DOCSLIB.ORG

Fort Bragg Coastal Restoration and Trail Project Phase II

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fort Bragg Coastal Restoration and Trail Project Phase II Fort Bragg Coastal Restoration and Trail Project Phase II MENDOCINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA City of Fort Bragg Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Prepared by Marie Jones Community Development Director City of Fort Bragg November 2014 i Fort Bragg Coastal Restoration and Trail Project: Phase II Subsequent EIR Fort Bragg Coastal Restoration and Trail Project: Phase II Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR SCH No 2009112071) Prepared by: Marie Jones City of Fort Bragg 416 N Franklin Street Fort Bragg, CA 95437 707-961-2827 November, 2014 ii Fort Bragg Coastal Restoration and Trail Project Phase II Subsequent EIR Table of Contents Table of Contents........................................................................................................................iii List of Tables................................................................................................................................vi List of Figures.............................................................................................................................vii List of Technical Studies .........................................................................................................viii Acronyms......................................................................................................................................ix Chapter 1 – Executive Summary............................................................................................1-1 1.1 Purpose of the Subsequent EIR.................................................................................1-1 1.2 Project Location & Description ...................................................................................1-1 1.2.1 The Beach Berm & Associated Upland Area...................................................1-1 1.2.2 Lowland Area......................................................................................................1-2 1.2.3 Mill Pond..............................................................................................................1-2 1.2.4 Johnson Point (AKA Soldier Point) ...................................................................1-2 1.3 Project Background .....................................................................................................1-4 1.4 Proposed Project .........................................................................................................1-7 1.4.1 Site Restoration..................................................................................................1-7 1.4.2 Construction of Multi-Use Trail..........................................................................1-7 1.4.3 Installation of Pedestrian Only Side Trails .......................................................1-7 1.4.4 Installation of Related Improvements ...............................................................1-7 1.5 Scoping and Notice of Preparation Process..............................................................1-8 1.6 Significant Environmental Impacts Identified ............................................................1-8 1.7 Project Alternatives......................................................................................................1-8 1.8 Impact Summary Table ...............................................................................................1-9 Chapter 2 – Proposed Project.................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Project Location & Description ...................................................................................2-2 2.2.1 The Beach Berm & Associated Upland Area...................................................2-2 2.2.2 Lowland Area......................................................................................................2-2 2.2.3 Mill Pond..............................................................................................................2-2 2.2.4 Johnson Point (AKA Soldier Point) ...................................................................2-3 2.3 Project Background .....................................................................................................2-4 2.4 Proposed Project .........................................................................................................2-9 2.4.1 Site Restoration..................................................................................................2-9 2.4.2 Construction of Multi-Use Trail..........................................................................2-9 2.4.3 Installation of Pedestrian Only Side Trails .......................................................2-9 2.4.4 Installation of Related Improvements ...............................................................2-9 2.5 Purpose and Need.......................................................................................................2-9 2.5.1 Project Objectives ............................................................................................2-10 2.5.2 Construction Access and Staging...................................................................2-14 2.5.3 Construction Equipment and Materials ..........................................................2-14 Fort Bragg Coastal Restoration and Trail Project Phase II iii Subsequent EIR Table of Contents 2.5.4 Project Timing and Phasing.............................................................................2-14 2.6 Alternatives.................................................................................................................2-14 2.6.1 No Project Alternative ......................................................................................2-15 2.6.2 Alternative Trail Alignment - Trail Alignment..................................................2-15 2.7 Permit Requirements.................................................................................................2-16 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures............................................................................3-1 3.1 Human Environment....................................................................................................3-3 3.1.1 Land Use.............................................................................................................3-3 3.1.2 Traffic and Transportation / Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities......................3-20 3.1.3 Visual / Aesthetics............................................................................................3-23 3.1.4 Cultural Resources...........................................................................................3-31 3.2 Physical Environment................................................................................................3-43 3.2.1 Water Quality and Stormwater Runoff............................................................3-43 3.2.2 Geology / Soils / Seismicity / Topography......................................................3-46 3.2.3 Hazardous Waste/Materials ............................................................................3-53 3.2.4 Air Quality..........................................................................................................3-57 3.2.5 Biological Environment ....................................................................................3-62 Chapter 4 – Alternatives Analysis..........................................................................................4-1 4.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................4-1 4.2 Alternatives Selection..................................................................................................4-1 4.3 Alternatives Considered..............................................................................................4-2 4.3.1 No Project Alternative ........................................................................................4-2 4.3.2 Alternative Trail Alignment A.............................................................................4-2 4.4 Alternatives Impacts Analysis.....................................................................................4-3 4.4.1 No Project Alternative ........................................................................................4-3 4.4.2 Alternative Trail Alignment A.............................................................................4-4 4.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative.........................................................................4-5 Chapter 5 – Mitigation Monitoring Program.........................................................................5-1 5.1 Statutory Requirement ................................................................................................5-1 5.2 Administration of the Mitigation Monitoring Program................................................5-1 5.3 Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Program ..........................................................5-1 Chapter 6 – Comments and Coordination............................................................................6-1 6.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................6-1 6.2 Project Development/Public Participation..................................................................6-1
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2017 Mendocino County Regional Transportation Plan
    22001177 MMEENNDDOOCCIINNOO CCOOUUNNTTYY RREEGGIIOONNAALL TTRRAANNSSPPOORRTTAATTIIOONN PPLLAANN FINAL DOPTED EBRUARY A F 5, 2018 Photos by Alexis Pedrotti Prepared for: Prepared by: Davey‐Bates Mendocino Council Consulting of Governments 2017 Regional Transportation Plan Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................1 State Highway System Element .................................................................................................1 County Roads & City Streets Element.......................................................................................1 Active Transportation ................................................................................................................2 Public Transit Service System ...................................................................................................2 Aviation System .........................................................................................................................2 Maritime Transportation ............................................................................................................3 Rail Transportation ....................................................................................................................3 Tribal Transportation .................................................................................................................3 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Settings/Biological Resources
    Chapter 3 Environment and Habitat Contents 3 ENVIRONMENT AND HABITAT 3-1 3.1 Introduction 3-1 3.2 Environmental Context 3-1 3.2.1 Climate and hydrology in the plan area 3-1 3.2.1.1 Climate 3-1 3.2.1.2 Stream flow and peak flow 3-2 3.2.1.2.1 Rain and flooding 3-2 3.2.1.2.2 Records on the Noyo and Navarro rivers 3-2 3.2.2 Geology and geomorphology of the plan area 3-3 3.2.2.1 Geologic features 3-3 3.2.2.2 Sediment inputs 3-3 3.2.2.3 Soil types 3-3 3.2.2.4 Mass wasting 3-4 3.2.2.4.1 Forest management practices affecting mass wasting 3-4 3.2.2.4.2 Effects of mass wasting on streams 3-5 3.2.2.4.3 Effects of mass wasting on anadromous salmonid habitat 3-5 3.2.3 Historical recap of the adjustment area 3-6 3.2.3.1 Land use 3-6 3.2.3.2 Historical location of roads and tractor trails 3-7 3.2.3.2.1 Impact of cable logging on road configurations 3-7 3.2.3.2.2 Impact of skid trails on sediment delivery 3-8 3.3 Aquatic Habitat 3-8 3.3.1 General concept of a watershed 3-8 3.3.2 Definition of watershed and watershed analysis 3-9 3.3.3 Watershed analysis units 3-9 3.3.4 Resource assessment report 3-10 3.3.5 Watershed analysis process 3-11 3.3.6 Summary of aquatic habitat conditions by major streams and rivers 3-11 3.3.6.1 Interpreting MRC data on streams and rivers 3-12 3.3.7 Regional summary of aquatic habitat conditions 3-32 3.3.7.1 Stream shade 3-32 3.3.7.2 Instream LWD conditions 3-33 3.3.7.3 Anadromous salmonid habitat conditions 3-34 3.3.7.4 Spawning habitat conditions 3-34 3.3.8 Summary of sediment input by planning watershed 3-35 3.3.8.1 Interpreting
    [Show full text]
  • NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS
    NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS OCTOBER 2005 HISTORICAL OCCURRENCE OF COHO SALMON IN STREAMS OF THE CENTRAL CALIFORNIA COAST COHO SALMON EVOLUTIONARILY SIGNIFICANT UNIT Brian C. Spence Scott L. Harris Weldon E. Jones Matthew N. Goslin Aditya Agrawal Ethan Mora NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-383 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Fisheries Science Center NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), organized in 1970, has evolved into an agency which establishes national policies and manages and conserves our oceanic, coastal, and atmospheric resources. An organizational element within NOAA, the Office of Fisheries is responsible for fisheries policy and the direction of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). In addition to its formal publications, the NMFS uses the NOAA Technical Memorandum series to issue informal scientific and technical publications when complete formal review and editorial processing are not appropriate or feasible. Documents within this series, however, reflect sound professional work and may be referenced in the formal scientific and technical literature. Disclaimer of endorsement: Reference to any specific commercial products, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government. The views and opinions of authors expressed in this document do not necessarily state or reflect those of NOAA or the United States Government, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS This TM series is used for documentation and timely communication of preliminary results, interim reports, or special purpose information.
    [Show full text]
  • North Pacific Ocean
    314 ¢ U.S. Coast Pilot 7, Chapter 8 19 SEP 2021 125° 124° OREGON 42° 123° Point St. George Crescent City 18603 KLAMATH RIVER Trinidad Head 18600 41° 18605 HUMBOLDT BAY Eureka 18622 18623 CALIFORNIA Cape Mendocino Punta Gorda Point Delgada 40° Cape Vizcaino 18626 Point Cabrillo NOYO RIVER 18628 39° 18620 18640 Point Arena NORTH PA CIFIC OCEAN Bodega Head 18643 TOMALES BAY 38° Point Reyes Bolinas Point San Francisco Chart Coverage in Coast Pilot 7—Chapter 8 NOAA’s Online Interactive Chart Catalog has complete chart coverage http://www.charts.noaa.gov/InteractiveCatalog/nrnc.shtml 19 SEP 2021 U.S. Coast Pilot 7, Chapter 8 ¢ 315 San Francisco Bay to Point St. George, California (1) the season, and precipitation of 0.1 inch (2.54 mm) or ENC - US2WC06M more can be expected on about 10 to 11 days per month Chart - 18010 south of Cape Mendocino and on up to 20 days to the north. Snow falls occasionally along this north coast. (9) Winds in spring are more variable than in winter, as (2) This chapter describes Bodega Bay, Tomales Bay, Noyo River and Anchorage, Shelter Cove, Humboldt the subtropical high builds and the Aleutian Low shrinks. Bay and numerous other small coves and bays. The only The change takes place gradually from north to south. deep-draft harbor is Humboldt Bay, which has the largest Northwest through north winds become more common city along this section of the coast, Eureka. The other while south winds are not quite so prevalent. With the important places, all for small craft, are Bodega Harbor, decrease in storm activity, rain falls on only about 6 Noyo River, Shelter Cove and Crescent City Harbor.
    [Show full text]
  • "Noyo River Total Maximum Daily Load for Sediment, TMDL Report
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX Noyo River Total Maximum Daily Load for Sediment Approved by: original signed by 16 December 1999 ____________________ ____________ Alexis Strauss Date Director, Water Division TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables ...............................................................ii List of Figures ..............................................................ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................1 A. Section 303(d) and the Noyo River Watershed ................................1 B. Components of the TMDL ...............................................1 CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ...............................................5 A. Characteristics of the Noyo River Watershed .................................5 B. Application of Section 303(d) to the Noyo River Watershed ......................5 C. Data Sources .........................................................7 D. Components of a TMDL ................................................7 CHAPTER II: EXISTING WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS ....................9 A. Beneficial Uses ........................................................9 B. Water Quality Objectives ...............................................10 CHAPTER III: PROBLEM STATEMENT ......................................11 A. General Background ..................................................11 B. Description of the Noyo River Watershed ...................................12 C. Summary of Findings for the Noyo River Watershed Overall ....................15 D.
    [Show full text]
  • Noyo River Total Maximum Daily Load for Sediment
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX Noyo River Total Maximum Daily Load for Sediment Approved by: original signed by 16 December 1999 ____________________ ____________ Alexis Strauss Date Director, Water Division TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables ...............................................................ii List of Figures ..............................................................ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................1 A. Section 303(d) and the Noyo River Watershed ................................1 B. Components of the TMDL ...............................................1 CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ...............................................5 A. Characteristics of the Noyo River Watershed .................................5 B. Application of Section 303(d) to the Noyo River Watershed ......................5 C. Data Sources .........................................................7 D. Components of a TMDL ................................................7 CHAPTER II: EXISTING WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS ....................9 A. Beneficial Uses ........................................................9 B. Water Quality Objectives ...............................................10 CHAPTER III: PROBLEM STATEMENT ......................................11 A. General Background ..................................................11 B. Description of the Noyo River Watershed ...................................12 C. Summary of Findings for the Noyo River Watershed Overall ....................15 D.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 CERTIFIED for PUBLICATION in the COURT of APPEAL of the STATE of CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ---CENTRAL
    Filed 1/5/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ---- CENTRAL COAST FOREST ASSOCIATION et al., C060569 Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Super. Ct. No. 07CS00851) v. OPINION ON REMAND FISH AND GAME COMMISSION, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, Gail D. Ohanesian, Judge. (Retired judge of the Sacramento Super. Ct., assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Reversed. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Kamala D. Harris and Xavier Becerra Attorneys General, Mary E. Hackenbracht, Kathleen A. Kenealy and Robert W. Byrne, Assistant Attorneys General, Sara J. Russell, Gavin G. McCabe, Tara L. Mueller and Cecilia L. Dennis, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Appellant. Deborah A. Sivas, Robb W. Kapla and Molly Loughney for Environmental Law Clinic, Center for Biological Diversity, Turtle Island Restoration Network, California Trout, Central Coast Forest Watch and Lompico Watershed Conservancy as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant. Murphy & Buchal and James L. Buchal for Plaintiffs and Respondents. Damien M. Schiff and Anthony L. Francois for Pacific Legal Foundation as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Respondents. 1 The California Endangered Species Act (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq., hereafter CESA)1 provides that a wild, native, species may be added to or removed from the regulation listing endangered species by a finding of the Fish and Game Commission (Commission) based on scientific information from the Department of Fish and Wildlife (department).2 (§§ 2074.6, 2075.5.) The standard for adding a wild, native species is that it is in serious danger of extinction.
    [Show full text]
  • THE RESOURCES AGENCY of CALIFORNIA Department of Fish and Game
    ,;’ ,F,,y _ THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CALIFORNIA Department of Fish and Game STREAM SURVEY FILE FORM No...... ..... .............. Date September 18. 1967 NAME..... Redwood Creek. ..........COUNTY Mendocino........... STREAM SECTION e FROM mouth ........To headwaters...LENGTH ...4 mi. TRIBUTARY TO Noyo River .................Twp 18N..R15W..Sec. 11 ... SOURCES OF DATA ...Personal observation and interviews with McGuire and Schanders EXTENT OF OBSERVATION -Surveyed by foot from mouth at Noyo River to 0.12 mile above northeast fork in headwaters, a point marked by an old logging landing, a total distance of 4 miles. Survey made by E.R.Y. Primbs on 14 August 1966. LOCATION -Redwood Creek flows into the Noyo River at the Masonite Redwood Creek Road crossing of the Noyo River, which crossing is 0.12 mile on the Masonite Rd. from the junction of the Masonite Road with the Shake City Road. The junction of the Masonite Road- Shake City Road is located 0.75 mile from the Shake City Road- Irmulco Road junction on-the Shake City Roads. The Shake City Road joins the Irmulco Road 4.75 miles from the Fort Bragg-Willits Road (Highway 20) on the Irmulco Road. The Irmulco Road joins Highway 20, 6.25 miles west of Willits on Highway 20. A 9 ft. culvert under the tracks of the California Western R.R. marks the mouth of Redwood Creek. RELATION TO OTHER WATERS- Provides the Noyo River system with 1.05 miles of excellent spawning grounds, 0.68 miles of fair spawning grounds, and 4.0 miles of good nursery area for steel- head and silver salmon.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Sustainability Plan
    Noyo Harbor Community Sustainability Plan JUNE 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements and Sustainability Partners Executive Summary 1. Introduction 1.1 Noyo Harbor District Overview 1.2 Noyo Harbor Community Sustainability Plan Purpose 1.3 Community Engagement Process & Commission Guidance 1.4 Noyo Harbor/Fort Bragg Region - Overview 1.5 Noyo Harbor Fishing Community 2. Noyo Harbor Plans and Land Use Regulations 2.1 Noyo Harbor Plan (1992) 2.2 Noyo Harbor District Municipal Service Review (2014) 2.3 Noyo Harbor District- Strategic Planning & Harbor Marina Redevelopment Planning (2018) 2.4 Coastal Act and Local Coastal Program (LCP) Policies 2.5 Other Agencies with Regulatory Authority 3. Critical Infrastructure, Facilities and Services 3.1 Port Facilities and Services 3.2 Harbor Entry and Maintenance Dredging 3.3 Street Access and Parking 3.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Access 3.5 Tsunami Warning System 3.6 Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Noyo Harbor Community Sustainability Plan i June 2019 4. Economics 4.1 Landings and Value: Inflation Adjusted by Fishery 4.2 Waterfront Business Employment 4.3 Summary Data by Key Fishery 4.4 Rents and Fees 5. Environmental Conditions 5.1 Fishery Management Plans [limited to Federal groundfish, state nearshore finfish] 5.2 Gear Restrictions and Monitoring Requirements [Federal groundfish trawl, nearshore] 5.3 Climate Change and Sea Level Rise 6. Social Factors 6.1 Organizations 6.2 Social and Sustainability Indicators 6.3 Tourism, Commercial Fishing, CPFV, Working Waterfront Shared Interests 6.4 Communication and Education 7. Priorities, Recommendations & Implementation 7.1 Prioritization Process 7.2 Top 12 Priorities and Recommended Actions 7.3 Additional Recommendations 7.4 Strategic Alliances 7.5 Potential Funding Sources for Public Projects 7.6 Potential Resources for Noyo Harbor Businesses 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Cow Mountain Recreation Area Implementation Plan
    Cow Mountain Recreation Area Implementation Plan INCLUDING: NORTH COW MOUNTAIN RECREATION AREA & SOUTH COW MOUNTAIN OHV MANAGEMENT AREA BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT UKIAH FIELD OFFICE Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 2 1.1 Purpose & Need ............................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Location & Background ................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Cow Mountain Recreation Area Management Objectives ............................................... 4 Objective 1 ............................................................................................................................... 4 Objective 2 ............................................................................................................................... 4 Objective 3 ............................................................................................................................... 4 Objective 4 ............................................................................................................................... 5 Objective 5 ............................................................................................................................... 5 1.4
    [Show full text]
  • Status of Coho Salmon in California
    Status of Coho Salmon in California Report to the National Marine Fisheries Service By: Larry R. Brown and Peter B. Moyle Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology University of California Davis, CA 95616 1 July 1991 2 Table of Contents Foreward...........................................................................................................................................4 Executive Summary............................................................................................................................5 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................9 Life History......................................................................................................................................11 Distribution and Status......................................................................................................................12 Hatchery Populations .......................................................................................................................12 Wild Populations..............................................................................................................................16 Smith River..........................................................................................................................17 Klamath River......................................................................................................................18 Redwood Creek..................................................................................................................25
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report: Trinity River Watershed Five Counties Road Erosion
    TRINITY RIVER WATERSHED Five Counties Road Erosion Inventory Final Report For State Water Resources Control Board Proposition 204 Program Contract #9-164-250-0 Prepared By Trinity County Planning Department - Natural Resources Division Summary In 2000, the State Water Resources Control Board awarded Trinity County a Proposition 204 contract to conduct a road sediment source and migration barrier inventory and to implement several restoration projects on County Roads within the Trinity River watershed. The county road sites inventoried have the potential to deliver sediment to streams, resulting in damage to fisheries resources and/or water quality. The inventory is one part of a comprehensive effort towards the restoration of anadromous fisheries and water quality by the Five Counties Salmonid Conservation Program. Additional inventories were completed in Del Norte, Humboldt, and Mendocino Counties under separate California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) SB 271 grants. Copies of all final reports are available upon request. All GIS data for all inventories but the one for the Russian River watershed in Mendocino County have been submitted to CDF&G for incorporation into a state-wide GIS database. All GIS data from this contract and the Russian River inventory will also be submitted to CDF&G for database incorporation. The methodology used in all three inventories was based on the protocols for forest and ranch road inventories set forth by Pacific Watershed Associates (PWA) and then modified to reflect the differences between private and public roads. The final county roads inventory protocol, known as the Direct Inventory of Roads and Treatments (DIRT), was then converted to a Microsoft Access database that was used in the field to directly input site data.
    [Show full text]