Environmental Impact Statement - Sonoma Land Trust

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Sonoma Land Trust Chapter 4. Consultation and Other Requirements Project • includes Stockton Deep Water Channel, Sacramento River Deep Water Channel, and John Baldwin Channel Sonoma County General PlanSMART Railroad Document(s) Reviewed Sonoma County General Plan (Sonoma County 1989)Rail service restarted July 13, 2011 (Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 2006). Geology, Soils, and Paleontology Cumulative impacts related to geology, soils, and seismicity could occur where regional development patterns place people or structures at risk of geologic hazards, including surface fault rupture, groundshaking, liquefaction, landslides, ground settlement, or expansive soils. Because the structures proposed under both project alternatives would not be permanently occupied, the project would not contribute to a cumulative geologic risk to people. All proposed structures would be designed in accordance with the most current and appropriate codes and standards, and with the recommendations of the site-specific geotechnical investigation prepared during project design, to ensure that potential damage is minimized during an earthquake or settlement event. Slope stability or landslide hazards would be limited to the cut-and-fill slopes created during project construction, trail construction on landslide-prone slopes in the eastern portion of the site between the SMART rail line and SR 37, and construction of flood control levees along both sides of the SMART rail line and the inboard side of Reclamation Road and SR 37 of the new levee(s). In all cases, cumulative geologic risks to people and structures due to slope stability or landslide hazards would be minimized through compliance with the applicable codes and standards, and implementation of the recommendations of the site-specific geotechnical investigation prepared during project design. Grading and excavation activities associated with the restoration alternatives, in combination with other past, present, and probable future projects in the project area could result in the loss of fossil remains, as-yet recorded fossil sites, and fossil-bearing strata. Compliance with SVP protocols for the protection and recovery of paleontological resources, through implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-MM-2a, GEO-MM-2b, GEO-MM-2c,1 and GEO-MM-2d,2 would reduce impacts on paleontological resources to a less-than-significant level. As such, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative geologic impacts would be less than significant. Surface-Water Hydrology and Tidal Hydraulics Both action alternatives wouldmay result in small increases in tidal velocity in downstream areasSan Pablo Bay outside of Breach 1 and in Tolay Creek at Breach 2, which could generate erosion along the existing creek channel, proposed connector channel, and levee breaches. Implementation of Breach 2 and Sears Point Wetland and Watershed Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement 4-10 April 2012
Sonoma Land Trust Chapter 4. Consultation and Other Requirements the perimeter levee lowering would result in an increase in tidal velocities in downstream Tolay Creek, while midstream areas of the creek would experience a minor reduction (Moffat and Nichol 2011). Increases in tidal velocities into the proposed basin could also expose the new levee along the SMART rail line and the existing levees to erosion from wave forces. Implementation of the erosion control measures identified in Chapter 3.2 would reduce erosion from windgenerated waves. Implementation of the restoration alternativesIf required by adaptive management, up to two additional breaches along Tolay Creek could be constructed for either action alternative. Breaches 3 and 4 would increase tidal range at the Upper Lagoon in Tolay Creek. Increased currents and tidal prism could over time create down-cutting of the channel upstream of the breach. Monitoring of the creek and appropriate adaptive management would minimize this condition. Implementation of Breaches 3 and 4 would relieve pressure on upstream sites dependent on aging agricultural levees, thereby reducing the flood risk to agricultural lands and infrastructure located adjacent to San Pablo Bay and Tolay Creek. In addition, the project would not significantly alter circulation and sedimentation processes in adjacent tidal areas. The Project design described in Chapter 2 would provide flood protection. Measures to address the potential tidal dampening effect of Breaches 3 and 4 would be incorporated into the design of these breaches. If the Full-Tidal Alternative were to be constructed, HYD-MM -1 would be implemented to avoid unacceptable levels of tidal muting in Tolay Creek. If breach/dredge options 1 or 2 are implemented, they would further mute tidal range in Tolay Creek in addition to the apparent muting resultant from the Tolay Creek Restoration Project. This would be a cumulatively significant impact that can be mitigated through adoption of breach/dredge Option 3. Therefore, the cumulative contributions for the project from surface- water hydrology and tidal hydraulics would be less than significant with mitigation. Water Quality Implementation of any of the restoration alternatives wouldmay result in potential short term water quality impacts on Tolay Creek and San Pablo Bay during construction. Water quality impacts would be due to sedimentation turbidity resulting from breaching of levees and dredging. Dredging and placement of dredged material. Placement of dredged material for the proposed project could result in leaching of contaminants from fill and excavated sediments and selective uptake and biomagnification of contaminants in plants and animals. Other projects in San Pablo Bay including the Hamilton Wetland Restoration PlanProject, Bel Main Keys Restoration Project, and maintenance dredging, and the Napa River Salt Marsh project, among others could also affect water quality in San Pablo Bay although these effects are expected to be relatively local effects and are unlikely to occur in the project area. Sears Point Wetland and Watershed Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement 4-11 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:
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: 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 431: 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
show all

Environmental Impact Statement - Sonoma Land Trust

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?