Environmental Impact Statement - Sonoma Land Trust

More documents

Recommendations

Info

California Department of Fish and Game U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 3.6. Land Use and Public Utilities The No-Action Alternative would not result in any other impacts to land uses on the project site. The proposed tidal wetland restoration site would continue to support pumped, diked bayland fields (seasonal wetlands and saturated grasslands to the south of the rail line, and seasonal wetlands and oat hay farming or open fields to the north of the rail line), and related buildings, roads and infrastructure. Buildings that are no longer required or effectively maintained would be removed. Conclusion: Less than Significant. Action Alternative Impact LU-1: Conflict with Existing Land Uses Proposed Project Land uses in the project areas that will be displaced by the Project include farming of oat hay and the hunt club. Farming south of the SMART line and the hunt club operations will be ended with or without the project due to CDFG policy regarding leases. Farming north of the SMART line may would continue per USFWS leasing big policies and per USFWS management priorities and can be managed in concert with habitat restoration activities. While the project would conflict with these existing land uses, the environmental impact of ending these uses is analyzed in Section 3.7, Agricultural Resources and 3.8, Recreation. As concluded in those sections, the loss of farming south of the SMART line and ending of hunt club operations would not represent a significant agricultural or recreational impact. Thus the conflict of the project with these existing land uses is not considered a significant impact. A further consideration is that the ending of leases due to CDFG policy will happen regardless of the project and constitutes the baseline for evaluation of impacts with CEQA and NEPA. Thus the Project will not result in impacts relative to farming south of the SMART line or to the hunt club beyond those in the baseline. Conclusion: Less than Significant. Full-Tidal Alternative Similar to the Project, the Full-Tidal Alternative would conflict with the existing agricultural and hunt club uses. This alternative would also result in loss of farming between Highway 37 and the SMART line, which is an impact above the baseline. However, as discussed in Section 3.7, Agricultural Resources, the additional loss of this agricultural land is a less than significant impact. Sears Point Wetland and Watershed Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement 3.6-10 April 2012
California Department of Fish and Game U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 3.6. Land Use and Public Utilities Conclusion: Less than Significant. Impact LU-2: Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses Proposed Project Land uses in the surrounding area consist of a mosaic of rural land uses in the upland interior and natural transitional habitats along the San Pablo Bay shoreline. Although project implementation would result in the conversion of agricultural land to tidal marsh, this change would be compatible with the land use mixture of the surrounding area including other tidal marsh restoration. The proposed wetland restoration would also be consistent with applicable county general plan policies that call for preserving and restoring natural habitat along the San Pablo Bay shoreline, including Objectives LU-9c, RC-5.3, and RC-5d from the 1989 Sonoma County General Plan, and Objectives OSRC-7.9, OSRC- 7.10, OSRC-7p, and OSRC-7s from GP 2020. As such, impacts to surrounding land uses are expected to be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Conclusion: Less than Significant. Full-Tidal Alternative Similar to the Project, the Full-Tidal Alternative would result in compatible conversion of agricultural land to tidal marsh. As such, impacts to surrounding land uses are expected to be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Conclusion: Less than Significant. Impact LU-3: Consistency with Applicable General Plan Policies Proposed Project The proposed wetland restoration is consistent with applicable county general plan policies that preserve and maintain undeveloped land, open space, and natural habitat along San Pablo Bay. Objective LU-9.1 encourages development on lands with important biotic resources and scenic features in a manner which preserves or enhances these features; Objective LU-11f encourages conservation of undeveloped land, open space; restoration of ecosystems; and minimization or elimination of the disruption of existing natural ecosystems and flood plains; Objective OSRC-7.5 encourages land use practices that maintain connectivity between natural habitat areas; and Objective OSRC-7.8 encourages voluntary efforts to restore and enhance biotic habitat. The county general plan also contains numerous policies that support the preservation, enhancement, and restoration of the San Pablo Bay area. County Sears Point Wetland and Watershed Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement 3.6-11 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:
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: 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: California Department of Fish and G
Page 273 and 274: Section 3.6 Land Use and Public Uti
Page 281: California Department of Fish and G
Page 289 and 290: Section 3.7 Agricultural Resources
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?