Initial Study MND - Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Taylor MountainINITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONapproved bank. The wetland replacement ratio depends on the level of impact and quality ofthe impacted wetland. This will be determined by resource agencies during the permittingphase of the project. S36 – Maintain minimum setbacks from wetlands for all new development. Adequatevegetated buffers must be maintained or established for existing or new development. (SeeTable 3 in Section 5.10.1 of the Master Plan for specific setback requirements.) S37 – New trails shall be located well away from headcuts.Operational Phase S38 – The spread of invasive plant populations in wetland habitats shall be prevented. S39 – Remove Himalayan blackberry in wetlands where opportunities to do so arise inconjunction with native plant restoration. S40 – Monitor high-priority wetland sites for non-native species, including pennyroyal andvelvet grass (which are not listed as moderate or high priority for the property but areconsidered invasive in wetlands). If these are found to be increasing, remove by manualmethods on an annual basis where they are encroaching on native plant populations. S78 – Water quality, quantity, and streamflow patterns shall be protected by providingadequate riparian buffers and minimizing instream disturbances from humans and livestock. S267 – Place seasonal limitations on trails through wetland habitats. Trails should be closedor their use restricted if during the wet season fresh erosion and/or vegetation trampling arevisible.Implementation of the Master Plan’s avoidance and minimization measures would ensure thatpotential impacts on protected wetlands are less than significant.d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident ormigratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlifecorridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. Within the property, streams are intermittent, precluding thepossibility of a migratory population of salmonids or resident trout. The ephemeral streams donot provide adequate habitat for fish during the warm summer months. Other wildlife such asdeer, mountain lions, raccoons, opossums and skunks can use the seasonal drainages asmovement corridors because water is available in some wet areas on the mountain and introughs for cattle.The Master Plan includes a provision (S76) to remove non-critical fencing on the property.Some additional cross fencing could be installed on the property as part of the Master Plan.Fencing has the potential to interfere with wildlife movement, unless it is constructed towildlife-friendly fencing standards that would not prohibit wildlife movement. Wildlife-friendlyfencing uses non-barbed wire for the upper and lower strands of fencing. This fencing would beused for any cross fencing installed. However, perimeter fencing is not of this type since smallercalves can escape underneath the fence without barbed wire. Since any perimeter fencing thatFinal B-64 September 2012
Taylor MountainINITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONis replaced is already non-wildlife friendly there would be no change compared with the currentconditions. While cattle would continue to graze on the property under the proposed project,dogs would be required to be leashed on the site. Thus, any potential impacts on fish orwildlife or their movement corridors would be less than significant. Additionally, the propertydoes not contain habitat connectivity corridors as illustrated on Figure OCSRC-2 (BioticResource Areas) of the Sonoma County General Plan 2020 Open Space & ResourceConservation Element.e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biologicalresources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?NO IMPACT. The proposed project would not conflict with Sonoma County’s Tree ProtectionOrdinance or other local policies protecting biological resources. The proposed project is notlocated within a Sonoma County General Plan 2020 designated biotic habitat. The projectwould be consistent with General Plan policies related to oak woodlands, wetlands, streamcorridors, and wildlife. The proposed project includes avoidance and minimization measures.Additionally, Regional Parks would adhere to additional protection measures provided inUSFWS, Corps, RWQCB, and CDFG permits that may be issued.The Sonoma County General Plan 2020 supports protection and enhancement of valley oakhabitat, which has been identified in pockets throughout the property. Low-impactrecreational use of the site under the proposed project would be consistent with protection ofthese resources; tree removal and oak woodland habitat disturbance would be minimizedthrough Master Plan standards described above in (b).f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or statehabitat conservation plan?NO IMPACT. The Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy, which has not been adopted orimplemented by Sonoma County, addresses California tiger salamander (CTS), which isgenerally found on the Santa Rosa Plain. Only a very small portion of the Taylor Mountainproperty is located within the Conservation Strategy Study Area, as described above in Item (a).This area is designated as “No Effect.” The proposed uses would not conflict with the SantaRosa Plain Conservation Strategy, and biological resource protection standards included in theMaster Plan would ensure avoidance of indirect effects on the Conservation Strategy area.Colgan Creek is a tributary to the Russian River where the Central California Coast SteelheadDistinct Population Segment (DPS) and Evolutionarily Significant Unit of Central California CoastCoho occur. No recovery plan has been completed for the steelhead DPS at this time.However, the Taylor Mountain property is located within the Recovery Plan for the Cohosalmon. Avoidance and minimization measures included in the proposed project would preventindirect impacts downstream of the project and would be consistent with the Recovery Plan forthe Coho salmon. In addition, the County does not have a formal habitat conservation plan forthis area.September 2012 B-65 Final
Page 3:
Taylor Mountain Regional Park and O
Page 6:
Taylor MountainINITIAL STUDY/MITIGA
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:
Page 25 and 26: Taylor MountainINITIAL STUDY/MITIGA
Page 75: Taylor MountainINITIAL STUDY/MITIGA
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:
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:
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:
show all

Initial Study MND - Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?