Environmental Impact Statement - Sonoma Land Trust

More documents

Recommendations

Info

California Department of Fish and Game U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Executive Summary educational opportunities compatible with ecological and cultural resources protection. Alternatives Initial Alternatives Development Over the course of the development of the Conceptual Restoration Plan (WWR 2005a), DPRP (WWR 2006), and FPRP (WWR 2007), SLT initially developed three alternatives for the diked baylands portion of the Site: (1) restored tidal marsh to Highway 37—the Full Tidal Alternative; (2) restored tidal marsh to the rail line and muted tides between the rail line and Highway 37—the Muted Tidal Alternative; and (3) restored tidal marsh to the rail line and retained agriculture and pasture between the rail line and Highway 37 with improved practices to promote seasonal wetlands—the Non-Tidal Alternative. SLT initially considered the Full Tidal Alternative as its preferred project to be evaluated in this EIR/EIS. However, after consideration of several factors, the SLT shifted its preferred project to the Non-Tidal Alternative, referred to as the Partial-Tidal Alternative (Project or Proposed Project) in this EIR/EIS. This evolution reflects input received from the Project’s stakeholder group and the pending reactivation of the SMART rail line through the site. In March 2006, SLT held a public meeting to present the DPRP. The majority of stakeholder comments received at and after the meeting suggested retaining existing agricultural practices north of the rail line, enhancing existing seasonal wetlands on those lands, and clarifying public access plans. In June 2006, SLT learned that the North Coast Railway Authority (NCRA) was entering into contracts to resume freight service across the site as early as summer 2007. 1 Following a subsequent meeting with SMART representatives, SLT learned that restoration activities could not interrupt or impede rail service on the line. This new constraint rendered implementation of the full tidal alternative very difficult due to exceedingly high design and construction costs in the short-term. The Non-Tidal Alternative) was subsequently selected as the preferred project in the FPRP, in part because it significantly cuts implementation costs over the full tidal alternative. SLT also assumes that rail line activity on the existing SMART line will not preclude future restoration efforts in the project area, including any activities that may be undertaken at a later date to restore full tidal action north of the rail line. The Final EIR/EIS provides the revisions resulting from comments received on the Draft EIR/EIS and updated project design. 1 Rail service was reestablished effective July 13, 2011. Sears Point Wetland and Watershed Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement ES-4 April 2012
California Department of Fish and Game U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Executive Summary Alternatives Considered for Evaluation in the EIR/EIS The USFWS and CDFG considered the comments provided during scoping, the SLT’s development and evaluation of initial alternatives, and the key environmental impacts of the project to develop a preliminary list of alternatives for consideration in this EIR/EIS. • No Action Alternative • Partial-Tidal Wetland Restoration (Proposed Project) with Dredging/Breaching Options and Bay Trail Options • Full-Tidal Wetland Restoration • Muted-Tidal Wetland Restoration • Full Equilibrium Dredging Alternative • Dickson Ranch Alternative • Bayfront Spur Trail Alternative • Off-Site Alternative These alternatives were screened for their ability to meet the project purpose and need, for technical, logistical, and financial feasibility, and for their ability to avoid or substantially reduce one or more significant impacts of the Project. The result of that screening is that two alternatives, Partial-Tidal Wetland Restoration (Proposed Project) and Full-Tidal Wetland Restoration, described below, were determined to meet the purposes/objectives and need, be feasible, and to provide a range of environmental impacts and thus constitute a reasonable range of alternatives for NEPA and CEQA evaluation. Action Alternatives Analyzed in the EIR/EIS In addition to the No Action Alternative, two action alternatives were analyzed in the EIS/EIR Partial-Tidal Wetland Restoration (Proposed Project) The Project is based on the Non-Tidal Alternative presented in the Sears Point Wetlands and Watershed Restoration Project Final Preliminary Plan (FebruaryWWR 2007). The Project would: • restore 970955 acres of tidal marsh; • improve tidal exchange in Tolay Creek along the eastern edge of the project boundary; • preserve and enhance 106-acre area of non-tidal seasonal wetland while maintaining existing agriculture between the SMART line and Highway 37; Sears Point Wetland and Watershed Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement ES-5 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 23 and 24: Executive Summary This summary prov
Page 25: California Department of Fish and G
Page 31 and 32: Table ES-1. Summary of Impacts and
Page 33 and 34: Table ES-1. Continued Page 3 of 141
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 69 and 70: Table 2-2. Action Alternatives Cons
Page 71 and 72: Table 2-2. Continued Page 3 of 4 Ut
Page 77 and 78:
California Department of Fish and G
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:
Page 219 and 220:
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?