Environmental Impact Statement - Sonoma Land Trust

More documents

Recommendations

Info

California Department of Fish and Game U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 3.9. Hazardous Substances and Waste Impact HAZ-4: Potential Exposure of Humans, Plants, or Wildlife to Hazardous Chemicals Contained in Dredged Material— Dredging and Material Placement Activities Proposed Project The process of dredging material from Tolay Creekthe Connector Channel may disturb and redistribute contaminants that have been previously buried or otherwise sequestered in sediments. Once disturbed, these contaminants may become biologically available in sediments and the water column and could exert toxic effects on organisms that come in contact with them. Additionally, the suitability of dredged material for contouring of the project site would be determined through the existing testing and suitability framework used by the state and federal agencies through the DMMO. The DMMO requires dredging project applicants to sample and test sediments proposed to be dredged for chemical constituents of concern and toxicity using protocols acceptable to the agencies. The adequacy of sampling and testing procedures is evaluated by the DMMO, and the test results analyzed to determine the acceptability of the dredged material for placement at a proposed site and in different environments. Potential impacts resulting from dredging or placement of contaminated soils wouldsediment could be significant. All dredging operations would be conducted in compliance with the regulatory permits. To reduce these impacts to a lessthan-significant level, SLT would implement Mitigation Measure HAZ-MM-4. Mitigation Measure HAZ-MM-4: Sampling and Reuse/Disposal of Dredge Materials Based on DMMO Protocols • SLT shall sample and test sediments proposed to be dredged for chemical constituents of concern and for toxicity using protocols acceptable to the DMMO. • The DMMO will evaluate the adequacy of the sampling and testing and the acceptability of the dredged material for disposal reuse at proposed sites in the restoration area for beneficial reuse as either wetland foundation or surface material. Conclusion: Less than Significant with Mitigation. Full-Tidal Alternative The Full-Tidal Alternative would also implement similar dredging activities to implement the proposed restoration components. As such, the potential to disturb contaminated materials during dredging activities would be the same for the Full- Tidal Alternative as they are for the Project. The Full Tidal Alternative would also reuse dredged materials to implement the proposed restoration components. Sears Point Wetland and Watershed Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement 3.9-17 April 2012
California Department of Fish and Game U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 3.9. Hazardous Substances and Waste Although additional dredging and contouring would be implemented in the area between Highway 37 and the SMART rail line, this increase in dredged material placement would not have an effect on the significance of the impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-MM-4 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Conclusion: Less than Significant with Mitigation. Impact HAZ-5: Potential Exposure of Humans, Plants, or Wildlife to Contaminants As a Result of Construction/Restoration Activities Proposed Project A 2004 Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments of the North Point Joint Venture property and the Dickson Ranch property were conducted by Camp Dresser and McKee in 2004. The North Point Joint Venture property assessment reported potential environmental conditions related to leakage from grease cans west of the barn located on Reclamation Road, and barns and residential structures on the site potentially constructed with asbestos-containing material and lead-based paint (Camp Dresser and McKee 2004a). While potential leakage of above-ground fuel storage tanks are present at theThe Dickson Ranch , and property assessment indicates that pesticides/herbicides have historically been applied biannually in conjunction with hay production activities and may have been stored or handled in the existing structures (Camp Dresser and McKee 2004b), however, Camp Dresser and McKee (2004b) did not observe or review any documentation indicating the presence of hazardous wastes, substances, or materials; solid waste or non-hazardous substances; or polychlorinated biphenyls-containing equipment. They found it unlikely that either aboveground or underground storage tanks were ever used on the subject property, but that herbicides were mixed near the buildings of the Black Point Sports Club. Camp Dresser and McKee did not have any indication that herbicides were mishandled, therefore, no soil samples have been collected to assess potential contamination associated with these sources. Lead agencies of the proposed projectSLT or its successors in interest are required to investigate and remediate identified toxic or hazardous substances to reduce the risk of exposure to humans and prevent ecological degradation. This impact cwould be significant. To reduce this impact to a less-thansignificant level, SLT or its successors in interest will implement Mitigation Measures HAZ-MM-5 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Sears Point Wetland and Watershed Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement 3.9-18 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:
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: California Department of Fish and G
Page 289 and 290: Section 3.7 Agricultural Resources
Page 327: 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 357 and 358: Table 3.11-32, Continued Page 2 of
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?