Environmental Impact Statement - Sonoma Land Trust

More documents

Recommendations

Info

California Department of Fish and Game U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 3.12. Noise Action Alternatives Impact N-1: Temporary Increases in Ambient Noise Levels during Construction Activities Proposed Project Increased noise levels would result from construction of the Project. The noisesensitive receptors in the area would be recreational users of the adjacent segment of the Bay Trail west of the project site and the three adjacent residential parcels north of the project site. The Sonoma Baylands terminus of the Bay Trail abuts the Project site and a portion of the site preparation earthwork would occur in close proximity to the Bay Trail (i.e., within 50 to 100 feet). As indicated above construction noise could be as high as 93 dBA at this section of the Bay Trail; however, trail users are transitory and would only be exposed to increased noise levels for short periods of time. Furthermore, construction activities would be temporary and of limited duration in any one portion of the Project site. Residential parcels also could be subject to high levels of construction noise, but again, only for short periods of time throughout the construction process. Traffic within the Project area also would temporarily increase ambient noise levels during construction of the restoration site. Because much of the materials for levee construction and other activities are available onsite, traffic generated during the construction phase would come primarily from workers accessing the site and equipment deliveries to the site. It is estimated that approximately 7055 construction workers would commute to the project site over approximately 135 days. In addition, as a worst-case, the Project could generate upwards of 108 onhighway truck and personnel vehicle round trips on local roadways on a daily basis during construction (this includes hauling, equipment deliveries, fuel trucks, and concrete trucks). This amount of daily trips is not expected to affect noise conditions in the area as there are no noise sensitive residences along the access routes. Construction traffic-generated noise would be for a short period of time as construction activities are temporary. Because construction is short-term in nature, the impact of temporary increases in ambient noise levels to adjacent sensitive receptors is considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Conclusion: Less than significant. Full-Tidal Alternative Increased noise levels that would result from construction of the Full-Tidal Alternative are comparable to those described above under the Project. As such, Sears Point Wetland and Watershed Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement 3.12-8 April 2012
California Department of Fish and Game U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 3.12. Noise the temporary ambient noise impact the Full-Tidal Alternative is considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Conclusion: Less than significant. Impact N-2: Permanent Increases in Ambient Noise Levels Following Construction Proposed Project After project construction is completed, traffic to the site would be limited to infrequent trips made for maintenance and monitoring purposes, and occasional site tours, recreation, agricultural operations, and volunteer efforts. Overall, vehicular and equipment traffic on the Project site would be less than current conditions as agricultural operations and private hunting activities would no longer occur. New uses are expected to represent a minor increase over current conditions. All new site uses would be short term daytime uses. Therefore, there would be no adverse the noise impact associated with site from traffic following construction would be less significant. With the extension of the Bay Trail through the Project site, recreational users willwould have trail access to locations immediately adjacent to the new 160 hp storm water pumps. These pumps would operate frequently during the winter season and less so during the remainder of the year. Bay Trail users could be exposed to pump noise as high as 96 dBA when in close proximity to individual pumps (i.e., at a distance of ten feet) dBA. While recreational trail users are transitory and occurrences of exposure to elevated noise levels would be infrequent, this would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure N-MM-1 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure N-MM-1: Design Project Facilities to Reduce Noise Levels SLT shall employ measures to reduce noise from operational pumps near adjacent segments of the Bay Trail. Treatments to reduce noise may include, but are not limited to: constructing enclosures around equipment, installation of noise absorptive treatments and other noise insulating materials, and locating equipment away from noise sensitive uses. Measures would be designed so that applicable County noise standards are met. SLT shall retain a qualified acoustical professional to determine that the treatments are sufficient to reduce sound levels at adjacent segments of the trail. Conclusion: Less than Significant with Mitigation. Full Tidal Alternative Sears Point Wetland and Watershed Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement 3.12-9 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:
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: 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 383: California Department of Fish and G
Page 387 and 388: Section 3.13 Cultural Resources Int
Page 405 and 406: Section 3.14 Aesthetics Introductio
Page 415 and 416: Section 3.15 Environmental Justice
Page 423 and 424: Chapter 4 Consultation and Other Re
Page 425 and 426: Sonoma Land Trust Chapter 4. Consul
Page 435 and 436:
Sonoma Land Trust Chapter 4. Consul
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?