Environmental Impact Statement - Sonoma Land Trust

More documents

Recommendations

Info

California Department of Fish and Game U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 3.15. Environmental Justice Although this community is identified as low income, there are no residences located immediately adjacent to the project area, nor are many local residents likely to be employed by agricultural operations in the project area, since existing agricultural activities principally involve production of grain cropsoat hay and use of land for cattle grazing and dairy farming. Persons potentially affected by the construction or /operation of the restoration alternatives are thus limited to motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians on SR 37 and Lakeville Highway- Reclamation Road. As such, potential human exposure to any project-site related adverse impacts would be short term and would occur over a limited duration and area. Thus, disproportionately high or adverse effects of the project on minority or low-income populations at or in the immediate vicinity of the site would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. San Pablo Bay Vicinity Impacts to populations around San Pablo Bay (see Table 3.15-3 above) could also occur indirectly due to changes in water quality (especially as it relates to fishing) or regional air quality. Environmental effects related to regional water quality and air quality, are discussed in Sections 3.3 and 3.11, respectively. A potential environmental justice impact may result if fish, which are relied on as a major food source for subsistence harvesting, experience increased toxicity due to project-related changes in water quality. Humans are exposed to a specific chemical form of mercury called methyl mercury when eating fish and shellfish. Methyl mercury is generally more toxic than the elemental form of mercury; however, its toxicity is dependent on a number of factors, including dose and duration of exposure (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2007c). The primary human health concern resulting from overexposure to methyl mercury is for fetuses, infants, and children. Little is known about the specific fishing habits of subsistence fishers residing along San Pablo Bay. However, a study conducted by the California Department of Health Services (DHS) between 1998 and 1999 sheds light on the general fishing habits of anglers fishing in San Francisco Bay. To date, this study is the most comprehensive report on fishing and consumption habits in the Bay Area and makes general assumptions about the project area. It should be noted, however, that this study is not definitive, but rather, it represents a snapshot of fishing practices in various locations throughout San Pablo Bay. All participants were voluntary and happened to be present at the same time and place as the interview team. According to DHS, approximately 80% of anglers surveyed consumed San Francisco Bay–caught fish an average of one meal or fewer per month (California Department of Health Services 2001). This data indicates that a majority of anglers fishing in San Francisco Bay follow the recommendations set forth in the health advisory; however, up to 20% of them eat more than the advised amount. The study found that Asian and African American groups were more likely than any other ethnic groups to consume more than the recommended Sears Point Wetland and Watershed Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement 3.15-6 April 2012
California Department of Fish and Game U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 3.15. Environmental Justice limit and thus, are at greatest risk of toxic exposure. Based on the demographic data shown in Tables 3.15-3, within the San Pablo Bay vicinity, the communities of Vallejo, Rodeo, Pinole, Hercules, and Richmond are the most likely to be sensitive to chemical exposure from subsistence fishing. The construction of the Project has the potential to temporarily increase methyl mercury concentrations levels in a small, localized area due to the disturbance of sediments during construction and placement of dredge material in the tidal restoration area. As discussed in Section 3.3, Water Quality, and as required by Mitigation Measure HAZ-MM-5 in Section 3.9, Hazardous Substances and Waste, dredge materials would be tested for possible contamination, including mercury levels that may be elevated beyond ambient levels. Mitigation Measures WQ-MM-1, WQ-MM-2 and WQ-MM-43 will also be implemented to protect water quality. With these measures in place, the likelihood of increased contamination and associated health risks to environmental justice communities reliant on subsistence fishing in San Pablo Bay would be less than significant during construction. The operation of the Project has the potential to increase methyl mercury concentrations levels due to creation of methylating conditions in the new tidal marsh. Benthos and fish may uptake methyl mercury produced by the new marsh. As discussed in Section 3.3, Water Quality, there is substantial uncertainty as to whether this will actually occur and if it does to what extent fish concentrations of methyl mercury might be affected. Mitigation Measure WQ- MM-32 (Implement Methylmercury Adaptive Management Plan) would require monitoring marsh development and methyl mercury levels and corrective actionadaptive management if methyl mercury levels is substantially above ambient conditions. With these measures in place, the likelihood of increased contamination and associated health risks to environmental justice communities reliant on subsistence fishing in San Pablo Bay is considered to be less than significant. As discussed in Section 3.11, Air Quality, emissions resulting from the construction of the project will not degrade regional air quality and thus impacts to disadvantaged populations related to regional criteria pollutants would be less than significant impact. Conclusion: Less than Significant with Mitigation. Full-Tidal Alternative Under this alternative, restoration would include similar construction or operation effects on the surrounding community as discussed for the Project. As such, implementation of this option would be the same assimilar to that described above for the Project, and there would be a less-than-significant impact with the same mitigation. Conclusion: Less than Significant with Mitigation Sears Point Wetland and Watershed Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement 3.15-7 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:
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363 and 364:
Page 365 and 366:
Page 367 and 368:
Page 369 and 370: 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 415 and 416: Section 3.15 Environmental Justice
Page 419: California Department of Fish and G
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 471 and 472:
Sonoma Land Trust Chapter 7. Refere
show all

Environmental Impact Statement - Sonoma Land Trust

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

Delete template?

Save as template?