Environmental Impact Statement - Sonoma Land Trust

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Sonoma Land Trust Chapter 4. Consultation and Other Requirements Hazardous Substances and Waste The restoration alternatives would involve excavation of 12,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil from the sports club to be used as fill material for up to 6,000 linear feet of the core of thenew flood control levee to be located south of the SMART rail line. As part of this design, a minimum of three feet of clean cover material is recommendedwould be placed to surround the levee corecontaminated soil to prevent environmental exposure of the core material. Core leveecontaminants. Levee construction and periodic post-construction levee maintenance would adhere to the construction protocols and administrative controls identified in Chapter 3.9, Hazardous Substances and Waste, and would therefore decrease the potential for future disturbance of contaminated soil. The restoration alternatives would not exacerbate or cumulatively contribute to hazardous materials impacts from other cumulative projects. Prior to commencement of construction activities, the lead agencies would conduct or supervise proper cleanup activities of any potential hazardous substances and/or waste at the project site in compliance with local, state, and federal regulations. Because these cleanup activities would remediate potentially contaminated media to levels suitable for wetland use, the project is not expected to contribute considerably to a cumulative significant impact related to hazardous substances and waste. As discussed in Section 3.9, Hazardous Substances and Waste, both of the restoration alternatives would only use dredged sediment material that is found suitable by the DMMO for use as cover materialat the project site. Therefore, neither is expected to contribute considerably to an increased risk of exposure to potentially contaminated sedimentTherefore, the contribution of the Proposed Project to potential cumulative impacts from increased risk of exposure to potentially contaminated sediment would be less than significant. The Proposed Project requires the demolition of several older buildings, and some other restoration projects may also require building demolition. Potential releases of asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint during demolition of older structures would be controlled through the use of appropriate demolition procedures, as required by law. Compliance with legally mandated demolition procedures would preclude a cumulatively significant contribution to hazards associated with releases of asbestos-containing materials and lead. Potential increases in methylation of mercury due to wetland processes was discussed above under Water Quality. Traffic and Transportation, Air Quality, and Noise Construction traffic would represent a short-term minor increase in traffic that would contribute to traffic congestion on roadways in the project vicinity. As a worst case, site grading, core levee construction, and building demolition activities could be implemented simultaneously during the site preparation phase, Sears Point Wetland and Watershed Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement 4-16 April 2012
Sonoma Land Trust Chapter 4. Consultation and Other Requirements significantly increasing the project’s effect on local traffic. Because this traffic would temporarily exacerbate congestion on some roadways that are already operating at an unacceptable LOS, a construction traffic plan would be implemented as part of the final project design. The construction plan would ensure thatminimize the effect of construction related traffic is routed through appropriate non-on congested intersections and is concentrated during off-peak hours. In addition, the cumulative projects noted above are located at some distance from Sears Point and would not contribute substantial traffic to the same locations as the proposed project and thus there is little potential for an actual cumulative traffic impact. Air Quality Construction activity associated with the restoration alternatives would comply with not result in annual emissions that are below BAAQMD de minimis threshold levels for ozone precursors, with implementation of mitigation measures for PM10. The BAAQMD thresholds are designed to evaluate individual projects in light of the cumulative environment of Bay Area air quality, and thus a project that does not result in emissions above the thresholds does not result in a considerable contribution to a cumulative impactbest management practices for PM10 contained in the 1999 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, and thus there would be no cumulatively significant effect on air quality. Construction activity therefore would not cause or contribute to any new ambient-air-quality standard violation, increase the severity or frequency of any existing standard violation, or delay timely attainment of any standard. Furthermore, additional contract measures will be taken to reduce emissions of PM2.5. Emissions related in increased recreational use of the site would be de minimis. Project GHG emissions and their potential to contribute to cumulative global GHG emissions (and thus to climate change) were discussed in Chapter 3.11, Air Quality. As concluded therein, although the project will result in construction GHG emissions, in time, the carbon sequestered in the tidal wetlands will more than offset the construction GHG emissions and the project will actually result in a net reduction in GHG emissions within a short time (perhaps as few as 1.5 to 49 years). Thus the project would make a beneficial cumulative contribution relative to cumulative GHG emissions. Noise The restoration alternatives would not contribute to significant long-term cumulative noise impacts. It would, however, exacerbate existing noise levels at sensitive receptors during construction. These noise levels could be reduced through appropriate construction practices to a less-than-significant level. None of the cumulative projects identified above would contribute noise in the same location as the Sears Point project. With mitigation, the project would not be expected to contribute considerably to a cumulative noise impact. Sears Point Wetland and Watershed Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement 4-17 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:
Page 383 and 384:
Page 385 and 386:
Page 387 and 388: Section 3.13 Cultural Resources Int
Page 389 and 390: California Department of Fish and G
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 437: 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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?