Environmental Impact Statement - Sonoma Land Trust

More documents

Recommendations

Info

California Department of Fish and Game U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Executive Summary • provide public recreation access south and possibly north of Highway 37; enhance 40 acres of non-tidal seasonal wetland north of Highway 37; and • enhance 15.5 acres of additional breeding habitat for the California redlegged frog, including creation of 0.586 acres of excavation in the floodplain near the northern project boundary. Summaries of the major restoration components of the Project can be found in Chapter 2. Full-Tidal Restoration Alternative This alternative is based on the Full-Tidal Alternative presented in the Sears Point Wetlands and Watershed Restoration Project Final Preliminary Plan (FebruaryWWR 2007). This alternative would: • restore 1,33552 acres of tidal marsh; • improve tidal exchange in Tolay Creek along the eastern edge of the project boundary; • provide public recreation access south and possibly north of Highway 37; enhance 40 acres of non-tidal seasonal wetland north of Highway 37; and • enhance 15.5 acres of additional breeding habitat, including creation of 0.586 acres of excavation in the floodplain, for the California red-legged frog near the northern project boundary. Sections summarizing the major restoration components of the Full-Tidal Restoration Alternative can be found in Chapter 2. Environmental Consequences This EIR/EIS evaluates the environmental consequences of the restoration alternatives. A summary of the impact analysis for these alternatives is presented at the end of this chapter (Table ES-1). In addition, CEQA and NEPA require a review of other issues summarized below. Cumulative Impacts The Final EIS/EIR considered a list of projects that could potentially combine with the Sears Point project to create cumulative impacts. It also considered the projections associated with the Sonoma County General Plan, Bay Trail Plan, and Sonoma Bay Trail Corridor Plan. A number of the projects considered are wetland restoration projects in areas that interface with San Francisco Bay that involve sediment control, improved aquatic and upland habitat, invasive species removal, trail and roadway improvements, and/or flood reduction actions. These Sears Point Wetland and Watershed Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement ES-6 April 2012
California Department of Fish and Game U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Executive Summary projects have primarily beneficial impacts, and would combine with the Sears Point project to create cumulatively beneficial impacts. Other projects, such as maintenance dredging, were also considered. Resource areas with cumulatively beneficial impacts included hydrology, flooding, vegetation communities, and wetlands (by improving site function). Resource areas with no potential for contribution to cumulative effects include public health, hazardous substances and waste, population and housing, and environmental justice.biology and air quality (greenhouse gas emissions). The project would have less-than-considerable cumulative contributions related to construction-related effects on air quality, geology, surface water hydrology and tidal hydraulics, water quality, public health, agricultural resources, recreation, land use and utilities, recreation, hazards and hazardous materials, traffic, air quality, and noise, cultural resources, aesthetics, and environmental justice. One significant adverse cumulative impact was identified, which related to the loss of the historic Dickson Ranch property. For a detailed discussion of cumulative impacts, please refer to Chapter 4. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts For the proposed project, there are several no significant impacts that currently proposed mitigation may not mitigate to a less-than-significant level. • Impact CR-2: Destruction of Significant Historic Resource (Dickson Ranch) • Impact HYD-6: Potential Impacts on Tidal Muting in Tolay Creek (Breach/Dredge Options 1 and 2 only) • Impact BIO-17: Potential for Construction-Related Mortality of Special- Status Fish Species (Green Sturgeon only) Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources The restoration alternatives would result in the irretrievable commitment of fossil fuels and other energy sources needed to build, operate, and maintain the wetlands. The restoration of the site to wetlands, however, is not considered an irreversible commitment because the landscape could again be converted to other land uses in the future. In sum, the project does not involve converting the land to urban land uses, which tend to be irreversible. Sears Point Wetland and Watershed Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement ES-7 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 27: 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 79 and 80:
California Department of Fish and G
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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?