Environmental Impact Statement - Sonoma Land Trust

More documents

Recommendations

Info

California Department of Fish and Game U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 3.14. Aesthetics Impact AE-1: Changes in Views from a Designated Scenic Corridor Proposed Project Designated scenic corridors in the project vicinity include Lakeville Highway, Highway 37, and Highway 121. However, the project site cannot be seen from Highway 121. The proposed elements associated with the restoration would not result in degraded views from these scenic corridors. The existing general plan policies are principally concerned with adverse visual effects related to new development, and the Project consists of habitat restoration. The primary visual element that would be added under the Project would be the new core levee south of the SMART rail line. This visual change would have a limited effect on long-range views from adjacent highways, and would not affect foreground or mid-range views. Since the Project does not propose to develop the site and is not substantially changing views from adjacent designated scenic corridors, this impact is considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Conclusion: Less than Significant. Full-Tidal Alternative The Full-Tidal Alternative would not include new development, as it would consist of habitat restoration similar to the Project. However, the primary visual elements that would be added under the Full-Tidal Alternative include a replacement levee incorporating the SMART rail line and Bay Trail extension segments, as well as new perimeter levees along Highway 37 and Reclamation Road. The new levees located along Highway 37 and Reclamation Road would extend approximately 12 feet above the existing road grade and would obstruct foreground and mid-range views into the tidal restoration area from designated scenic corridors. The primary determinant of change in views is the height of the new levees, which are designed to protect the adjacent roadways and rail line from tidal flows introduced into the site. Since levee height is designed for flood protection, lowering the levees is not considered feasible. This impact is therefore considered significant and unavoidable. Conclusion: Significant and Unavoidable. Sears Point Wetland and Watershed Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement 3.14-6 April 2012
California Department of Fish and Game U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 3.14. Aesthetics Impact AE-2: Temporary Changes in Visual Character of the Project Site Proposed Project Construction of the Project elements would be temporary, and short-term disturbance related to earthwork or the presence of vehicles, personnel, and supplies around the proposed site would generally not be visible to motorists traveling on Lakeville Highway, Reclamation Road, or Highway 37. The Black Point Sports Club’s operation would conclude prior to Project implementation; therefore, there would be few if any viewers from vantage points south of the SMART rail line. Consequently, this impact is considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Conclusion: Less than Significant. Full-Tidal Alternative In addition to the construction activities described for the Project, the Full-Tidal Alternative would entail greater restoration activities in the area between Highway 37 and the SMART rail line. Construction activities in this area would be slightly more visible from adjacent roadways. However, these activities are temporary, and visible mainly to motorists who generally have only fleeting views of the Project site, being focused on roadway conditions and not on surrounding scenery. Therefore, the Full-Tidal Alternative would not impose a significant impact on viewers during temporary construction activities. This impact is considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Conclusion: Less than Significant. Impact AE-3: Permanent Changes in Visual Character of the Project Site Proposed Project Once constructed, project elements that may be visible north of the SMART rail line would include the low berms proposed to delineate the wetland priority area and along Reclamation Road south of Highway 37, and the seasonal wetland enhancement area on the north side of Highway 37.new levee and the minor modifications to the stormwater system. Some portions of the proposed trail alignments would also be visible from Highway 37, Lakeville Highway, and Reclamation Road. It is expected, however, that the trails would result in minimal intrusions on the existing rural visual character of the Project site. Since the proposed low berms south of Highway 37 would be vary between 1 foot and 3 feet in height, they would not present an intrusion on the existing rural visual character of the Project site. The seasonal wetland enhancement area would Sears Point Wetland and Watershed Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement 3.14-7 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 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:
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: California Department of Fish and G
Page 377 and 378: Section 3.12 Noise Introduction Thi
Page 387 and 388: Section 3.13 Cultural Resources Int
Page 405 and 406: Section 3.14 Aesthetics Introductio
Page 409: California Department of Fish and G
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 443 and 444: Chapter 5 Public Involvement and Sc
Page 453 and 454: Sonoma Land Trust Chapter 7. Refere
Page 461 and 462:
Sonoma Land Trust Chapter 7. Refere
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?