DRAFT Environmental Impact Report Expansion of Drakes Bay Oyster Company Project in Abbotts Lagoon County of Marin Fall 2013 1 Expansion of Drakes Bay Oyster Company Project in Abbotts Lagoon Draft Environmental Impact Report Fall 2013 Prepared For: County of Marin Land Use Service Department 3501 Civic Center Drive San Rafael, CA 94903 Phone: (415) 473­3755 Prepared By: Senior Environmental Planners KAG Bay Environmental Consulting, LLC. 1200 East Colton Blvd. Redlands, CA 92374 Tel: 555.555.5555 Fax: 555.555.5555 2 Table of Contents 1. Introduction 1.1 Project Background 1.2 Project Need 1.3 Project Objectives 1.4 Project Location and Existing Conditions 1.4.1 Project Location 1.4.2 Existing Conditions 2. Project Description 2.1 Project Components 2.2 Construction Activities 2.3 Anticipated Permits and Other Approvals 3. Environmental Setting, Impact, Mitigation Measures 3.1 ​
Hydrology and Water Quality 3.2 ​
Traffic Access and Circulation 3.3 Biological Resources 4. Alternatives and Analysis 4.1 Hydrology and Water Quality 4.2 Traffic Access and Circulation 4.3 Biological Resources 5. Other CEQA considerations 5.1 Cummulative Impacts 5.2 Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts 5.3 Significant Irreversible Environmental Impacts 6. References 3 Introduction to the Draft Environmental Impact Report The City of Iverness, acting by and through its Harbor Department (Port), prepared an Initial Study/(IS)/Application Summary Report for the proposed Extension of Drake’s Bay Oyster Company Project (proposed Project) and circulated it for public review and comment from August 7 through September 6, 2013. The IS/MND concluded that, although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, the potentially significant effects could be reduced to less than significant levels through incorporation of mitigation measures. The public review period, during which interested agencies, organizations, and members of the public were invited to submit written comments, was noticed and conducted in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21091, State CEQA Guidelines 15105, California Coastal Act, and certified Port Master Plan. During the 30­day public review period, six comment letters were received.. This DEIR includes refinements to the proposed Project based on comments received and further input from the Applicant (Drake’s Bay Oyster Company), as well as minor revisions to the IS/MND to clarify elements of the proposed Project and its potential environmental effects. The revisions include the addition of a new project component designed to further reduce truck emissions, the exclusive utilization of native California oysters and clarifications to the remedial activities that will be completed at the Project site. Differences between the IS/MND and the DEIR include the following: ● Clarification and revisions to the air quality operational assumptions and results; a correction to the operational threshold of significance level for nitrogen oxides within the Air Quality analysis; the addition of a project component designed to reduce operational truck emissions, in the form of an environmental control measure, that results in emission reductions exceeding a mitigation measure previously included in the IS/MND, thus ensuring that impacts remain less than significant; and corresponding revisions to the Greenhouse Gases section and Appendix B. ● Minor clarifying text revisions to other sections in response to comments received on the IS/MND. ● Minor additions to Mitigation Measure HAZ­1 based on comments received from 4 the Department of Toxic Substances Control. ● Addition of Section 7, “Responses to Comments,” which includes all written comments the Port received on the IS/MND, together with the Port’s response to each of the comments. The aforementioned changes have been incorporated directly into the Final MND. All changes to mitigation measures have been reflected in Section 3, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which provides a checklist to fulfill the Project's mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements under CEQA. No significant revisions to the scope of the Project have occurred since the IS/MND was circulated for public review. The IS/MND has been revised due to refinements made in the Project and in response to written comments to clarify and support information previously presented in the circulated document. New project revisions added in response to written comments on the Project’s effects identified in the proposed negative declaration which are not new avoidable significant effects do not trigger recirculation. Thus, and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5, recirculation of the IS/MND is not required. 5 1. Introduction The Applicant (Drakes Bay Oyster Company) is proposing to construct an approximately 250,000 square feet (sq. ft.) farm store and oyster farm (proposed Project) for the distribution, storage, and freezing of seafood. The proposed Project would be located in the Northeast region above Drakes Estero (in Abbotts Lagoon) and include remediation of the site to cap existing soil contamination, construction of an oyster farm, boats for farming, truck docks for loading and unloading products, office space, and the creation of on­site parking. 1.1 Project Background The Applicant currently owns and operates an on­farm retail store which features freshly harvested shellfish as well as other locally produced farm products in Marin County (about eight kilometers southwest of Tomales Bay, within the Iverness National Seashore). Drakes Estero is a coastal lagoon located approximately 25 miles northwest of San Francisco, California that extends northward into the Iverness peninsula from Drakes Bay. The ecosystem consists of five branching bays (Barries, Creamery, Schooner, Home and Estero de Limantour) with an area of ~2,500 acres and a narrow mouth allowing tidal exchange with coastal ocean waters. Major habitats include intertidal mudflats, sandbars, and subtidal eelgrass beds that support wildlife including native shellfish, finfish, shorebirds, and harbor seals. After trial plantings of the nonnative Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas) in 1932, farming of this species in Drakes Estero has continued as a commercial enterprise under various owners up through the DBOC which assumed ownership in 2005.The Applicant intends to create a smaller facility encompassing approximately 142,000 square feet (sq. ft.) and the larger facility encompasses approximately 163,000 sq. ft. The smaller facility encompasses oyster farming land as well as another facility for the storage and sale of oysters. Drakes Bay Oyster Company has recently come under the attention of Marin County as the end of its Special Use Permit has come upon the company. The community has risen and opposed the actions of NEPA to not renew the Special Use Permit. The Scientific Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Drakes Bay Oyster Company Special Use Permit (2012) has reviewed the environmental impact of the oyster farm and found that it has a positive effect on the shoreline of Marin County. The oyster farm is also a cornerstone in the community that provides employment and FDA approved oysters to restaurants and homes throughout the county. The Applicant will be able to renew the Special Use Permit another 10 years. Farming of the Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas, a non­indigenous species) 6 began in 1932, and has been conducted continuously since that time. As of 2005, local oyster operations have been owned and operated by the Drakes Bay Oyster Company (DBOC). Today, shellfish culture (bags and racks) is concentrated in the main body of Drakes Estero and near the mouths of Schooner and Home Bays. Three main species of shellfish have been farmed in Drakes Estero: Pacific oyster, Manila clam (Venerupis philippinarum), and purple­hinged rock scallops (Crassadoma gigantean; an indigenous species). Annual production of Pacific oysters, the primary species farmed in Drakes Estero, has varied considerably from year to year (e.g., from a maximum of 684,000 lbs of Pacific oysters in 1994 to a minimum of 34,000 lbs in 2000). Since DBOC acquired ownership of operations in December 2004, Pacific oyster harvest has increased from about 139,000 lbs in the first year (2005) to 585,000 lbs (2010).The proposed new facility in Abbotts Lagoon will use exclusively native California oysters. This Olympic oyster (ostrea conchaphila) is the only native Pacific Ocean Oyster left today. Its presence in Abbott Lagoon will keep the lagoon from suffering from any invasive species. Figure 1­1 7 1.2 Project Need With the Applicant’s existing facility being at or over capacity and an increase in sustainable fishery in the Marin region, the proposed extension of Drake’s Bay Oyster Company Project within the Wilderness Area would allow much­needed space and fishing services for locally produced products. In addition, the proposed facility would be in a location that more efficiently supports the existing import and export of oysters and other food goods via truck within ­­ instead of outside ­­ the Phillip Burton Wilderness Area and Research Natural Area. As an example, Marin County cattlemen have been known to harvest more than 104 million pounds of cattle in a year. Most of the cattle are exported throughout California, with the Drakes Bay Oyster Farm Store being the largest local buyer and seller of these meats. The Applicant currently receives cattle from Lunny Ranch, which is shipped via trucks to the farm­store. The product is then loaded into containers and driven throughout California for restaurants, groceries, individual families and for further export. Small farm stores providing local and free­range cattle and oysters are in short supply. Thus, Marin County fishermen find it sometimes necessary to ship their products as far as Los Angeles, California, a distance of 425 miles, where the product is frozen and then shipped Throughout Los Angeles County and the rest of Southern California. Other locally produce products that require a place to be purchased include fruits, vegetables, dairy, poultry, and beef. This new facility could provide the space necessary to carry other locally produced products, aiding the local economy and preventing the need to export products over long distances which releases greenhouse gases. The Marin County fruit and produce industry could benefit greatly from the availability of the proposed project to store and sell the product during the winter months in California, when farmers market attendance declines rapidly. The product of Oysters currently is unloaded either directly from the bay of from the storage facility within the farm store walls. It is then trucked to cold storage distribution centers in the San Francisco area where it is briefly held for the clients (such as restaurants and supermarkets) and then re­distributed to the end users. Having a near­port distribution facility and farm store, such as the proposed Project that is being analyzed in this document, reduces the first travel distance of the product, which is a more efficient use of resources and preserves the quality of perishable products like oysters. 8 1.3 Project Objectives The key objectives for the proposed Project include the following: ● To establish an economically viable farming, receiving, storage, and distribution facility/farm to meet the immediate and long­term market demands for native, California oysters and other Marin County foods within the greater Iverness and Northern Bay Area market; ● To optimize the use of existing and underutilized land in a manner that more efficiently supports the existing import and export of oysters and storage of local commodities via truck and rail within, instead of outside, the port complex; and ● To remediate contaminants from the historical use of the site by long­term containment (i.e., capping) and beneficially reuse the site in accordance with applicable regulatory standards. 1.4 Project Location and Existing Conditions 1.4.1 Project Location The Abbotts Lagoon is located in the western end of the Phillip Burton Wilderness Area and Research Natural Area and in the northwest portion of the City of Iverness (City) in western Marin County. Regional access to the project site is provided by Highway 1 and further by Sir Frances Drake Blvd which extends into Pierce Point Road. Figure 1­1 provides a regional map of the Iverness region, in which the project site is located. The City acting by and through its Board of Harbor Commissioners administers the Phillip Burton Wilderness Area and Research Natural Area, which consists of approximately 35 miles of waterfront, 3,200 acres of land, 10 piers, and 80 deep­water berths. The Phillip Burton Wilderness Area and Research Natural Area includes diverse land uses, such as cargo terminals, commercial fishing facilities, commercial oyster farming facilities, research facilities, recreational destinations, and commercial operations such as sport fishing, concessions, marinas, hotels, retail shops, and a public boat launch. The project site is located in the Phillip Burton Wilderness Area and Research Natural Area, Northwest Lagoon, west off of Pierce Point Road, approximately 2.25 miles northwest of the Drakes Bay Oyster Company on 17171 Chimney Rock Rd. Surrounding land uses are almost all wilderness (except for oyster farming) and include hiking trails surrounding/throughout the Iverness National Seashore, camping area, 9 picnicking area, riding stables, visitors centers (the Lighthouse, Kenneth C. Patrick, and Bear Valley) and ranger stations. 1.4.2 Existing Conditions The project site is a 10 acre wilderness area owned by the Applicant, with coastal vegetation and remnants of inactive/abandoned oil wells (including concrete pads), concrete remnants of the former wood treatment facility, and a rail line running north/south along the eastern side of the property. The site is zoned as wilderness in the City of Iverness zoning maps. The site was previously used by the Phillip Burton Wilderness Area and Research Natural Area for researching the lagoon with various groups and research facilities. Figure 1­2 10 2. Project Description 2.1 Project Components The proposed Project involves the construction (which includes remediation activities) and operation of an approximately 20­foot tall, 248,392 sq. ft. state­of­the­art farm store and refrigeration facility, which includes a food distribution, to accommodate commodities such as produce (i.e., fruits, vegetables) and protein products (i.e., shellfish, meat, and other perishable goods). The proposed facility would have a storage capacity of approximately ½ of Drake’s Bay Oyster Company farm store and be equipped with the following general components: ● South Dock ● North Dock ● West Dock/Oyster Farm ● Farm Store ● Cold Storage Rooms ● Refrigeration System ● Offices, Restrooms, Recreational Areas ● On­site Parking and Bussing ● Remediation Activities 11 Figure 1­3 South Dock In general the facility would be divided into two operational areas: a south dock and a north dock. The south dock is the largest of the docks at 33,276 sq. ft. and would be used to trans­load produce and protein products (fish and beef). The main purpose of the south dock is to allow for “cross­docking” of product that either arrives by truck. The 12 south dock would handle the import and export of cargo via truck through approximately 4 dock doors facing the western side of the new facility and via rail through 2 dock doors on the eastern side of the new facility. North Dock The north dock would be an area of 16,579 sq. ft. and would be used as the portal for the cold storage portion of the facility. The main purpose of the north dock would be to receive and ship product from the convertible rooms (also known as racked areas) of the facility. The refrigerated cargo would be imported or exported via trucks using the 2 north dock doors on the eastern side of the new facility. West Dock/Oyster Farm This is there the oyster farm and farming dock shall be located. The lagoon will be the oyster farm and a boat shall be the method of farming/transportation. The dock will be 2,000 sq. ft. and it will be the main method of transportation of the lagoon oysters since the oysters shall be carried by crates and traveling a very short distances for refrigeration/sale. For the farming of the lagoon, DBOC shall be using the same equipment as their current location just south of the project location. Farm Store The farm store shall be similar in design to the DBOC store just south of the proposed project. It shall include adequate refrigeration to contain the Olympic oysters as well as any other foods needing to be refrigerated before they are sold. In this farm store the only things sold shall be in a 100 mile radius. Some of these foods shall be meats (beef), produce from other local farms and possibly dairy products such as cheese. The farm store shall be constructed using recycled substances as well as state of the art technology to ensure the environmentally friendly nature of the project. The store shall be smaller than the other DBOC store but it shall be even more specialized. Cold Storage Rooms A majority of the proposed facility would be dedicated oyster farming, the farm store and some of it will be designated to “convertible rooms,” which are cold storage rooms that are partitioned from one another so that the facility can have multiple storage areas that can be set (converted) to different temperature zones for the storage of various products. Different products require different temperatures. For example, vegetables 13 can be stored at 55​
º​
F, dairy products are stored just above freezing at 34​
º​
F and meat is stored at temperatures ranging from 28​
º​
F to ­10​
º​
F. The primary factor determining the size and layout of the storage rooms is the amount of product to be held and for what duration. The cold storage rooms would be arranged with a single depth rack layout engineered to provide the usable storage volume while minimizing the amount of handling required of a product during the time it is in storage. The rack height would be three tiers high. Material handling would be performed using various handling equipment, such as forklifts and trucks/lifts that have varied lift capacity, lift capabilities and mast height. Refrigeration System The proposed facility would utilize an anhydrous ammonia (NH3) closed refrigeration system to provide refrigeration for dock operations and cold storage warehousing. The NH3 refrigeration system cycles the refrigerant from liquid to gas and back again. The refrigeration system uses a one­time NH3 charge of approximately 2,400 gallons for the operation of this closed system. The main components of the refrigeration system (compressors, system pressure vessels, and refrigerant pumps) are located within the machine room. The other system components (such as piping, valves, condensers and cooling units) are placed throughout the facility. Offices, Restrooms, Lockers, and Lounge Areas In addition, the facility would also contain approximately 1,000 sq. ft. of office space, restrooms, lockers, and lounge areas throughout the facility. The customer restrooms shall be a smaller facility separate from workers restrooms. The lockers and small lounge area shall be directly connected to the workers bathroom so that farmers and workers can relax separately from customers. The proposed Project also includes designated office space for USDA inspectors. On­site Parking and Bussing The proposed facility includes 20 on­site automobile parking spaces to accommodate employees and visitors. In addition, approximately 4 parking spaces with capability for direct plug in of 40­foot refrigerated containers are being proposed along the western boundary of the site across from the south dock. In order to meet California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) safety requirements and Marin County standards regarding the proposed Project includes the reconfiguration of 14 the existing bussing system associated with the project site. Under the proposed Project, the bussing system would be reconfigured to access the project site beginning slightly further west of the existing spur and would continue to connect the site to the bussing lines that run parallel and immediately south of Pierce Point Road. Other rail improvements that the CPUC and Marin County may include are traffic control devices on Pierce Point Road, such as warning lights, guidance signs and automatic gates. The Marin County would be required to apply for an amended CPUC permit on the Applicant’s behalf, and the Applicant would be responsible for implementing the requirements of that CPUC permit, which would include the aforementioned traffic control devices. Remediation Activities Proposed site remediation activities include construction of a cap and ongoing monitoring and maintenance activities. Once the remediation cap has been constructed, under an agreement with DTSC, an Operations and Maintenance Plan approved by DTSC would be in effect that specifies a schedule for surface inspection, maintenance, and repair for longevity and safety of the caps. Institutional controls, including a land use covenant, would be approved by DTSC in order to provide notice that soils containing chemicals of potential concern exist beneath the project site and to prevent future site uses that might disturb the contaminated soils and/or expose sensitive populations, such as children or the elderly, to harmful chemicals. Annual visual inspections are expected to be performed. Repaving with asphaltic concrete once and reslurrying three times during a 30­year post­closure period would also be necessary under the DTSC Response Plan (which outlines the actions that will be conducted for a cleanup or investigation). During the construction period, the semiannual monitoring of the remaining groundwater wells which generally surround the perimeter of the project site would continue. As construction activities near completion, the groundwater data collected up to that point would be re­evaluated and a final recommendation made to the DTSC regarding any replacement wells. For the purposes of this environmental analysis, it is assumed that the proposed Project includes the construction and operation of three to five new groundwater monitoring wells as part of the proposed ongoing groundwater monitoring associated with remedial activities. Once the proposed Project is operational, DTSC is proposing annual groundwater sampling during operation of the project in order to monitor the effects of the remediation on groundwater. 2.2 Construction Activities 15 Construction would occur over approximately 14 months from approval to proceed and is expected to consist of the following elements (as shown in Figure 1­4): Phase 1: Grading and Site Preparation Phase 2: Utilities, Site Parking, and Building Cap Construction Phase 3: Construction of Facility and Site Cap Construction 1​
Installation of cap as part of the remedial activities would occur during Phase 2 and Phase 3. 2 ​
Phase 3 includes the installation of 3 – 5 additional groundwater monitoring wells as part of the ongoing groundwater monitoring associated with remediation. Figure 1­4. Proposed Project Construction Phasing Following is a summary of the activities associated with each phase of construction: Phase 1 (Grading and Site Preparation):​
Although there are no active oil wells on the project site, prior to construction at the project site, if determined necessary by the Department of Conservation Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), the oil wells on the site shall be properly abandoned per current regulations. Construction would comply with all applicable DOGGR requirements for the investigation and/or re­abandonment of the well(s). The project site would be graded 16 and prepared over a one month period. Grading and site preparation activities would occur over the project site and are expected to involve selective demolition of any remaining surface structures on the wilderness and abandonment of existing groundwater monitoring wells. The following types of equipment are anticipated to be used during Phase 1: water trucks, dozers, scrapers, loaders, blades, smooth drum rollers, and about 3,000 truckloads (4 trucks per day) to import approximately 5,000 cubic yards of soil, which equals a maximum of roughly 4 trucks a day during this phase of the proposed Project. Placement of imported fill, including a half of the rock base needed for the construction of the cap (under Phase 2) would be necessary to bring the site up to desired grade. Phase 1 would take approximately four weeks Phase 2 (Utilities, Site Parking, and Building Cap Construction):​
Following grading and site preparation, utilities­related activities, including the installation of drainage structures to control run­on and run­off, would occur over approximately three weeks and are expected to involve the following types of equipment: backhoes, skip loaders, water trucks, smooth drum rollers, and blades. Upon completion of utilities activities, construction would begin on the building site cap in accordance with the DTSC­approved remediation activities. Two caps are proposed for this site: one under the building and one atop the remainder of the site (including parking areas, driveways, etc.). Construction of the building cap would take place during Phase 2 prior to construction of the building itself and would include fine grading of the site and grading of the fill (rock base). Construction associated with Phase 2 would occur over an estimated two week period, and is expected to involve the following types of equipment: skip loaders, water trucks, rollers, and blades. An average of 5 trucks per day is expected, with a maximum number of 10 trucks on peak construction days. Phase 3 (Construction of Facility and Site Cap Construction):​
Phase 3, which is estimated to take 12 months, includes construction of the foundation and building, the site cap and installments for the oyster farm itself. Construction of the facility would include placing approximately 10,000 cubic yards of concrete throughout the project site, building the foundation, truck aprons, a steel structure, insulating wall panels, and a refrigeration system. Foundation and building construction is expected to involve the following types of equipment: concrete trucks, concrete conveyer, concrete pump truck, cranes, and supply trucks. An average of one truck per day is expected, with a maximum number of 10 trucks per day needed on peak construction days. At the close 17 of Phase 3, if necessary, groundwater monitoring wells (approximately three to five have been assumed for this analysis) would be constructed at the site as part of the proposed ongoing groundwater monitoring associated with remedial activities. During Phase 3 there will also need to be construction in Abbotts Lagoon for the oyster farm. This shall take up a fair amount of time since part of the construction needs to happen underwater. Also during Phase 3, the remediation site cap for areas not covered by the building footprint would be constructed. It is estimated that approximately 20 employees would be required for construction on a daily basis. Construction would occur from 7:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (an 8­hour work day plus lunch/break) Monday through Friday. The construction work force would draw on the large northern California regional construction worker pool. Construction staging and equipment and material storage would occur on the site. 2.3 Anticipated Permits and Other Approvals Permits and approvals necessary for the proposed work consist of: ● Harbor Development Permit issued by the Port of Long Beach. ● Grading Plan and Site Utilities, Building Review, Mechanical­Plumbing, and Building and Safety permits issued by the City of Iverness Development Services Department. ● Coordination and approval from DTSC and/or the Marin County Regional Water Quality Control Board, if appropriate, regarding site cleanup. ● Permit amendment from the CPUC to connect to and upgrade as needed the existing at­grade rail line crossing at Pier B Street. ● Permit from the North Coast Air Quality Management District to operate the emergency generator used for back­up power, as well as submittal of a dust control plan (under Rule 403) for grading and demolition. ● Permits from the City of Iverness Health and Human Services Department for the proposed groundwater monitoring wells 18 3. Environmental Setting, Impact, Mitigation Measures 3.1 Water Quality Environmental Setting: Abbotts Lagoon is a two­stage lagoon on the northwestern coast of the Point Reyes National Seashore, southwest of Tomales Point. The upper lagoon is a freshwater impoundment which overflows into a lower brackish level with occasional winter tidal exchange. The eastern shore of the lagoon is covered with old growth northern coastal scrub including Coyote Bush, Yellow Bush Lupine, sword fern and California blackberry. Environmental Impact: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant Impact.​
During construction and operation of the proposed Project, stormwater runoff and other discharges would be managed in accordance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations. The project site is vacant and has relatively flat topography. The existing ruderal vegetation would be removed in order to construct a cold storage facility, railroad track and spur, and impervious surfaces such as parking lots, and walkways. Soil exposure would occur during removal of ruderal vegetation, excavation and grading allowing for possible erosion and runoff into storm drains. The Clean Water Act (CWA) prohibits the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States from any point source unless the discharge is in compliance with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. During construction/remediation activities, the proposed Project would be required to obtain coverage under the State's NPDES General Permit for Construction Activities and General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Runoff Associated with Construction Activity. Accordingly, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be required to meet the requirements of the General Construction Permit. The SWPPP 19 would include BMPs for construction, including erosion control, waste and material management, and site drainage control (both on­site and off­site). Therefore, construction of the proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. A less than significant impact on water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction would occur and no mitigation is required. NPDES requirements for operations are contained in the NPDES Permit for Municipal Discharges and Urban Runoff within the City of Inverness (NPDES CAS 004003, Order 99­060), also known as a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (or MS4) Permit. This Permit requires the completion of a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). One of the key requirements in the SUSMP is the requirement that structural BMPs that treat, filter, or infiltrate stormwater and meet volume or flow­based design/sizing standards be used in specified categories of development projects to infiltrate, filter, or treat stormwater runoff; control peak flow discharge; and reduce the post­project discharge of pollutants from stormwater conveyance systems. In addition, the project site is under the requirements of Water Quality Order No. 97­03­DWQ NPDES permit No. CAS00001 (General Permit) for Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Industrial Activities Excluding Construction Activities. The proposed Project would be required to comply with all permit conditions and associated regulations. Therefore, operational water quality impacts associated with the proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. A less than significant impact on water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during operation would occur and no mitigation is required. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre­existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Less Than Significant Impact.​
The project site is currently vacant and pervious, which allows maximum groundwater recharge from runoff. The project site is located in the southern portion of the West Coast Groundwater Basin. Static water levels measured in June 2012 in shallow zone wells ranged from 3.10 to 12.40 feet bgs. Groundwater flow appears to be to the northeast. The Marin County RWQCB has removed the municipal and domestic beneficial use designation from groundwater in the aquifers underlying 20 portions of the Point Reyes National Shoreline, including the area in which the project site is located, because water in most, if not all, aquifers underlying this area has been affected by saltwater intrusion. In order to counter the salt water intrusion in this area, the Marin County Department of Public Works installed and operates a barrier project consisting of a series of wells into which reclaimed (fresh) wastewater and imported water are injected. This has the effect of creating a pressure differential that prevents the intrusion of saltwater farther from the coast than the line of injection wells, which are located approximately one­half mile north of the project site. Groundwater beneath the project site is predominantly sodium chloride type and contains relatively high total dissolved solids (TDS), particularly in the deeper zone (SCS, 2009). Because of the relatively small size of the project site (approximately 12 acres) and its location in relation to the underlying aquifer (edge of a Port shipping channel that is impacted by saltwater and not used for drinking water) and no long­term dewatering is proposed that would impact the groundwater table, the increase in impervious surfaces is not expected to result in, or contribute substantially to, a net deficit aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. Accordingly, construction and operation of the proposed Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre­existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted). A less than significant impact related to groundwater would occur and no mitigation is required. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of a site or area through the alteration of the course of a stream or river in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on­ or off­site? Less Than Significant Impact.​
The project site is relatively flat and primarily unpaved. As described in Response No. IX.a., on page 78, construction of the proposed Project (which includes remediation activities) would comply with all applicable requirements and conditions, including measures addressing drainage and erosion/siltation (i.e., SWPPP BMPs). Operation of the proposed Project would include a new on­site drainage system to manage surface run­off in a manner that complies with the NPDES and MS4 Permits and would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on­ or off­site. In addition, no streams or rivers would be affected or altered as part of the proposed 21 Project, and neither is in close proximity to the project site such that their course would be altered in any way. Therefore, the construction and operation of the proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of a site or area through the alteration of the course of a stream or river in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on­ or off­site. With the installation of a new storm water collection and drainage system that would reduce off­site drainage impacts, a less than significant impact on the existing drainage would occur and no mitigation is required. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of a site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on­ or off­site? Less Than Significant Impact.​
As discussed in Response No. IX.c., on page 79, the project site is relatively flat. No streams or rivers would be affected or altered as part of the proposed Project, and neither is in close proximity to the project site such that their course would be altered in any way. The existing site has primarily pervious surfaces with any surface drainage flowing over the surface of the project site. As described in Response No. IX.a., on page 78, construction of the proposed Project (which includes remediation activities) would comply with all applicable requirements and conditions, including measures addressing drainage and erosion/siltation (i.e., SWPPP BMPs). Operation of the proposed Project would make the site almost entirely impervious and would include a new on­site drainage system to manage the rate, amount and direction of surface run­off in a manner that complies with the NPDES and MS4 Permits and would not result in flooding on­ or off­site. The project site is located at the most downstream end of the stormwater drainage system; therefore, there are little or no potential off­site flooding issues. Thus, the construction and operation of the proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of a site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on­ or off­site. Impacts related to drainage patterns of the site related to flooding are considered less than significant impact and no mitigation is required. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact.​
As discussed in Response No. IX.a., on page 78, 22 stormwater runoff and other discharges during construction would be managed in accordance with the RWQCB regulations. The project site is currently vacant but the proposed Project would cover the entire site with impervious surfaces (i.e., paved parking, railroad, and cold storage facility) Construction activities (which includes remediation activities) typically involve machines that have the potential to leak hazardous materials that may include oil and gasoline. It is expected that the construction contractor would use standard containment and handling protocols in accordance with RWQCB regulations to ensure that these vehicles do not leak any material that may add sources of polluted runoff to the storm drain system. Operation of the proposed Project would result in an increase in impervious surfaces that could generate additional surface runoff. However, there would not be a substantial increase in the volume of runoff from the proposed Project to a level that would exceed the capacity of the existing storm drain system that serves the project site. The project site is located at the downstream end of the storm drainage system; therefore, it does not require any significant drainage modifications before reaching the harbor. As such, the construction and operation of the proposed Project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. A less than significant impact related to runoff capacity of the existing stormwater drainage system would occur and no mitigation is required. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less Than Significant Impact.​
As discussed in Response No. IX.a., on page 78, storm water runoff and other discharges during construction would be managed in accordance with the RWQCB regulations (including use of SUSMP BMPs). Compliance with NPDES and MS4 Permits (including preparation of a SWPPP) would minimize pollutants during the construction of the proposed Project. All solid and hazardous waste, wastewater, and stormwater would be disposed of or drained from the project site in a manner compatible with applicable regulations. In addition, ongoing groundwater monitoring would not impact water quality with compliance with the requirements associated with the permits required from the City of Point Reyes Health and Human Services Department for the wells. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed Project would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality. A less than significant impact 23 on water quality would occur and no mitigation is required. g) Place housing within a 100­year flood plain as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other authoritative flood hazard delineation map? No Impact.​
According to Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) Flood Insurance Rate Map 1964 F, the proposed Project is located in Zone A, which is an area of 100­year flood (FEMA, 2008). However, the proposed Project would not include the construction of any residences or housing structures. Therefore, the construction and operation of the proposed Project would not place housing within a 100­year flood plain as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other authoritative flood hazard delineation map. No impact on potential flood hazards to housing would occur and no mitigation is required. h) Place within a 100­year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? Less Than Significant Impact.​
As discussed in Response No. IX.g., on page 82, the project site is located within the 100­year flood zone. The existing site is vacant. The proposed Project would cover the project site with parking, a rail line, and cold storage facility. Although the cold storage facility would be a new structure within the 100­year flood hazard area that could impede or redirect flood flows, with incorporation of drainage features (that would be required as part of the building permit process) that provide adequate site drainage, flood flows in the project area would be better managed. Therefore, although the construction and operation of the proposed Project would place within a 100­year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows, no flood hazard would occur. A less than significant impact relative to redirecting or impeding flood flows would occur and no mitigation is required. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact.​
There are no levees or dams in the vicinity of the project area that would be subject to failure or would expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding associated with levee or dam failure. Although the cold storage facility would be a new structure within the 100­year flood hazard area that 24 could expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, operation of the proposed Project would include a new on­site drainage system and features to manage surface run­off in a manner that complies with the NPDES and MS4 Permits and would not result in flooding. With incorporation of the new drainage system and features that would provide adequate site drainage, flood flows in the project area would be better managed. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. No impact exposing people or structures to flooding would occur and no mitigation is required. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Less Than Significant Impact.​
The project site is relatively flat and is not in close proximity to hillsides or canyons, such that mudflows would pose a hazard to the site. However, the project area is located in a coastal area that is subject to tsunamis and seiches. A tsunami hazard assessment was done to identify the potential local sources of tsunamis and their potential impacts to the Point Reyes National Shoreline and the Marin County Coast (Moffatt & Nichol, 2007). This assessment determined that recurrence intervals for large locally generated tsunami would be extremely infrequent and one tsunami may occur every 10,000 years. Under the worst­case tsunami scenario water levels are expected to exceed approximately 23 feet (7 meters) along the Navy Mole in the POLB. However, the majority of the Point Reyes NAtional Shoreline is expected to experience limited overtopping (Moffatt & Nichol, 2007). The project site is expected to experience limited overtopping partly due to its distance inland and also intervening structures. Therefore, the construction and operation of the proposed Project would not involve inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. A less than significant impact related to seiches and tsunamis, and no impact related to mudflows, would occur and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures: ​
None required. 25 3.2 Traffic Access and Circulation: Boat Traffic in Drakes Bay The Lateral Channel is closed from March 1st to June 30th, due to high boat traffic in the area: Car Traffic Major Highways U.S 101 U.S 101 is Marin County’s primary roadway, which varies between two and five lands in either direction and forms a north­south corridor along Marin’s eastern edge where development is most dense between the Cities of Mill Valley and Novato. U.S 101 is 26 highly congested because it is the primary surface link ot City of San Francisco, the Bay Area’s financial base, which draws large numbers of workers each day. The highway also intersects with other important highways, such as interstate 580, which provides important inter­county and inter­regional links. U.S 101 is also vital in connecting communities within the county for everyday activities such as shopping, school , and recreation. Golden Gate Bridge The Golden Gate Bridge is the only direct surface link between the City of San Francisco and Marin County the path of U.S 101. Although all day traffic volumes across the Golden Gate Bridge have not appreciably changed in over a decade, peak periods have spread out, creating congested conditions for more hours of each day. Additionally, weekend travel has increased, so that Sunday afternoon traffic exceeds more weekdays, creating extreme traffic congestion pressure in six reversible lanes; four lands are provided in the peak direction during commute hours, with two lanes provided opposite the peak travel direction. On site Parking and Bussing The proposed facility includes 20 on­site automobile parking spaces to accommodate employees and visitors. In addition, approximately 4 parking spaces with capability for direct plug in of 40­foot refrigerated containers are being proposed along the western boundary of the site across from the south dock. In order to meet California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) safety requirements and Marin County standards regarding the proposed Project includes the reconfiguration of the existing bussing system associated with the project site. Under the proposed Project, the bussing system would be reconfigured to access the project site beginning slightly further west of the existing spur and would continue to connect the site to the bussing lines that run parallel and immediately south of Pierce Point Road. Other rail improvements that the CPUC and Marin County may include are traffic control devices on Pierce Point Road, such as warning lights, guidance signs and automatic gates. The Marin County would be required to apply for an amended CPUC permit on the Applicant’s behalf, and the Applicant would be responsible for implementing the requirements of that CPUC permit, which would include the aforementioned traffic control devices. 27 Moving to Abbotts Lagoon ● Would reduce the likely increase in Boat Traffic in Drakes Bay due to the increase level of production 28 3.3 Biological Resources 3.1 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Marin County is known for its natural beauty and diversity of natural resources, ranging from the marine environments of the coastal zone to the forests, chaparral, woodlands and grasslands of Mount Tamalpais. Of the total 332,928 acres of land area in Marin County, approximately 50 percent are under public management as parks, open space, conservation easements, and watershed lands. This includes 118,669 acres of park and open space lands, 22,731 acres of public watershed lands managed by the Marin Municipal Water District and the North Marin Water District, and 27,196 acres of easement lands held by the Marin Agricultural Land Trust and the Marin County Open Space District. The majority of the developed urban and suburban uses in Marin County are in the City­Centered Corridor in east Marin County. The remainder is generally in private ownership as grazing land and woodlands at the north­central and northwest part of the county. Natural communities in Marin County support a wide diversity of plant and animal species, including a high number of special­status species. Natural community types in the county include mixed evergreen forest, oak woodland, pine forest, Douglas fir / redwood forest, grassland, coastal beach dune, northern coastal scrub, chaparral, coastal salt marsh, riparian, and freshwater marsh. Figure 3­3­1 illustrates the distribution of vegetative cover in Marin County. Major distinguishable characteristics include the extensive grasslands to the north that integrate with scrub and forestlands in the Point Reyes Peninsula; the forests, woodland, and chaparral covered slopes of Mt. Tamalpais; the grasslands and woodlands of the north­central and northwestern part of the county; and a mosaic of grassland, woodland, and urban development in the City­Centered Corridor. Historic land uses altered much of the landscape in Marin County, including the plant communities and wildlife dependent upon them. Beginning in the mid­nineteenth century and continuing into the present, activities such as livestock grazing, timber operations, clearing and disking for agricultural production, road building, and urban and suburban development have markedly altered the remaining natural communities. Native perennial grasslands have been largely replaced by non­native annual grasslands, and a number of highly invasive species now threaten the remaining grasslands. Fire suppression, livestock grazing, and more recently, the effects of Sudden Oak Death have greatly altered the extent of woodland and forest cover. 29 Timber harvesting, agricultural operations (e.g., grazing), and other land uses continue to affect the aquatic habitat and viability of anadromous fisheries a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special­status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Significant Impact​
. The proposed Project is located within a wilderness area. The project site is a vacant site surrounded by wilderness. The proposed Project will introduce oysters to the area. The introduction of oyster farms have proved to serve ​
water quality maintenance, shoreline protection and sediment stabilization, nutrient cycling and sequestration, and habitat for other organisms. Oyster predators include starfi​
sh, oyster drill snai​
ls​
, stingra​
ys​
, Florida stone cra​
bs, birds, such as oystercatchers​
, gulls​
, and humans. However, all predators are nullified because the oysters are keeped in a secure area unreachable by predators. Oysters eat plankton and it is expected that plankton population will decrease but only in proximity of the oysters. The land supports only ruderal (weedy) vegetation as well as marine life. Mature trees consisting primarily of palms are located along the perimeter of the project site. Some native shrubs exist along the eastern perimeter fence line. The project site is directly adjacent to marine waters. A California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) query was performed for the project area to evaluate the potential for special­status species identified in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) to occur on or near the project site (CNDDB, 2013). The CNDDB database also includes species of special concern, which is a protective legal designation assigned by the CDFW to wildlife species that are at risk. The species with potential to occur in the vicinity of the project site include several fish, invertebrates, birds, mammals, and plants. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) identified 8 species of fish in the area: ​
Sacramento perch (Archoplites interruptus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi) prickly sculpin (Cottus asper), silver surfperch (Hyperprosopon ellipticum), longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), and threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus). 30 Suitable habitat to support these species does occur at the project site but can be mitigated by a barrier to create distance. Invertebrates: western tidal­flat tiger beetle (Cicindela gabbii), the sandy beach tiger beetle (Cicindela hirticollis gravida), the western beach tiger beetle (Cicindela latesignata latesignata), and the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus). These beetle species inhabit estuaries and mudflats which do not occur on the project site. The monarch butterfly requires wind­protected tree groves (eucalyptus, monterey pine, or cypress) with nectar and water sources nearby. Suitable habitat to support these species does not occur at the project site; therefore these species would not be expected to occur. Reptile: coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), requires sandy washes with scattered low bushes. Suitable habitat to support this species does not occur at the project site; therefore this species would not be expected to occur. Birds: California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus), the California least tern (Sternula antillarum browni), and the bank swallow (Riparia riparia) and coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica). Although the California brown pelican and California least tern are found in the harbor area, suitable habitat to support these species does not occur at the project site; therefore these species would be expected to occur. The bank swallow and coastal California gnatcatcher do not occur in the harbors or at the project site due to lack of suitable habitat. Suitable habitat to support this species does not occur at the project site; therefore these species would not be expected to occur. Mammals: silver­haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), the big free­tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis), and the Pacific pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris pacificus). The silver­haired bat is a forest dweller that forages over streams, ponds, and open brushy areas. They roost in hollow trees and beneath exfoliating bark. The big free­tailed bat needs high cliffs or rocky outcrops for roosting sites. The Pacific pocket mouse requires sandy soils for burrowing and suitable vegetation for food. The species eats the seeds of grasses and also leafy material. 31 Suitable habitat to support this species does not occur at the project site; therefore these species would not be expected to occur. Plants: Coulter's saltbush (Atriplex coulteri), Parish's brittlescale (Atriplex parishii ), southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis), salt marsh bird’s­beak (Chloropyron maritimum ssp. maritimum), Coulter’s goldfields (Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri), prostrate vernal pool navarretia (Navarretia prostrata), California Orcutt grass (Orcuttia californica), coast woolly­heads (Nemacaulis denudata var. denudata), Lyon's pentachaeta (Pentachaeta lyonii), estuary seablite (Suaeda esteroa), and San Bernardino aster (Symphyotrichum defoliatum). Suitable habitat to support these species does not occur at the project site; therefore these species would not be expected to occur. Based on the information provided above, of the biological resources that could potentially occur in the vicinity of the project site or at the project site, no special­status species, including any species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special­status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS occur at the project site due to the lack of habitat. Therefore, the construction and operation of the proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special­status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. A less than significant impact on special­status species or their habitat would occur and no mitigation is required. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in the City or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. There is no riparian, wetland, or other sensitive natural community present at the project site. The site consists of mostly unpaved surface with only limited ruderal vegetation. Therefore, the construction and operation of the proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in the City or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS. No impact on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities would occur and no mitigation is required. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by 32 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. The project site does not contain any surface waters or wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (e.g., blue line streams, marsh, vernal pool, coastal zones, etc.) or California Coastal Commission policy. The nearest surface water is Channel Number 2 (a Port shipping channel) located approximately 130 feet from the southern edge of the project site. The construction and operation of the proposed Project would not involve the direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means that would have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.). No direct surface water impact and no impact on wetlands would occur and no mitigation is required. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. The project site is fenced and the surrounding industrial area does not provide riparian, wetland, or other wildlife nursery habitat or act as a migratory corridor. Consequently, construction and operation of the proposed Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. No impact on native or migratory species, corridors, or native wildlife nursery sites would occur and no mitigation is required. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. There are no native or protected trees at the project site. Therefore, the construction and operation of the proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. No impact on local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources would occur and no mitigation is required. 33 f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The project site is not located within or near an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the construction and operation proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Mitigation Measures:​
Create a barrier around the oyster farm to create distance from fishes and the oysters. 34 Figure 3­3­1 4. Alternatives Analysis 4.1 Hydrology and Water Quality Implementation of Alternative 4 would add additional policies and programs associated with reducing adverse changes to water quality from agricultural operations, reducing off­site peak runoff, reducing stormwater flow, developing individual watershed based management programs, and others. These programs would aim to maintain proper ecological functioning of watersheds including sediment transport, ground water recharge and filtration, biological processes, and natural flood mitigation, while ensuring high­quality water (Goal WR­1). 35 Alternative 4 would result in a smaller store and the same amount of indoor space area as would occur under the Draft 2005 CWP Update. Such development would increase the amount of impervious surfaces (e.g., roofs, parking lot area, and roadways) above existing levels. Impacts to water quality from pollutants contained in runoff from increased impervious surface areas and from increased automobile trips to commercial areas (e.g., heavy metals and petrochemicals), would be significant, the same as the Draft 2005 CWP Update. Furthermore, additional impervious surfaces associated with Alternative 4 could increase peak flow rates, a significant impact. Similar to the Draft 2005 CWP Update, this alternative would concentrate development in areas that have existing development (but not in the wildlife area). Although this alternative would have less floor space than the Draft 2005 CWP Update, this would be a significant impact and mitigation measures to protect against water quality and flooding impacts associated with new development would still be required. 4.2 Transportation Traffic analysis was prepared using Marin County’sTravel Model for theDraft 2005 CWP Update and each of the alternatives. Marin CWP Update Final EIR 5.0 ­ 80 Exhibit 5.0­4 shows traffic volumes, volume­to­capacity (V/C) ratios and levels of service (LOS) for the AM peak hour for existing conditions, the Draft 2005 CWP Update, and each of the alternatives. Exhibit 5.0­5shows the same information for the PM peak hour. Exhibit 5.0­6 shows the existing level of service for the roadways studied for existing conditions, the Draft 2005 CWP Update, and each of the alternatives.Alternative 4 would produce less significant transportation impacts than any other alternative or the proposed project. Continuing this business in Marin County would maintain the jobs­housing balance relative to adjacent counties and therefore change traffic patterns on primary inter­county roadways since these people already hold jobs at DBOC and would just be moving job locations. Compared to the Draft 2005 CWP Update and the alternatives, Alternative 4 would maintain traffic across the Golden Gate Bridge southbound during the AM peak hour and northbound during the PM peak hour, because an equal number of attractions and businesses in Marin County would likely maintain the number of commuters to San Francisco based on the indication of this effect in the travel model. The opposite would occur on the I­580 Richmond Bridge connection to the East Bay where increased travel westbound during the AM peak hour and eastbound during the 36 PM peak hour would occur due to an increase in the number of commuters from the East Bay to Marin County. U.S. 101 at Sonoma County Line would experience a substantial increase in traffic volume in both directions during both time periods due to expanded capacity provided by HOV lanes that would occur under Alternative 4. State Route 1 and Sir Francis Drake Boulevard are two of the most congested routes that primarily carry intra­county traffic. These routes would not substantially improve under this alternative. While Alternative 4 would reduce traffic volumes in both directions during both time periods on State Route 1, this reduced volume would not be enough to eliminate the significant traffic impact because volumes at this screenline would still exceed LOS standards. 4.3 Biological Resources Alternative 4 could result in significant impacts to sensitive biological and wetland resources due to anticipated future land uses and development. This alternative would result in one small business and oyster farm. Impacts to sensitive resources on the Point Reyes National Seashore properties such as the scattered seasonal wetlands, the Inverness Ridge, areas of native oak woodlands, and existing wildlife habitat and movement opportunist would be similar to those that would occur under the Draft 2005 CWP Update. Implementation of this alternative would result in the adoption of Baylands Corridor Option 2. Option 2 would provide greater protection for biological resources than Option 1 as it would provide linkages between the mapped biological features on the Seashore and therefore maintain wildlife connectivity between the scattered seasonal wetlands, Miller Creek corridor, and oak woodlands. Adoption of Option 2 would not preclude development at the Seashore.. The severity of impacts to biological resources due to the amount of development that would occur under this alternative would depend on details of project­specific development plans, the degree to which sensitive resources would be avoided under such plans, and the specifics of any required mitigation. However, potentially significant impacts to wetlands, sensitive natural communities, and special­status species would be expected under Alternative 4. Potential impacts to wildlife habitat and movement opportunities would be significant unavoidable project and cumulative impacts. Implementation of Alternative 4 would result in additional programs that would continue collaboration with the Marin Resource Conservation District (RCD) to minimize 37 sedimentation and erosion from agricultural activities within Stream Conservations Areas (SCAs) and to develop related conservation plans. 38 5. Other CEQA Considerations This section provides a discussion of other CEQA considerations, including a discussion of cumulative impacts, a summary of significant unavoidable impacts, significant irreversible environmental changes, growth­inducing effects, and those impacts that were not found to be significant. The revisions to the following sections primarily involve the identification of the environmental effects associated with the refinements to Alternative A. 5.1 Cumulative Impacts 5.1.1 Regulatory Settings Section 15355 of the CEQA guidelines (2005) defines cumulative impacts as two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor, but collectively significant actions that take place over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7). The analysis in this chapter is consistent with CEQA guidelines, Section 15130(b)(1), which directs cumulative impact analyses to include “a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact.” 5.1.2 Biological Resources The proposed project would result in less­than­significant cumulative impacts to biological resources after mitigation. Alternatives A, A­1, and A­2 would result in less­than­significant cumulative impacts related to biological resources. The No Project Alternative would not result in cumulative impacts. Tree removal along the project corridor could result in impacts to migratory birds and their active nests. Construction activities as a result of the proposed project and other projects in the area could potentially result in significant cumulative impacts to migratory birds. As described in Section 4.7, Mitigation Measure BR­1 has been identified to ensure that impacts to nesting birds are reduced to less­than­significant levels. Therefore, a cumulatively significant impact to nesting birds, or their habitat, would not be expected to occur. 39 5.2 Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to document significant environmental effects which cannot be avoided if the proposed projects implemented. Specifically, Section 15126.2(b) states that the EIR should: Describe any significant impacts, including those, which can be mitigated but not reduced to a level of insignificance. Where there are impacts that cannot be alleviated without imposing an alternative design, their implications and the reasons why the project is being proposed, notwithstanding their effect, should be described. Environmental impacts associated with implementation of a project may not always be mitigated to a level that is considered less than significant (either through the imposition of project­specific mitigation measures or through the imposition of an alternative project design). In such cases, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be prepared prior to approval of the project, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15090 and 15093. Because implementation of the proposed project would create significant, unavoidable impacts, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required to describe specific reasons for approving the project, based on information contained within the Final EIR, as well as any other information in the public record. 5.3 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Section 15126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to consider any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the proposed project should it be implemented. Specifically, Section 15126.2(c) states that: Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as a highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified. The implementation of public transit improvement projects, such as the proposed 40 project or, Alternative A, A­1, or A­2, would help to remove vehicles from roadways and freeways, easing the increase in VMT and the usage of fuels. The proposed project or, Alternative A, A­1, or A­2 would result in less energy consumption and, as such, would result in a beneficial energy impact. However, the construction and implementation of the proposed project or, Alternative A, A­1, or A­2 would entail the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of some energy and human resources, including labor required for the planning, design, construction and operation of the proposed project or Alternative A, A­1, or A­2. These resources include the following: ● Consumption of nonrenewable energy resources as a result of operation and maintenance of the proposed transportation improvements, even if energy rates do not exceed existing use rates; and ● Commitment of natural resources during minor construction activities associated with the proposed project or, Alternative A, A­1, or A­2 including the consumption of fossil fuels and the use of construction materials 41 6. References http://www.drakesbayoyster.com/ http://www.polb.com/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=11649 http://www.nps.gov/pore/parkmgmt/planning_dboc_sup.htm http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/cd/main/pdf/eir/CWP/CWP_Update_FEIR_11.07.pdf http://media.metro.net/projects_studies/wilshire/images/EIR­EA_rev/Ch_6.0_OtherCEQ
ATopics_040411.pdf http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/cd/main/pdf/eir/CWP/CWP_Update_FEIR_11.07.pdf 42