.47 mileseveral hundred feet and Tolay Creek is 10.56 miles (17 kilometers [km]) long (Takekawa et. al. 2002; iii); and • A small number of sturgeon, (ranging from 5 to 110 fish over years of sampling), were caught during the CDFG surveys in trammel nets throughout Sears Point Wetland and Watershed Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement 3.5-53 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:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Section 3.2 Surface-Water Hydrology
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Section 3.3 Water Quality Introduct
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Section 3.4 Public Health and Safet
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218: California Department of Fish and G
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 267: California Department of Fish and G
Page 273 and 274: Section 3.6 Land Use and Public Uti
Page 289 and 290: Section 3.7 Agricultural Resources
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?