Environmental Impact Statement - Sonoma Land Trust

More documents

Recommendations

Info

California Department of Fish and Game U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 3.8. Recreation Impacts and Mitigation Measures No -Action Alternative Under the No -Action Alternative, proposed restoration activities would not occur; however, SLT still would conclude all leases on the portion of the property south of the SMART rail line and transfer title of the Sears Point properties to USFWS and CDFG. The proposed tidal wetland restoration site would continue to support pumped, diked bayland fields and related buildings, roads and infrastructure. The Black Point Sports Club lease would not be renewed beyond May 20121, or prior to the transfer of this portion of the Dickson Ranch to CDFG; however, public recreational hunting would now be allowed throughout the Project site under USFWSon CDFG-owned land. Under the No Action Alternative, the types of hunting available would increase to include both upland (including residual populations of pheasant) and CDFG’s ownershipwaterfowl hunting, and management.the duration of the upland hunting season would decrease. Waterfowl hunting season would be approximately 107 days. While public access would increase with the addition of public recreational hunting, the mechanism for completing the Bay Trail connections is unknown under the No-Action Alternative. Overall, while the No-Action Alternative would result in the loss of a private recreational use on the property, this would be offset by the increased public recreational hunting opportunities onsite following transfer to CDFG and USFWS. Therefore, impacts to recreational uses are considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Conclusion: Less than Significant. The Bay Trail connections would not be constructed under the No Action Alternative and this part of the Sonoma County Parks Sonoma Bay Trail Corridor Plan would not be implemented. However, the CDFG portion of the property would be open to hiking and other low-impact recreational activities such as bird watching. These activities would most likely occur on the existing outboard levee, and may become less feasible as the levee deteriorates over time. Guided recreational walks led by SLT and USFWS would continue at the site. Recreational use north of Highway 37 would continue to consist of guided walks offered by SLT and USFWS. Overall, the diversity and availability of public access to the site under the No Action Alternative would increase somewhat relative to the baseline condition. Sears Point Wetland and Watershed Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement 3.8-5 April 2012
California Department of Fish and Game U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 3.8. Recreation Action Alternatives Impact REC-1: Consistency with Existing or Proposed Public Access Plans Proposed Project The proposed wetland restoration includes extending the Bay Trail, to the degree funding is available, along numerous proposed alignments both within and across the project site. As such, the project would generally be consistent with the Bay Plan, which encourages the provision of access along the Bay shorelines. The project would be consistent with the Sonoma County Park’s Sonoma Bay Trail Corridor Plan, which proposes a trail alignment crossing the Sears Point property viaadjacent to the SMART rail right-of-way and connecting to the Bay Trail segments currently terminating at Sonoma Baylands to the west and Tubbs Island to the east. The project’s proposed perimeter trail along a new levee (segments 1 and 5) would be consistent with this purpose as it would follow a parallel alignment to the SMART rail right-of-way. Since the dominant interest concerning the Bay Trail is establishing a connection between the two disconnected segments on Sonoma Baylands and Tubbs Island, and the Project would provide for this, there would be no impact resulting from the Project. Conclusion: No Impact. Full Tidal Alternative Under this alternative, restoration would include similar alignment options for the Bay Trail as discussed for the Project, with only minor modifications to provide continuity across the additional tidal areas. As such, implementation of this option would be the same as that described above for the Project, and there would be no impact Segments 1 and 5, which are proposed in the Sonoma Bay Trail Corridor Plan, could not be constructed due to the large size of the levee that would be required and the associated environmental impacts and cost. A partial alternate trail segment, Segment 2, could be constructed connecting with the part of the Bay Trail at Sonoma Baylands but the trail connection could not be continued past the project site on the east side because the property is owned by another landowner. Under the Full-Tidal Alternative, trails could be constructed to include Segments 2-4 as funding becomes available and these trail alignments would provide significantly more access and wildlife viewing than under existing conditions. As such, the impacts of implementing this Alternative would be less than significant. Conclusion: No impactLess than Significant. Sears Point Wetland and Watershed Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement 3.8-6 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:
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: 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 303: California Department of Fish and G
Page 347 and 348: Section 3.11 Air Quality Introducti
Page 349 and 350: Table 3.11-1. Ambient Air Quality S
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?