COASTAL CONSERVANCY. Staff Recommendation November 6, 2008 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SALT PONDS RESTORATION: PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION

Transcription

1 COASTAL CONSERVANCY Staff Recommendation November 6, 2008 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SALT PONDS RESTORATION: PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION File No Project Manager: Brenda Buxton RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorization to: (1) disburse up to $4,250,000 for implementation of Phase I of the South Bay Salt Ponds Restoration Project; and (2) disburse up to an additional $300,000 towards the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study. LOCATION: San Francisco Bay, South of the San Mateo Bridge, in Alameda, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties (Exhibit 1). PROGRAM CATEGORY: San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Project Location and Phase I Sites Exhibit 2: Restoration Plan (attached to Conservancy member s copy of staff recommendation and otherwise available for review at Exhibit 3: EIS/R (provided to Conservancy members as a separate CD and otherwise available for review at and EIS/R Table of Impacts, Table of Cumulative Impacts, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Exhibit 4: Ravenswood Pond Complex Exhibit 5: Project Letters RESOLUTION AND FINDINGS: Staff recommends that the State Coastal Conservancy adopt the following resolution pursuant to Sections of the Public Resources Code: The State Coastal Conservancy hereby authorizes: 1. The disbursement of up to $4,250,000 (four million two hundred fifty thousand dollars) for construction, adaptive management activities and applied scientific studies, engineering and environmental services, and project management and related

2 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SALT PONDS RESTORATION: PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION activities associated with implementation of Phase I of the South San Francisco Bay Salt Pond (SBSP) Restoration as follows: a. Disbursement of up to two million dollars ($2,050,000) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for construction of the Pond SF2 and Bayfront Park projects, subject to the following conditions: i. Prior to the disbursement of any Conservancy funds for any one of the projects, the FWS shall submit for the review and approval of the Conservancy s Executive Officer a work program for that project, including schedule and budget, and the names of any contractors it intends to use to complete the project. ii. In carrying out the project, FWS shall comply with all applicable mitigation and monitoring measures that are identified in the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report (EIS/R) that was certified with findings by the California Department of Fish and Game on March 11, b. Disbursement of up to $1,500,000 (one million five hundred dollars) to the Resources Legacy Fund (RLF) for adaptive management and applied studies, including, without limitation, applied studies of whether and how island density and shape, vegetation types, density, and distribution, and human activities significantly affect birds or other target species on short or long timescales, subject to the condition that prior to the disbursement of any Conservancy funds for any study, RLF shall submit for the review and approval of the Conservancy s Executive Officer a work program for that study, including schedule and budget, and the names of any contractors it intends to use to complete the study. c. Disbursement of up to $700,000 (seven hundred thousand dollars) for engineering and environmental services and project management and related activities to support implementation of of the SBSP Restoration. 2. The disbursement of up to an additional $300,000 (three hundred thousand dollars), as in-kind services or cash as the Conservancy s share of increased costs under the Feasibility Cost Share Agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Santa Clara Valley Water District for the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study, authorized by the Conservancy on December 2, Staff further recommends that the Conservancy adopt the following findings: Based on the accompanying staff report and attached exhibits, the State Coastal Conservancy hereby finds that: 1. The proposed project is consistent with the current Project Selection Criteria and Guidelines. 2. The proposed authorization is consistent with the purposes and objectives of Chapter 4.5 of Division 21 of the Public Resources Code, regarding the Conservancy s mandate to address the resource and recreational goals of San Francisco Bay Area. Page 2 of 24

3 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SALT PONDS RESTORATION: PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION 3. The Conservancy has independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report (EIS/R) that was certified with findings by the California Department of Fish and Game on March 11, 2008 in order to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA ). 4. The EIS/R identifies potential significant effects from implementation of Phase I projects of the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project, including the projects proposed in this authorization. Based on the design and approach of the Phase I projects, no potential significant effects are identified with the implementation of the Bayfront Park overlook project in the Ravenswood Pond Complex. However, the EIS/R identifies potential significant effects from implementation of the Pond SF2 project in the areas of Water Quality, Air Quality, Traffic, Noise, Cultural Resources, Utilities and Cumulative Impacts. With regard to these impacts, the Conservancy finds that the Pond SF2 project, as modified by incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the EIS/R, avoids, reduces or mitigates all of the possible significant environmental effects of the project except for the Cumulative Impacts identified in finding 5, below. 5. Construction of the Pond SF2 project may result in significant and unavoidable Cumulative Impacts in the areas of Hydrology (flooding risk) and Water Quality (potential for discharge of water with low dissolved oxygen). Specific environmental and other benefits of the project described in the accompanying staff recommendation and detailed in the EIS/R outweigh and render acceptable these unavoidable adverse environmental effects because the project will result in the long-term environmental benefits of restoring native habitat for the threatened snowy plover, migratory shorebirds, and for other plant and animal species that otherwise would be threatened by loss of critical habitat. 6. Alternatives to the Pond SF2 project analyzed in the EIS/R are infeasible in that they do not achieve the project objectives of habitat restoration, wildlife-oriented public access, and flood protection and will result in the same or greater environmental impact and will not produce the same environmental benefit as the proposed project. 7. The Resources Legacy Fund is a nonprofit organization existing under Section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, whose purposes are consistent with Division 21 of the Public Resources Code. PROJECT SUMMARY: This authorization would enable the Conservancy to fund the first implementation phase of the restoration project for 15,100 acres of former Cargill salt production ponds in South San Francisco Bay. This is the first major implementation action of the South Bay Salt Ponds Restoration project (aside from the April 2008 Conservancy authorization of $63,250 for improvements to the Moffett Field Bay Trail) and includes $2.05 million in funding of habitat and public access construction as well as $1.5 million for applied studies required by the Adaptive Management Plan. In order to successfully implement the construction projects and Adaptive Management Plan as well as plan for future Page 3 of 24

4 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SALT PONDS RESTORATION: PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION project phases, this authorization also includes $700,000 in funding for engineering and environmental services and project management. The authorization would also allow the Conservancy to provide additional funding for the South Bay Shoreline Study (the Shoreline Study ), a feasibility study that is being jointly funded by the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the Conservancy, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under a federal Feasibility Cost Share Agreement for the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study between the parties ( Cost Share Agreement ). On completion, the Shoreline Study will identify specific flood control, habitat restoration and public access improvements projects in the South Bay. The Shoreline Study encompasses a much larger area of the South Bay than the Salt Pond Restoration Project, including areas adjacent to the salt ponds in Santa Clara Counties. The Shoreline Study will facilitate the restoration of the South Bay Salt Ponds because it will complete the required analysis that will enable the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to cost-share significant portions of future environmental restoration, public access and tidal and creek flood protection projects likely to be similar to those identified in the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Plan. At its meeting of December 2, 2004, the Conservancy authorized the Executive Officer to enter the Cost Share Agreement on behalf of the Conservancy. At its meeting of September 8, 2005, the Conservancy authorized the disbursement of up to $1,000,000 as the Conservancy share of costs under the Cost Share Agreement. Due to unanticipated data gaps and the need for additional technical analyses, as well as delays caused by less-than-requested federal funding, the Shoreline Study s costs have increased. To partially cover these increased costs, pursuant to the authority delegated to him by the Conservancy, the Executive Officer in October 2007 approved the disbursement of $150,000, a 15% augmentation of the original $1 million previously authorized by the Conservancy for disbursement under the Cost Share Agreement. In November 2007, the Santa Clara Valley Water District also provided additional funding making its total cash contribution $4,570,345. However, these funds are not sufficient to cover the cost increases. In order to provide needed additional funding and prevent further delays, this authorization proposes to increase the Conservancy s contribution of in-kind services or cash under the Cost Share Agreement by $300,000, to a total of $1,450,000 (which includes the Conservancy s original authorization, the Executive Officer s augmentation of $150,000 and the proposed additional authorization of $300,000). Since the costs for the study are shared between the federal and non-federal parties, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will match funds provided by the Conservancy and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. South Bay Salt Ponds Restoration Plan From 2003 to 2007, the Conservancy worked in cooperation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) and numerous project stakeholders to complete a plan that restores and enhances wetland habitats while providing for flood management and wildlife-oriented public access and recreation in the 15,100 acres of salt manufacturing ponds acquired from Cargill Inc. in Page 4 of 24

5 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SALT PONDS RESTORATION: PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION A summary of the plan is described in a brochure outlining the restoration project (Exhibit 2) and the Executive Summary of the EIS/R (Exhibit 3). In terms of wetland habitat creation, the project plan proposes creating a mix of managed ponds (open water and seasonal ponds contained by levees and managed for a variety of water depths and salinities) and tidal wetlands. Managed ponds would provide habitat for waterfowl, small shorebirds (including the threatened snowy plover) and high salinity specialists, such as phalaropes and grebes. Tidal wetland creation would restore hydrologic and ecological conditions closer to the past conditions in South San Francisco Bay by increasing tidal scour, muting storm energy, improving water quality, and creating habitat for the California clapper rail, salt marsh harvest mouse, and steelhead trout. During project planning, participants acknowledged that there was significant uncertainty about the long-term impacts of large landscape-scale restoration proposed by the project. Because of this uncertainty, the plan does not specify an exact amount of managed ponds or tidal wetlands to be restored. Rather, the plan proposes a progression of habitat creation over the next 50 years with two different possible end-states. One end-state, identified as Alternative B in the EIS/R, emphasizes creating a balance of managed ponds and tidal wetlands (approximately 7,500 acres of each). The other end-state, Alternative C in the EIS/R, emphasizes the creation of tidal wetlands and proposes to keep approximately 10% (1,600 acres) of managed ponds. As required by the National Environmental Policy Act, the EIS/R identifies a preferred alternative, Alternative C, tidal wetland emphasis, which was selected since this alternative would create conditions closer to the historic landscape of San Francisco Bay and would require less infrastructure and operations in the long-term. However, the EIS/R also states that the final mix of managed ponds and tidal wetlands will be guided by the Adaptive Management Plan (Appendix D of the EIS/R) and it is possible that tidal wetland restoration activities will stop before reaching the tidal wetland acreage called for in Alternative C. The Plan proposes a variety of public access improvements as well, including trails, viewing platforms, cultural and environmental resource interpretive stations, waterfowl hunting, non-motorized boat launches, and associated staging and parking areas. At the 50-year end point for the project, the ultimate number and variety of public access features will be determined by the Adaptive Management Plan which describes a process (similar to the process for habitat creation described above) to determine how to satisfy public demand for access and recreation improvements in the project while avoiding possible impacts to wildlife. To manage flood risks, the Plan proposes that could maintain and enhance flood protection for the South Bay. In addition to the flood control benefits that result from wetland restoration (e.g. slough scour and storm buffer), the project proposes construction of engineered levees on the landward edge of the former salt ponds. Creation of additional tidal wetlands or managed ponds, beyond those identified in Phase I, depends on the eventual construction of these engineered structures. In order to facilitate the construction of flood control structures, the Conservancy is partnering with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Santa Clara Valley Water District on a Page 5 of 24

6 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SALT PONDS RESTORATION: PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION separate planning effort, the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study, described above, to address south bay flood protection and habitat restoration needs. Due to the costs and large scale, the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project will be implemented in phases. Five public access and six wetland construction projects at five sites are proposed as Phase I (and analyzed at a project level in the EIS/R). The Phase I project-level and their anticipated primary funders are: Moffett Field Bay Trail Pond SF2 managed pond and public access facilities Bayfront Park overlook Ponds E12, 13, and 9 public access facilities Pond A6 tidal restoration Pond A16 managed pond and public access improvements Ponds E12 and 13 managed ponds Ponds E9, 8, 8x tidal restoration Pond A8 muted tidal action Approved by the Conservancy in April 2008 Proposed in this authorization Proposed for Conservancy and other project partners approval in Spring 2009 Proposed for funding by other project partners including Wildlife Conservation Board, Alameda County Public Work Agency, or Santa Clara Valley Water District in late 2008 or early 2009 The projects proposed for funding in this authorization include construction and the applied studies required by the Adaptive Management Plan as well as activities such as engineering and environmental services and project management that will be critical for successful implementation. Construction Projects Construction activities proposed in this authorization are 1) the Pond SF2 project and 2) the Bayfront Park overlook project in the Ravenswood Pond Complex (see map in Exhibit 4). In the South Bay Salt Pond ( SBSP ) Restoration project planning process, the 240-acre Pond SF2 was identified as the appropriate site for creation of a managed pond because it is possible to create shallow water habitat and nesting islands for shorebirds and dry, salt panne-like conditions for snowy plovers. In addition, a managed pond at this site also would provide better flood protection. To construct this project, the bay front levee will be resurfaced and raised to improve a 0.7 mile public access trail that will allow views of Page 6 of 24

7 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SALT PONDS RESTORATION: PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION the pond at two interpretive platforms at different locations on the east side of the pond. Restrooms will also be constructed at the trailhead. The pond interior will be graded to create three distinct areas or cells divided by low berms. Islands will be formed out of on-site material and water control structures installed. The shallow water and nesting islands in the eastern and central areas would provide habitat for shorebirds and the drier, salt panne-like conditions in the western area would be habitat for snowy plovers. Finally, the northwest perimeter of the pond will be revegetated with high marsh plant species. Construction of the Pond SF2 improvements will be undertaken by the FWS and is expected to cost a total of $11,000,000. The Conservancy will provide $2,000,000 to FWS for construction which will be matched by: $7,300,000 from the FWS; $1,195,000 from CalTrans that is being provided to mitigate closure of the Dumbarton Bridge Fishing Pier and directed to Pond SF2 public access improvements in fulfillment of a BCDC permit condition; and $488,000 from a mitigation fund established by the City of Menlo Park in 1982 as a BCDC mitigation requirement for the expansion of the Marsh Road Landfill. Associated with this construction effort are applied studies that will test how island density and shape, vegetation types, density, and distribution, and human activities effect bird nesting use and reproductive success. The other Phase I construction proposed by this authorization is construction of an ongrade viewing platform at Bayfront Park, in the City of Menlo Park (see Exhibit 4). The overlook would be at a high spot that provides dramatic views of the former salt ponds and existing salt marsh areas. This overlook would provide views and interpretation of marsh ecology and the restoration project. FWS will work cooperatively with the City of Menlo Park to construct this overlook which is expected to cost approximately $50,000. There is no applied study associated with this project since this will be minor construction in an already heavily-used public park. Although the site provides views of wetlands, there are no sensitive resource areas adjacent to the overlook. As outlined in the table above, Conservancy staff anticipates bringing a proposal for funding the remaining Phase I projects in the spring of 2009 once final design and cost estimates for the remaining projects are complete. The remaining Phase I projects will be funded by other project partners. Adaptive Management Approach The South Bay Salt Ponds Restoration Project is one of the largest restoration efforts in the United States. Although much is known about the project area (such as salt marsh ecology, public access and wildlife inter, public outdoor recreation demands, and flooding potential) significant uncertainties remain with a project of this geographic and temporal scale. In fact, project managers have concluded that the best way to tackle these uncertainties is to carefully implement the project in phases and learn from the results. How this will be done is described in the Adaptive Management Plan. The Adaptive Management Plan describes a comprehensive program to generate information (applied studies, monitoring, and research) that will be used by project managers to make decisions about both current management of the project area and future restoration in order to meet project objectives and avoid harmful impacts to the environment. Page 7 of 24

8 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SALT PONDS RESTORATION: PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION Not only is adaptive management essential to keeping the project on track towards its objectives, it is the primary tool identified in the EIS/R for avoiding significant impacts to the environment. Without adaptive management (and its associated information collection), the project managers would not understand the restored system nor would they be able to explain their management the public. Furthermore, responses to unanticipated changes would be based on guess work and could exacerbate problems. For these reasons, adaptive management is integral to the project and construction cannot proceed without funding for the applied studies and science support required by the Adaptive Management Plan. Applied Studies As outlined in the Adaptive Management Plan, several applied studies are linked to restoration and management in Phase I projects so that project managers can learn from project implementation. The uncertainties these studies seek to address were identified in the planning process by members of the science team in addition to project managers, stakeholder forum members, regulatory agencies, and public participants. Applied Studies that are part of Phase I are expected to total $3-4 million. Conservancy staff recommends authorization of $1,500,000 towards funding of all of the highest priority Phase I applied studies at this time so the proposal solicitation process can be completed by the time construction is completed, or earlier if required. These Phase I studies are largely focused on wildlife use of changing habitats, mercury issues, and public access-wildlife inter. The results of these studies will enable project managers to answer critical questions about future project implementation including but not limited to: Will sediment accretion in restored tidal areas be adequate? Will pond and panne habitats in restored tidal habitats provide habitat shorebirds and waterfowl? Will tidal habitat restoration increase methylmercury levels in sentinel species? Will creating islands in reconfigured ponds maintain nesting birds populations in the South Bay? Will landside public access significantly affect birds or other target species on short or long timescales? The Resources Legacy Fund, a 501(c)(3) non profit organization, whose purposes include conservation of the environment and natural resources, will provide a match of $800,000 for these efforts and will administer these studies as directed by the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project Management Team and the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project Lead Scientist. The Resources Legacy Fund is a grant-making organization with extensive experience administering grants for environmental restoration and protection purposes. Most of the studies associated with Phase I are expected to be conducted over a 5 year period. The list of Phase I and the associated applied studies are described further Page 8 of 24

9 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SALT PONDS RESTORATION: PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION in the Phase I Applied Studies table in the Adaptive Management Plan (pp of Appendix D in Exhibit 3). Engineering and Environmental Services and Project Management The implementation project construction phases and the Adaptive Management Plan will be overseen by a governing structure similar to that used for project planning. This structure will be memorialized in a multi-agency Memorandum of Understanding that is close to completion. Under this structure, the Project Management Team, composed of landowners (FWS, DFG), local flood control agencies, funding partners and the Conservancy, will make decisions about on-the-ground management and future project phases. In addition, a Science Program, under the direction of the Lead Scientist, will manage the applied studies and make recommendations to the Project Management Team based on results of applied studies, monitoring, and research. Public outreach will also continue as part of the overall project management to include the interactive GIS map, website, Science Symposium, stakeholder forums, and local working groups. Conservancy staff recommends that $700,000 be provided for the needed engineering and environmental services and project management and associated public outreach activities. The majority of the positions on the Project Management Team will be public agency staff and will not require funding. Additional project management services, specifically an executive project manager that will oversee and coordinate all the agencies involved in the project, will need to be contracted for. The lead scientist position will be cost shared by the Conservancy, U.S. Geological Survey, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition, the Conservancy may need to contract for services to complete technical analysis by engineers, planners, or landscape architects. Finally, these funds also would be used by the Conservancy to continue the public outreach program which includes conducting public outreach, convening public meetings, identifying key stakeholders, and providing public information. These activities are required under the EIS/R as part of effective project management. It is anticipated that as the project moves into the implementation phase, project management and public outreach costs will decrease but that they will not altogether cease. Successful project implementation depends on a sound management structure and active public participation. Site Description: Salt ponds surround nearly the entire Bay south of the San Mateo Bridge (Exhibit 1), on lands that were formerly tidal marsh. An estimated 85 percent of the historic tidal marshes in the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary have been filled or significantly altered over the past two centuries for urban development, agriculture, and salt production. Although dramatically different than 150 years ago, the South Bay s wetland habitats, including the salt ponds, tidal marshes, sloughs, mudflats, and open bay, are used by large populations of waterfowl and shorebirds, by harbor seals, and by a number of threatened and endangered species, including the California clapper rail, California black rail, California brown pelican, California least tern, western snowy plover, salt marsh harvest mouse, and steelhead trout. Pond SF2 is 240 acres of former salt pond immediately south of the Dumbarton Bridge in the City of Menlo Park. At the present time there is no tidal connection and the pond fills Page 9 of 24

10 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SALT PONDS RESTORATION: PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION with water during the rainy season and becomes a dry, white, salt flat in the dry season. Bayfront Park is a former landfill on the edge of the Bay that has been converted into a park. The overlook would be located at the park s high point, approximately a quarter mile walk from the parking area. Dramatic views of the surrounding open bay, salt ponds, and remaining marshes and sloughs provide an excellent back drop for interpretation of the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration project. Project History: In March 2003, 15,100 acres of South Bay salt ponds, along with 1,400 acres of crystallizer ponds along the Napa River were acquired with $72 million from the Wildlife Conservation Board, $8 million from the FWS, and $20 million from the Goldman Fund, Hewlett Foundation, Moore Foundation, and Packard Foundation. FWS and DFG have taken ownership of the properties and are actively managing the ponds according to the management goals set forth in the Initial Stewardship Plan. Cargill continues to manage a small number of ponds while phasing out its salt-making operations. While the ponds were being managed under the Initial Stewardship Plan, the Conservancy, FWS, and DFG undertook a long-term restoration plan. To date the Conservancy has provide $12,700,000 in funding for technical analyses, science support, data management, project management, and public participation and outreach between 2002 and 2006 to complete the planning process. On August 2002, the Conservancy approved $500,000; January 2003, $2 million; October 2003, $200,000; September 2005, $3 million (which included $1 million for the Shoreline Study), and finally, on November 2006, $2 million. In addition, the Conservancy Board authorized the acceptance and expenditure of $3 million in March 2004 and $2 million in December 2004 from WCB for the SBSP Restoration project planning process. The results of the planning process are discussed in the project description section of this staff recommendation. PROJECT FINANCING: Pond SF2 Coastal Conservancy $ 2,000,000 US Fish and Wildlife Service $ 7,300,000 CalTrans $ 1,950,000 Menlo Park Bay Account $ 488,000 Total Project Cost $11,738,000 Bayfront Park Overlook Coastal Conservancy $ 50,000 Total Project Cost $ 50,000 Page 10 of 24

11 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SALT PONDS RESTORATION: PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION Adaptive Management Applied Studies Coastal Conservancy $ 1,500,000 Resources Legacy Fund $ 800,000 FWS, USGS, and others $ 1,700,000 Total Costs $ 4,000,000 Engineering and Environmental Services and Project Management Coastal Conservancy $ 700,000 Total Cost $ 700,000 South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study Coastal Conservancy $300,000 Total Cost (this authorization) $ 300,000 Total Conservancy Costs $ 4,550,000 There are two expected sources of funds for this authorization. One source will be the fiscal year appropriation of the Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Fund of 2002 (Proposition 50). Proposition 50 authorizes the use of these funds for the purpose of protecting coastal watersheds through projects that restore land and water resources. Funds may be used for planning and permitting associated with restoration, as well as the restoration activities. (Water Code Section 79570). The proposed project will accomplish these purposes by constructing tidal wetland and shallow water habitats as part of Phase I well as developing the design plans, permits, and public input for the next phase of South Bay Salt Pond Restoration projects. In addition, under Proposition 50, any watershed protection activities financed with Proposition 50 funds must be consistent with the applicable adopted local watershed management plan and the applicable regional water quality control plan adopted by the regional water quality control board (Water Code Section 79507). The proposed project is consistent with such plans, as described in detail in the Consistency with Local Watershed Management Plan/State Water Quality Control Plan section, below. Funding of the interpretive features (the overlook platforms and interpretive signs that are part of the Pond SF2 and Bayfront Park projects) is also consistent with Proposition 50 which authorizes the use of funds for development of facilities to promote public access and participation in the conservation of land, water and wildlife. Eligible projects under Proposition 50 include interpretive facilities that are in or adjacent to watersheds and wetlands and provide wildlife viewing, outdoor experiences, and conservation education programs (California Water Code, Section 79571). The other expected source of Conservancy funds for this project is the fiscal year appropriation from the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 84). This funding Page 11 of 24

12 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SALT PONDS RESTORATION: PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION source may be used for the protection bays and coastal waters, including projects to prevent contamination and degradation of coastal waters and watersheds, projects to protect and restore the natural habitat values of coastal waters and lands, and projects and expenditures to promote access to and enjoyment of the coastal resources of the state pursuant to the Conservancy s enabling legislation, Division 21 of the Public Resources Code. The proposed project protects coastal waters and restores natural habitat values by constructing tidal wetlands and shallow water ponds that will provide habitat for numerous species as well as improve water quality. In addition, the projects feature trails, interpretive signs, viewing platforms and other amenities that will promote access to and enjoyment of the restored natural resources. Finally, as discussed below, the project is consistent with Chapter 4.5 of Division 21. Consistent with Proposition 84 requirements, the proposed project also includes funding for monitoring and reporting necessary to ensure successful implementation of the project objectives. Another requirement of Proposition 84 is that for projects that restore natural resources, the Conservancy give priority to projects that meet one or more of the criteria specified in Section The proposed restoration project satisfies the following specified criteria: (a) Landscape/Habitat Linkages one of the largest wetland restoration projects on the west coast of North America, the project will facilitate wildlife movement, botanical transfer, and sustain large acreage of habitat over time, (b) Watershed Protection the project will contribute to long-term protection of and improvement to the water and biological quality of the San Francisco Bay; and (e) Non-State Matching Funds as discussed in the Project Description Section the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and private foundations will provide matching funds from several non-state sources. Matching funding for the Phase I South Bay Salt Ponds implementation projects are derived form a variety of sources. The CalTrans funding is mitigation under a BCDC permit for closure of the Dumbarton Bridge Fishing Pier. The Menlo Park Bay Account funds are mitigation for the 1982 expansion of the Marsh Road Landfill. The FWS funding will come from 2007, 2008, and 2009 federal appropriations. The matching cost-share funding for the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study is summarized in the Project Description Section. CONSISTENCY WITH CONSERVANCY S ENABLING LEGISLATION: This project would be undertaken pursuant to Chapter 4.5 of the Conservancy s enabling legislation, Public Resources Code Sections , to address resource goals in the San Francisco Bay Area. The South Bay salt ponds are within the nine-county Bay Area as required under Section of the Public Resources Code. Under Section 31162(a), the Conservancy may undertake projects to improve public access to and around the Bay, without having a significant adverse impact on environmentally sensitive areas and wildlife, such as wetlands, through completion of regional trails, local trails connecting to population centers and public facilities Page 12 of 24

13 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SALT PONDS RESTORATION: PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION and which are part of a regional trail system, and through the provision of related facilities. The proposed projects will include public access improvements and recreational components. Under Section 31162(b), the Conservancy may act to protect, restore, and enhance natural habitats and connecting corridors, watersheds, scenic areas, and other openspace resources of regional significance. The restoration of the South Bay salt ponds would restore and enhance nearly 16,000 acres of wetlands, and would be a habitat restoration project of regional and national significance. This authorization specifically would provide for creation of 240 acres of shorebird and waterfowl habitat. Consistent with Section 31163(c), the South Bay salt pond restoration project would implement the policies and programs of the San Francisco Bay Plan, as described in the Consistency with the San Francisco Bay Plan section of this staff recommendation. Under Section 31162(d), the Conservancy may act to promote, assist, and enhance projects that provide open space and natural areas that are accessible to urban populations for recreational and educational purposes. The South Bay salt ponds will provide an important open space resource for recreational purposes. This authorization will create a scenic overlook of the project site. Consistent with Section 31163(c), restoration of the South Bay salt ponds meets the following criteria: (1) is supported by adopted regional plans (San Francisco Bay Plan, San Francisco Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals Report, and the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin), (2) is multijurisdictional (spanning three counties) and serves a regional constituency (the restoration project is of national significance and will provide a regional recreational resource), (3) can be implemented in a timely way (restoration planning is expected to take five years, at which point restoration will begin and will be implemented in a phased manner), (4) provides opportunities for benefits that could be lost if the project is not quickly implemented (the private foundations providing funds has specified that planning needs to be completed and implementation start within five years by the end of 2008) and (5) includes matching funds (described under Project Financing). The project is also consistent with Sections 31163(a) and (c), directing the Conservancy to participate in and support interagency and public/private partnerships in the San Francisco Bay Area to implement long-term resources and outdoor recreational goals. CONSISTENCY WITH CONSERVANCY S 2007 STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL(S) & OBJECTIVE(S): Consistent with Goal 10, Objective C of the Conservancy s 2007 Strategic Plan, the proposed project will restore 240 acres of managed wetland habitat. Consistent with Goal 11, Objective B, the proposed project will feature a scenic overlook and interpretive signs. Page 13 of 24

14 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SALT PONDS RESTORATION: PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION Consistent with Goal 11, Objective L, the public access trails and interpretive facilities at SF2 will be ADA-compliant. CONSISTENCY WITH CONSERVANCY S PROJECT SELECTION CRITERIA & GUIDELINES: The proposed project is consistent with the Conservancy s Project Selection Criteria and Guidelines, last updated on September 20, 2007, in the following respects: Required Criteria 1. Promotion of the Conservancy s statutory programs and purposes: See the Consistency with Conservancy s Enabling Legislation section above. 2. Consistency with purposes of the funding source: See the Project Financing section above. 3. Support of the public: This project is supported by Senator Dianne Feinstein, the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Gordon E. and Betty I. Moore Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Resources Legacy Fund, the California Resources Agency, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Alameda County Flood Control District, the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture, Save The Bay, The Bay Institute, National Audubon Society, Citizen s Committee to Complete the Refuge, Cargill, and many other agencies, organizations, and individuals. 4. Location: The South Bay salt ponds are in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area consistent with Section of the Public Resources Code. 5. Need: Approximately 85 percent of the tidal marsh in San Francisco Bay has been lost since the Gold Rush, leading to dramatic losses of fish and wildlife, decreased water quality and increased turbidity in the Bay, and changes to physical processes as the size of the Estuary shrank, increasing the need for dredging and the local hazards of flooding. The need for restoration of tidal marsh in San Francisco Bay in order to aid in the recovery of at-risk species, and improve water quality and the physical health of the Bay, is well recognized among scientists and resource managers. Without the addition of Conservancy funding, these important objectives, which underlie the South Bay Salt Pond implementation projects and the Shoreline Study, would not be met. 6. Greater-than-local interest: Restoration of this area is of national significance and will result in the largest tidal wetland restoration project on the west coast of the United States. When combined with other restoration projects underway in San Francisco Bay, including Napa-Sonoma Marsh, Hamilton/Bel Marin Keys, Bair Island, Eden Landing, and Sonoma Baylands, the project is on scale with other national restoration efforts, such as the Everglades and Chesapeake Bay. Restoration of the South Bay salt ponds to a mix of tidal marsh and managed ponds will provide benefits to a large number of species, including migratory waterfowl and shorebirds, and aid in the recovery of several Page 14 of 24

15 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SALT PONDS RESTORATION: PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION threatened or endangered species, including the California clapper rail and salt marsh harvest mouse. Additional Criteria 7. Urgency: There is a strong desire among the foundations, agencies, and by Senator Feinstein for restoration planning to be completed and project implementation to begin within five years of the date of acquisition March This authorization will enable the Conservancy to make this deadline. 8. Resolution of more than one issue: The restoration of the South Bay salt ponds will provide for habitat restoration for fish and wildlife, improved water quality and flood control, and enhanced recreational opportunities. 9. Leverage: See the Project Financing section above. 10. Innovation: Restoration of the South Bay salt ponds will be a national model for how to coordinate a scientifically sound, publicly-supported, multi-objective, multi-agency project, on scale with the Everglades and Chesapeake Bay. The Conservancy is drawing upon its experience with Napa Marsh, Hamilton/Bel Marin Keys, and other restoration projects in San Francisco Bay and along the California Coast, as well as learning from other efforts around the nation. 11. Realization of prior Conservancy goals: This project builds on the Conservancy s participation in the development of the San Francisco Baylands Habitat Goals Report, which has goals, objectives, and recommendations for restoration in San Francisco Bay, and the Conservancy s participation in wetland acquisition and restoration projects in San Francisco Bay, including Napa Marsh, Bair Island, and Hamilton/Bel Marin Keys. This authorization builds upon previous authorizations by the Conservancy on August 2002, January and October 2003, and March and December 2004, September 2005, and November 2006 to disburse a total of up to $12,700,000 of Conservancy and WCB funds towards the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project. 12. Cooperation: The Conservancy is facilitating the long-term restoration planning, working closely with DFG and FWS. The Conservancy, WCB, and private foundations are cooperatively funding the restoration planning. In addition, over 50 entities have been identified as stakeholders in this restoration project, including local, state, and federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations, special districts, utilities, and the general public. CONSISTENCY WITH SAN FRANCISCO BAY PLAN: The South Bay salt ponds are within the permit jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission ( BCDC ). The project is consistent with the following policies of BCDC's San Francisco Bay Plan: Part III: The Bay as a Resource Water Quality Page 15 of 24

16 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SALT PONDS RESTORATION: PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION To the greatest extent feasible, the Bay marshes, mudflats, and water surface area and volume should be maintained and, whenever possible, increased. Water Surface Area and Volume Water circulation in the Bay should be maintained, and improved as much as possible. Marshes and Mudflats To offset possible additional losses of marshes due to necessary filling and to augment the present marshes: (a) former marshes should be restored when possible through removal of existing dikes; (b) in areas selected on the basis of competent ecological study, some new marshes should be created through carefully placed lifts of dredged spoils; and (c) the quality of existing marshes should be improved by appropriate measures whenever possible. Part IV: Development of the Bay and Shoreline Public Access In addition to the public access to the Bay provided by waterfront parks, beaches, marinas, and fishing piers, maximum feasible access to and along the waterfront and on any permitted fills should be provided in and through every new development in the Bay or on the shoreline, whether it be for housing, industry, port, airport, public facility, wildlife area, or other use, except in cases where public access would be clearly inconsistent with the project because of public safety considerations or significant use conflicts, including unavoidable, significant adverse effects on Bay natural resources. In these cases, in lieu access at another location preferably near the project should be provided. Public access to some natural areas should be provided to permit study and enjoyment of these areas. However, some wildlife is sensitive to human intrusion. For this reason, projects in such areas should be carefully evaluated in consultation with appropriate agencies to determine the appropriate location and type of access to be provided. Salt Ponds and Other Managed Wetlands Around the Bay As long as is economically feasible, the salt ponds should be maintained in salt production and the wetlands should be maintained in their present use. Property tax policy should assure that rising property taxes do not force conversion of the ponds and other wetlands to urban development. In addition, the integrity of the salt production system should be respected (i.e., public agencies should not take for other projects any pond or portion of a pond that is a vital part of the production system). If, despite these provisions, the owner of the salt ponds or the owner of any managed wetland desires to withdraw any of the ponds or marshes from their present uses, the public should make every effort to buy these lands, breach the existing dikes, and reopen these areas to the Bay. This type of purchase should have a high priority for any public funds available, because opening ponds and managed wetlands to the Bay represents man's last substantial opportunity to enlarge the Bay rather than shrink it. Page 16 of 24

17 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SALT PONDS RESTORATION: PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION (In some cases, if salt ponds are opened to the Bay, new dikes will have to be built on the landward side of the ponds to provide the flood protection now being provided by the salt pond dikes.) CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN/ STATE WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN: As required by Proposition 50, the proposed project is consistent with local and regional plans (Water Code Section 79507) The Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals Report (Report) is a multi-jurisdictional local planning document providing guidance for watershed protection activities for the San Francisco Bay. Proposition 50 recognizes the Report as appropriate to guide the selection of restoration projects within the Bay region. Water Code Section The Report concludes that the overall goal in the South Bay subregion is to restore large areas of tidal marsh connected by wide corridors of similar habitat along the perimeter of the Bay. Several large complexes of salt ponds, managed to optimize shorebird and waterfowl habitat functions, should be interspersed through the subregion.... (Report, p. S-5). Implementation of the Phase I of the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project will meet these goals. The project is also consistent with the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board s goal to protect beneficial uses of waters of the State, as described in the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the San Francisco Bay Basin (1995). The Water Board made the following finding in its regulatory approval of the project: Restoring tidal wetland functions to former salt ponds will improve water quality in the South San Francisco Bay Estuary on a spatially significant scale with large contiguous habitat to maximize ecotonal or edge habitat, and minimize non-native vegetation (if appropriate management efforts are taken to control non-native species). Marsh systems that are tidally connected to the estuary improve water quality by filtering and fixing pollutants, in addition to protecting beneficial uses by providing the following: nursery habitat and protection from predation for native fish species, significant biological productivity to the estuarine system, and habitat for rare and endangered species such as the salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris) and the California clapper rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus). COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA: In order to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), FWS and DFG, in consultation with the Conservancy, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, prepared a joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/R) for Phase I of the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The EIS/R (Exhibit 3) was certified by the DFG on March 11, 2008 pursuant to CEQA. Page 17 of 24

18 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SALT PONDS RESTORATION: PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION This environmental document is both a programmatic environmental impact assessment covering the 50-year long-term South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Plan as well as a project-level environmental impact assessment addressing the specific components and implementation of Phase I. The EIS/R evaluates three programlevel, long-term restoration alternatives as well as project-level Phase I. The three long-term restoration scenarios include the following: 1) Alternative A, the No Action Alternative; 2) Alternative B, the Managed Pond Emphasis Alternative (50:50 tidal habitat: managed ponds); and 3) Alternative C, the Tidal Emphasis Alternative (90:10 tidal habitat: managed ponds). These long-term restoration alternatives include habitat, flood management and recreation and public access components, and represent potential end states at Year 50 of the SBSP Restoration Project. The applied studies conducted pursuant to the Adaptive Management Plan, technical services, data and project management, and public outreach proposed in this authorization are intended to provide information needed to avoid, reduce or mitigate the effects of the implementation projects and do not constitute a project as defined by CEQA (14 Cal Code of Regulations Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15378) and were not analyzed for environmental impacts in the EIS/R. The EIS/R identified numerous significant and potentially significant environmental impacts both for the Alternatives A, B, and C as well as projects proposed in Phase I. The EIS/R also noted potentially significant cumulative impacts for Alternatives A, B, and C and the Phase I projects. The project s significant effects and mitigation measures are set forth in the EIS/R and summarized in the tables, Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA for Alternatives B and C Including Phase I Actions and Table of Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation measures, and CEQA (Cumulative Impact Findings Table) which are included in the attached Exhibit 3. This discussion, however, addresses only those significant and potentially significant project impacts and cumulative impacts for the projects proposed for funding in this staff recommendation: Pond SF2 and Bayfront Park overlook. Adaptive Management s role in preventing significant impacts While many of the impacts indentified in the EIS/R are beneficial, (e.g. increased tidal scour of sloughs to increase flood conveyance), to achieve those benefits some negative impacts to environment could occur (e.g. mobilization of contaminated sediments due to increased tidal scour). By incorporating the Adaptive Management process into the design of the project, the project will be able to avoid what could be potentially significant impacts if there was no such program in place. In the Project Description section above, there is a discussion of how Adaptive Management is central to project design and implementation. This CEQA section discusses how incorporation of Adaptive Management into the specific projects proposed for Conservancy funding avoids what could otherwise be significant impacts. Several critical monitoring results ( management triggers ) have been identified in the Adaptive Management Plan as indications of Page 18 of 24

19 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SALT PONDS RESTORATION: PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION where undesired environmental impacts may be starting to occur (see Adaptive Management Summary Table, pp to 2-26 of EIS/R). Using information from monitoring and applied studies, Project Managers will periodically assess progress towards project objectives and restoration targets and if results indicate problems are developing, management action will be triggered. The EIS/R lists potential managers could take to correct current operations and avoid undesired impacts. Furthermore, project managers will be able to revise the conceptual models and restoration plans based on what has been learned, and use this new knowledge for designing future implementation phases. Adaptive Management differs from mitigation in that it is not a series of remedial that make up for negative impacts. Rather Adaptive Management tries to detect potential problems early on and take to avoid or reverse the impacts while also informing future project decisions. How the project manages potential mercury impacts is an example of how the incorporation of Adaptive Management into the project prevents a potentially significant impact from occurring. The project is designed to be adaptively managed to ensure that mercury levels due to project activities remain at a lessthan-significant level (mercury related impacts are discussed in pp to of the EIS/R). The EIS/R identifies sentinel species that will be monitored and has identified monitoring results ( triggers ) that would indicate methylation of mercury has increased in response to project activities. If this occurs, project managers will need to consider the appropriate course of action which could include possibly capping sediments, changing habitat restoration designs, or, at a minimum, holding off on future projects until better solutions can be found in order to avoid significant and cumulative impacts. For the Pond SF 2 Reconfiguration, the Adaptive Management Plan identifies two applied studies associated with Pond SF2 that would test 1) bird use of different island configurations and vegetation, and 2) effects of human activities on island use and nesting success. (Applied Study Nos. 5 and 17 in the Adaptive Management Plan, pp of Appendix D of the EIS/R, Exhibit 3). Significant Effects Reduced To Less Than Significant Levels By Mitigation Reconfiguration of Pond SF2 Conversion of Pond SF2 to shallow water habitat is expected to have many beneficial impacts, particularly to shorebird species. However, this project also could have numerous significant impacts but these potential impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level with the mitigation measures described below and summarized in the (MMRP), attached as Exhibit 3. Water Quality. Two potentially significant impacts from reconfiguration of Pond SF2 were identified in the EIS/R: 1) impacts to water quality from contaminants other than mercury (Impact in Table A1) and 2) seawater intrusion of regional groundwater sources (Impact in Table A1). The potential contamination impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level by Page 19 of 24

20 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SALT PONDS RESTORATION: PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION the construction contractors adherence to Best Management Practices, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and RWQCB Waste Discharge Requirements (Mitigation Measures a,b,c,d,e,f in the MMRP). In addition, the landowner to minimize illegal dumping and litter and inform the public if there are any threats to public health due to bacterial growth will serve to also reduce or avoid these potential impacts. In regards to seawater intrusion, the potential impacts are reduced to a less-thansignificant level by properly destroying any abandoned wells in consultation with the local groundwater management agency. (Mitigation Measure in the MMRP.) Cultural Resources. Two potentially significant impacts to cultural resources were identified in the EIS/R: 1) disturbance of known or unknown cultural resources (Impact in Table A1), and 2) disturbance of historic salt ponds which may be considered a significant cultural landscape (Impact 3.8-2). The potential impact of disturbing cultural resources is reduced to a less-thansignificant level by pre-construction surveys and records search and appropriate protocols established for contractors if any resources are found (Mitigation Measures in the MMRP). To reduce disturbance of historic resources to a less-than-significant level, if the site is evaluated and found to be a significant cultural landscape, then appropriate documentation and public outreach and interpretation will be incorporated into the project. (Mitigation Measure in MMRP.) Traffic. Several potentially significant impacts related to traffic are identified in the EIS/R. Short-term impacts from construction traffic would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by scheduling truck trips outside of am and pm peak commute hours (Mitigation Measures in the MMRP). Potential increased wear and tear on local roads from construction will be reduced to a less-than-significant level by before and after documentation of road conditions and a pre-construction agreement between the project landowners and the local public works entity that details repair requirements. (Mitigation Measures in the MMRP) Noise. The EIS/R identified three potentially significant impacts from construction. Short-term construction noise (Impact ) will be reduced to a less-than-significant level by restrictions on the selection, placement and operation of construction equipment (Mitigation Measures in the MMRP). Traffic-related noise impacts (Impact ) will be reduced to a less-than-significant level by restrictions on hauling (Mitigation Measures in the MMRP). Pump operation noise impacts (Impact ) will be reduced to a less-than-significant level by enclosing pump that exceeds noise standards. (Mitigation Measures in the MMRP.) Air Quality. Several potentially significant impacts to air quality were identified in the EIS/R. Short-term construction-generated air pollutant emissions (Impact ) would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by implementation of Basic Control Measures (Mitigation Measures in the Page 20 of 24

21 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SALT PONDS RESTORATION: PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION MMRP). Exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminant emissions (Impact ) would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by restrictions on size and use of construction equipment and creation of a Health and Safety Plan. (Mitigation Measures a and b in MMRP). Utilities. The one potentially significant impact to the railroad line from construction activities only applies to Pond A16, not proposed for funding in this authorization. Although public access impacts to wildlife is an area of some concern to many of the project stakeholders, the EIS/R identified potential recreation-oriented impacts to sensitive species and their habitats as less-than-significant for all Phase I projects including Pond SF2. The reasons the public access trail and viewing platforms proposed as part of the Pond SF2 improvements are considered lessthan-significant are due to design of the trails and habitat features, e.g. the nesting islands are sited at least 600 feet away from the trail, and management, e.g. ability to seasonally close a trail if impacts to nesting species occur. However, there is uncertainty as to the amount of use of this trail, the degree to which wildlife would habituate to recreation use, and the behavior of trail users. To address this uncertainty the potential effects of human disturbance will be monitored through an applied study, and if impacts that are approaching a significant level are found, then the various management discussed in the Adaptive Management Plan would be implemented to prevent impacts from reaching a significant level. The applied study that will monitor public access impacts at Pond SF2, as well as other Phase I sites, would be funded by this authorization. Bayfront Park Overlook An at-grade viewing platform and interpretive station would provide historical and ecological information about the surrounding landscape and the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration project at a high point in an existing park in the City of Menlo Park. None of the potentially significant impacts identified in the EIS/R are applicable to the construction of an at-grade viewing area and installation of interpretive signs at Bayfront Park. The potentially significant impact from an increase in parking demand due to the construction of recreational facilities does not apply to the Bayfront Park project since it is in an existing park and not likely to noticeably increase use of the facility. Impacts to wildlife are unlikely since this viewing area is not close enough to wetland areas to create potential wildlife-human conflicts. Cumulative Impacts Finally, the EIS/R also identifies cumulative impacts for all of the project alternatives (including no action) and Phase I projects that have unavoidable potentially significant impacts to the environment. The impacts of the Phase I projects are not considerable, but become potentially significant when combined with those from numerous other wetland, flood control, Page 21 of 24

22 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SALT PONDS RESTORATION: PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION recreational, residential, commercial, and industrial projects completed or planned for in South San Francisco Bay in the near term (see Section in EIS/R for a discussion of other projects). However, for the two projects in this staff recommendation, cumulative impacts apply only to the proposed Pond SF2 project. Furthermore, only two of the cumulative impacts identified in the EIS/R apply to the Pond SF2 project. These impacts are an increased potential for coastal flood risk landward of the SBSP Restoration Project Area (Cumulative Impact 3.3-1) and an increased potential to cause localized, seasonally low dissolved oxygen ( DO ) levels as a result of algal blooms, increased microbial activity, or increased residence time of water (Cumulative Impact 3.4-2). In the case of Cumulative Impact Coastal Flood Risk, all alternatives, including no action, are potentially significant due to impacts from sea level rise and climate change. However, Alternatives B and C include construction of a flood protection levee or other measures to reduce the impacts of coastal flooding to a lessthan-significant level. However, no Phase I projects, including the Pond SF2 project, include construction of flood protection measures. If the project stops at Phase I, and does not include a future phase with flood protection measures, the combination of Phase I projects, sea level rise, and other projects could be potentially significant with no feasible mitigation. In order to address this potential for flood risks in the project area, the Conservancy, the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the U.S. Corps of Engineers have undertaken the South San Francisco Shoreline Study in order to assess flood risks and analyze potential solutions in the Santa Clara County portion of the project. It is anticipated that this Study will eventually lead to implementation of flood protection measures in the future. However, since the Shoreline Study is not complete and implementation funding is not secured, this Study cannot be considered mitigation for potentially significant cumulative impacts. In regards to Cumulative Impact Water Quality, the managed ponds have the potential to increase oxygen demand and can lead to discharges of water with low dissolved oxygen into the Bay. Under Alternative B, the SBSP Restoration project s Adaptive Management Plan would establish triggers and management to avoid significant impacts from discharges into the Bay and under Alternative C more tidal restoration would decrease the causes of low DO levels resulting in less-thansignificant impacts. However if the project stops after implementing the Phase I projects, the combination of Phase I projects and other projects without adaptive management measures to manage low DO, could have potentially significant impacts with no feasible mitigation. Project Benefits As DFG concluded in their CEQA findings, there are significant project benefits to the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration project in general as well as for Phase I projects. Conservancy staff has independently reviewed the EIS/R and its accompanying appendices, and the MMRP and concurs with this assessment. Among the numerous Page 22 of 24

23 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SALT PONDS RESTORATION: PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION benefits provided by the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project, those that specifically apply to the projects in this authorization, Pond SF2 Reconfiguration and the Bayfront Park overlook, include: Provide levee maintenance to ensure flood protection and reduce the potential effects on people and property from liquefaction, lateral spreading, settlement and subsequent flooding. Provide habitat for resident and migrating shorebirds and waterfowl by providing more extensive shallow water habitats and nesting islands than would occur in marshes that develop in ponds breached unintentionally. Provide suitable habitat for special-status plant species by revegetating upland transition zones. Increase public access and recreation opportunities within the Project Area. Increase viewing opportunities in the Project Area. Statement Of Overriding Considerations In the event a project has unavoidable significant potential effect, the CEQA Guidelines require the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Section 15093). If the specific project benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects of the project, a Statement of Overriding Consideration may be adopted and the project approved, despite its adverse environmental effects. DFG adopted a Statement of Overriding Consideration as part of its Finding of Facts on March 11, The overall environmental benefits of the proposed projects as detailed in the EIS/R, warrant the Conservancy s decision to approve the project even though not all of the environmental effects of the project are fully mitigated. As discussed above, the unavoidable cumulative significant impacts to coastal flooding and water quality are only when considering the Reconfiguration of Pond SF2 in combination with all Phase I projects and with all other near term projects in the South San Francisco Bay. In the absence of the proposed project, these impacts could still happen but without the habitat and other benefits (described in detail above) generated by reconfiguring Pond SF2. For these reasons, the Conservancy staff recommends that Conservancy find that the project, as mitigated, avoids or reduces to less than significant all potentially significant environmental effects, except for cumulative effects related to Flooding and Water Quality. With respect to these potential unavoidable effects, Conservancy staff likewise recommends that the Conservancy find that the specific environmental, resource, flood protection and public access enhancement benefits of the South Bay Salt Restoration Project Phase I projects proposed in this authorization, reconfiguration of Pond SF 2 and construction of the Bayfront Park overlook, outweigh the unmitigated or unavoidable environmental effects of the project, thereby warranting its approval. Page 23 of 24

24 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SALT PONDS RESTORATION: PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION Upon Conservancy approval of the proposed projects, Conservancy staff will prepare and file a Notice of Determination. Page 24 of 24

25 Exhibit 1: Project Location and Phase I Sites

26 Exhibit 1: Project Location and Phase I Sites

27 Exhibit 2: Restoration Plan (Exhibit 2 was attached to Conservancy member s copy of staff recommendation and otherwise available for review at (

28 Exhibit A1: Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA for Alternatives B and C Including Actions (Findings Table) Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures 3.3 Hydrology Flood Management and Infrastructure After Mitigation Potential for increased coastal flood risk landward of the SBSP Restoration Project Area Increased coastal flood risk due to regional changes in Bay bathymetry and hydrodynamics. LTS; no mitigation required. No feasible mitigation available. LTS, B for Alternatives B and C and PS for Alternatives B and C are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Finding for Alternatives B and C: No feasible mitigation is available. Therefore, if this impact occurs under the Project, it will be significant and unavoidable. DFG concludes that this impact is acceptable in light of the Project s benefits as set forth in DFG s Statement of Overriding Considerations. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(3).) Increased fluvial flood risk. LTS; no mitigation required. LTS, B for Alternatives B and C Finding for : Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Potentially Significant = PS January 2008 A1-1 Statement of Overriding Considerations

29 Exhibit A1: Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA for Alternatives B and C Including Actions (Findings Table) Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures Increased levee erosion along channel banks downstream of tidal breaches Potential interference with navigation. 3.4 Surface Water, Sediment and Groundwater Quality LTS; no mitigation required. LTS, B; no mitigation required. After Mitigation Alternatives B and C and LTS, B for Alternatives B and C and are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Changes in algal abundance and composition, which could in turn degrade water quality by lowering DO and/or promoting the growth of nuisance species Potential to cause localized, seasonally low DO levels as a result of algal blooms, increased microbial activity, or increased residence time of water Potential to mobilize, transport, and deposit mercurycontaminated sediments, leading to exceedance of numeric water quality objectives, TMDL allocations, and sediment quality guidelines for total mercury. LTS; no mitigation required. Alternatives B and C and are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) LTS; no mitigation required. Alternatives B and C and LTS; no mitigation required. Alternatives B and C and Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Potentially Significant = PS January 2008 A1-2 Statement of Overriding Considerations

30 Exhibit A1: Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA for Alternatives B and C Including Actions (Findings Table) Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures Potential increase in net methylmercury production and bioaccumulation in the food web. LTS; no mitigation required. After Mitigation Alternatives B and C and are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Potential impacts to water quality from other contaminants. SBSP Mitigation Measure 3.4-5a: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. This mitigates potential impacts due to construction related-activities and maintenance activities. The Project sponsors will obtain authorization from the RWQCB prior to beginning construction. As part of this application, the Project sponsors will prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and require all construction contractors to implement BMPs identified in the SWPPP for controlling soil erosion and discharges of other construction-related contaminants. Routine monitoring and inspection of BMPs will be conducted to ensure that the quality of stormwater discharges is in compliance with the permit. BMPs that will appear in the SWPPP include: Soil stabilization measures, such as preservation of existing vegetation and use of mulch or temporary plantings to minimize soil disturbance; Sediment control measures to prevent disturbed soils from entering waterways; Alternatives B and C and Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.4-5a-f will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. DFG hereby adopts these mitigation measures. DFG, therefore, finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIS/R. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(1).) Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Potentially Significant = PS January 2008 A1-3 Statement of Overriding Considerations

31 Exhibit A1: Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA for Alternatives B and C Including Actions (Findings Table) Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Potentially Significant = PS Mitigation Measures Tracking control measures to reduce sediments that leave the construction site on vehicle or equipment tires; and Nonstormwater discharge control measures, such as monitoring water quality of dewatering operations and hazardous material delivery, storage, and emergency spill response requirements, and measures by the Project sponsors to ensure that soilexcavation and movement activities are conducted in accordance with standard BMPs regarding excavation and dredging of bay muds as outlined in BCDC s bay dredge guidance documents. These include excavating channels during low tide; using dredge equipment, such as sealing clamshell buckets, designed to minimize escape of the fine grained materials; and testing dredge materials for contaminants. The contractor will select specific BMPs from each area, with Project sponsor approval, on a site-specific basis. The construction general contractor will ensure that the BMPs are implemented as appropriate throughout the duration of construction and will be responsible for subcontractor compliance with the SWPPP requirements. Other impacts due to construction-related and maintenance activities can be mitigated by appropriate additions to stormwater pollution prevention plans, including a plan for safe refueling of vehicles and spill containment After Mitigation January 2008 A1-4 Statement of Overriding Considerations

32 Exhibit A1: Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA for Alternatives B and C Including Actions (Findings Table) Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Potentially Significant = PS plans. An appropriate hazardous materials management plan will be developed for any activity that involves handling, transport or removal of hazardous materials. SBSP Mitigation Measure 3.4-5b: Selenium Management. This mitigates potential impacts from intrusion of selenium from high-selenium aquifers. As noted in Section 3.4.2, tissue-based selenium standards are currently being developed for the state of California by USEPA as part of updating the California Toxics Rule. Adoption by the state will include a plan and program of implementation. The timeline for this process is uncertain. It will likely take longer than the time to complete this EIS/R process, but is also likely to be completed before the end of the 50 year lifetime of the SBSP Restoration Project. Selenium standards and monitoring requirements will be addressed thorough the RWQCB Waste Discharge Requirements. As long as state policies and regulations are followed in the implementation of emerging selenium objectives, there will be no significant impacts to water quality. Based on experiences in other watersheds, the Project can expect that emerging selenium regulations will require: Monitoring chemical forms of selenium in water and sediments; Monitoring selenium in the food web; the National Science Panel recommended After Mitigation January 2008 A1-5 Statement of Overriding Considerations

33 Exhibit A1: Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA for Alternatives B and C Including Actions (Findings Table) Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Potentially Significant = PS Mitigation Measures leveraging of existing monitoring programs to monitor selenium in bivalves in the Bay. Development of food web models linking concentrations in water and sediments to concentrations in biota; and Development of management plans to avoid harmful selenium bioaccumulation. SBSP Mitigation Measure 3.4-5c: Actions to Minimize Illegal Discharge and Dumping. This mitigation addresses illegal discharge and dumping. The likelihood of increasing frequency of illegal discharge and dumping will be minimized with adequate public education and outreach, patrolling of the area, readily accessible and frequently serviced trash and recyclable materials receptacles, and timely clean-up activities. Specifically, the Project will undertake the following activities to ensure that existing programs and practices avoid impacts due to illegal discharge and dumping: Gate structures upstream of the Project Area will include a trash capture device that will prevent fouling of marsh and pond complexes; Plans for recreational access in the Project Area will include appropriate trash collection receptacles and a plan for ensuring regular collection and servicing; and No Littering signs will be posted in After Mitigation January 2008 A1-6 Statement of Overriding Considerations

34 Exhibit A1: Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA for Alternatives B and C Including Actions (Findings Table) Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures public access areas. SBSP Mitigation Measure 3.4-5d: Monitoring Sediments to Follow Existing Guidance and Comply with Emerging Regulations. This mitigation addresses potential impacts due to mobilization and transport of particleassociated pollutants. The Project will monitor contaminant concentrations in sediments whenever activities will involve moving, transporting, or emplacing soils and sediments or exposing older sediments by dredging and excavation. Existing guidance for the beneficial re-use of sediments establishes numeric screening guidelines for the placement of sediments in direct contact with water or at buried beneath a cover layer. This guidance may be refined by the State s emerging program of Sediment Quality Objectives. Monitoring data will be used to follow existing guidance and follow emerging regulations for the placement of sediments and other activities that affect mobilization and transport of sediments. This translates to the following specific : Sediment monitoring data will be used to determine appropriate disposal or beneficial re-use practices for sediments. If sediment monitoring data indicate that tidal scour outside a levee breach could remobilize sediments that are significantly After Mitigation Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Potentially Significant = PS January 2008 A1-7 Statement of Overriding Considerations

35 Exhibit A1: Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA for Alternatives B and C Including Actions (Findings Table) Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures more contaminated than Bay ambient conditions, the Project will consult with the appropriate regulatory agencies regarding other potential required. After Mitigation Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Potentially Significant = PS SBSP Mitigation Measure 3.4-5e: Urban Runoff Management. This mitigation addresses potential impacts due to increased interaction of urban runoff with the Project Area. The RWQCB has a coordinated program of permitting and enforcement for regulating urban runoff discharge. As long as policies and regulations prohibiting the discharge of constituents causing pollution are carried out, significant impacts from urban runoff will be avoided. The Project proponents will notify the appropriate Urban Runoff Program of any physical changes (such as breaches) that will introduce urban discharges into the Project Area, and request that the Urban Runoff Program consider those changes when developing annual monitoring plans. SBSP Mitigation Measure 3.4-5f: Bacteria Monitoring and Risk Communication. This mitigation addresses for potential impacts due to bacterial growth in restored areas. The SBSP Restoration Project s National Science Panel recommended that monitoring be conducted for avian botulism and bivalve disease and toxicity to humans. Mitigation January 2008 A1-8 Statement of Overriding Considerations

36 Exhibit A1: Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA for Alternatives B and C Including Actions (Findings Table) Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures Potential to cause seawater intrusion of regional groundwater sources. measures for avian botulism are discussed under SBSP Impact The Project will consider the need for additional monitoring of shellfish as each phase is implemented. For protection of public health, a program of public outreach and communication will be developed and implemented. The program will include posting of warning signs in multiple languages where monitoring data indicate the need to advise the public of exposure risks from swimming or shellfish consumption. SBSP Mitigation Measure 3.4-6: USFWS and DFG (Project proponents) will coordinate with ACWD and SCVWD to ensure that the following activities take place: If any abandoned wells are found before or during construction they will be properly destroyed by the Project as per local and State regulations by coordinating such activities with the local water district. If abandoned wells are located during restoration or other future activities within ACWD or SCVWD boundaries, a well destruction work plan will be prepared in consultation with ACWD or SCVWD (as appropriate) to ensure conformance to ACWD or SCVWD specifications. The work plan will include consulting the databases of well locations already provided by ACWD and SCVWD. The Project will properly destroy both After Mitigation Alternatives B and C and Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. DFG hereby adopts this mitigation measure. DFG, therefore, finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIS/R. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(1).) Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Potentially Significant = PS January 2008 A1-9 Statement of Overriding Considerations

37 Exhibit A1: Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA for Alternatives B and C Including Actions (Findings Table) Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures improperly abandoned wells and existing wells within the Project Area that are subject to inundation by breaching levees. Well destruction methods will meet local, county and state regulations. The Project proponents will also lend support and cooperation with any well identification and destruction program that may be undertaken as part of the Shoreline Study or other projects; The Project proponents will assist ACWD and SCVWD to obtain funding for the development, implementation, analysis and reporting of groundwater levels and groundwater quality adjacent to the Project boundaries. If groundwater monitoring detects seawater intrusion, the Project proponents will participate and assist ACWD and SCVWD in identifying the sources and causes, and in selecting and implementing an appropriate mitigation measure; and The Project will work to assist ACWD and SCVWD in the development and implementation of communication and outreach strategies that ensure groundwater users are informed on groundwater levels, quality, usage, and the linkage between groundwater overdraft and salinity intrusion. Groundwater data will be shared with groundwater users to the extent After Mitigation Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Potentially Significant = PS January 2008 A1-10 Statement of Overriding Considerations

38 Exhibit A1: Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA for Alternatives B and C Including Actions (Findings Table) Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures 3.5 Geology, Seismicity and Soils allowed by law. All of these mitigation are coordination and communication activities that require voluntary participation of the water agencies. An advantage of Alternatives B and C over the No Action Alternative with respect to SBSP Impact is that Project activities would motivate regional coordination concerning groundwater protection over the 50-year Project lifetime through these mitigation measures. After Mitigation Potential effects from settlement and subsidence due to consolidation of Bay mud Potential effects from liquefaction of soils and lateral spreading. LTS; no mitigation required. LTS; no mitigation required. LTS, B for Alternatives B and C LTS, B for Alternatives B and C are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Potentially Significant = PS January 2008 A1-11 Statement of Overriding Considerations

39 Exhibit A1: Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA for Alternatives B and C Including Actions (Findings Table) Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures Potential effects from tsunami and/or seiche Potential for ground and levee failure from fault rupture. LTS; no mitigation required. LTS; no mitigation required. After Mitigation LTS, B for Alternatives B and C Alternatives B and C and at Alviso and Ravenswood are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Potential effects from consolidation of Bay mud on existing subsurface utility crossings and surface rail crossings. LTS; no mitigation required. No Impact for action at Eden Landing Alternatives B and C and at Eden Landing and Alviso are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) No Impact for action at Ravenswood Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Potentially Significant = PS January 2008 A1-12 Statement of Overriding Considerations

40 Exhibit A1: Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA for Alternatives B and C Including Actions (Findings Table) Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures 3.6 Biological Resources After Mitigation Potential reduction in number of small shorebirds using San Francisco Bay, resulting in substantial declines in flywaylevel populations. LTS; no mitigation required. Alternatives B and C LTS, B for Alternatives B and C and are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Loss of intertidal mudflats and reduction of habitat for mudflatassociated wildlife species. LTS; no mitigation required. are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Potential habitat conversion impacts to western snowy plovers. LTS; no mitigation required. Alternatives B and C and Potential reduction in the numbers of breeding, pondassociated waterbirds (avocets, stilts, and terns) using the South Bay due to reduction in habitat, concentration effects, displacement by nesting California gulls, and other Project-related effects. LTS; no mitigation required. Alternatives B and C LTS, B for Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Potentially Significant = PS January 2008 A1-13 Statement of Overriding Considerations

41 Exhibit A1: Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA for Alternatives B and C Including Actions (Findings Table) Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures Potential reduction in the numbers of non-breeding, saltpond-associated birds (e.g., phalaropes, eared grebes, and Bonaparte s gulls) as a result of habitat loss Potential reduction in foraging habitat for diving ducks, resulting in declines in flyway-level populations Reduction in foraging habitat for ruddy ducks, resulting in declines in flyway-level populations. LTS; no mitigation required. LTS; no mitigation required. No feasible mitigation is available. After Mitigation Alternatives B and C and Alternatives B and C LTS, B for PS for Alternatives B and C LTS, B for are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Finding for Alternatives B and C: No feasible mitigation is available. Therefore, if this impact occurs under the Project, it will be significant and unavoidable. DFG concludes that this impact is acceptable in light of the Project s benefits as set forth in DFG s Statement of Overriding Considerations. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(3).) Finding for : Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Potentially Significant = PS January 2008 A1-14 Statement of Overriding Considerations

42 Exhibit A1: Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA for Alternatives B and C Including Actions (Findings Table) Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures Potential habitat conversion impacts on California least terns Potential loss of pickleweeddominated tidal salt marsh habitat for the salt marsh harvest mouse and salt marsh wandering shrew, and further isolation of these species populations, due to breaching activities and scour Potential construction-related loss of or disturbance to specialstatus, marsh-associated wildlife Potential construction-related loss of, or disturbance to, nesting pond-associated birds. LTS; no mitigation required. LTS, B; no mitigation required. LTS; no mitigation required. LTS; no mitigation required. After Mitigation Alternatives B and C LTS, B for LTS, B for Alternatives B and C and Alternatives B and C LTS, B for Alternatives B and C and are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Potentially Significant = PS January 2008 A1-15 Statement of Overriding Considerations

43 Exhibit A1: Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA for Alternatives B and C Including Actions (Findings Table) Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures Potential disturbance to or loss of sensitive wildlife species due to ongoing monitoring, maintenance, and management activities Potential effects of habitat conversion and pond management on steelhead Potential impacts to estuarine fish Potential impacts to piscivorous birds Potential impacts to dabbling ducks. LTS; no mitigation required. LTS; no mitigation required. LTS, B; no mitigation required. LTS; no mitigation required. LTS, B; no mitigation required. After Mitigation Alternatives B and C LTS, B for LTS, B for Alternatives B and C LTS, B for Alternatives B and C and Alternatives B and C LTS, B for LTS, B for Alternatives B and C and are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Potentially Significant = PS January 2008 A1-16 Statement of Overriding Considerations

44 Exhibit A1: Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA for Alternatives B and C Including Actions (Findings Table) Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Potential impacts to harbor seals. LTS, B; no mitigation required. LTS, B for Alternatives B and C and Potential recreation-oriented impacts to sensitive species and their habitats Potential impacts to specialstatus plants Colonization of mudflats and marshplain by non-native Spartina and its hybrids. LTS; no mitigation required. LTS; no mitigation required. LTS; no mitigation required. Alternatives B and C and LTS, B for Alternatives B and C Alternatives B and C and at Eden Landing and Alviso are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) No Impact for action at Ravenswood Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Potentially Significant = PS January 2008 A1-17 Statement of Overriding Considerations

45 Exhibit A1: Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA for Alternatives B and C Including Actions (Findings Table) Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures Colonization by non-native Lepidium Potential increase in exposure of wildlife to avian botulism and other diseases Potential impacts to bay shrimp populations. 3.7 Recreation Resources LTS; no mitigation required. LTS; no mitigation required. LTS, B; no mitigation required. After Mitigation Alternatives B and C and Alternatives B and C and LTS, B for Alternatives B and C and are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Provision of new public access and recreation facilities, including the opening of new areas for recreational purposes and completion of the Bay Trail spine. LTS, B; no mitigation required. LTS, B for Alternatives B and C and are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Potentially Significant = PS January 2008 A1-18 Statement of Overriding Considerations

46 Exhibit A1: Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA for Alternatives B and C Including Actions (Findings Table) Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures Permanent removal of existing recreational features (trails) in locations that visitors have been accustomed to using and that would not be replaced in the general vicinity of the removed feature. 3.8 Cultural Resources LTS; no mitigation required for Alternative B. No feasible mitigation is available for Alternative C. After Mitigation Alternative B PS for Alternative C No Impact for Finding for Alternative B and : Under CEQA, no mitigation are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Finding for Alternative C: No feasible mitigation is available for Alternative C. Therefore, if this impact occurs under the Project, it will be significant and unavoidable. DFG concludes that this impact is acceptable in light of the Project s benefits as set forth in DFG s Statement of Overriding Considerations. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(3).) Potential disturbance of known and/or unknown cultural resources. SBSP Mitigation Measure 3.8-1: Discovery of Unknown Resources. Background. Restoration planned for the SBSP Restoration Project Area shall be treated as individual archaeological projects. The overall record search for this EIS/R was performed in June A new record search shall be performed for any projects within the SBSP Restoration Project Area where the previous record search is more than five years old. Site Survey. Prior to the beginning of any Alternatives B and C and Finding: Implementation of SBSP Mitigation Measure and Mitigation Measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. DFG hereby adopts these mitigation measures. DFG, therefore, finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIS/R. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(1).) Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Potentially Significant = PS January 2008 A1-19 Statement of Overriding Considerations

47 Exhibit A1: Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA for Alternatives B and C Including Actions (Findings Table) Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Potentially Significant = PS Project construction activity that could affect the previously unsurveyed portions of the Project Area, qualified professional archaeologists shall be retained to inventory all portions of the restoration site that have not been examined previously or have not been examined within the last 15 years. The survey(s) shall be conducted during a time when the ground surfaces of potential project sites are visible so the natural ground surface can be examined for traces of prehistoric and/or historic-era cultural resources. If the survey(s) reveals the presence of cultural resources on the Project site (e.g., unusual amounts of shell, animal bone, bottle glass, ceramics, and structure/building remains), and those resources have not been dealt with sufficiently in any Cultural Landscape documentation, the resources shall be documented according to current professional standards. The resources shall be evaluated for potential eligibility to the NRHP or CRHR. Depending on the evaluation, additional mitigation measures may be required, including avoidance of the resource through changes in construction methods or Project design or implementation of a program of testing and data recovery, in accordance with all applicable federal and state requirements. Pre-Construction Contractor Education. Prior to any Project-related construction, a professional archaeologist shall be retained to After Mitigation January 2008 A1-20 Statement of Overriding Considerations

48 Exhibit A1: Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA for Alternatives B and C Including Actions (Findings Table) Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Potentially Significant = PS address machinery operators and their supervisors, preferably by giving an on-site talk to the people who will perform the actual earthmoving activities. This will alert the operators to the potential for finding historic or prehistoric cultural resources. Construction Monitoring. Any Project-related construction that occurs within 100 ft (30 m) of a known prehistoric resource shall be monitored by a qualified professional archaeologist and a Native American monitor. If elements of the known resource or previously unknown cultural resources are encountered during Project construction, all grounddisturbing activities shall halt within a 100-ft radius of the find. The archaeologist shall identify the materials, determine their possible significance, and formulate appropriate measures for their treatment in consultation with the Native American monitor, Most Likely Descendant (MLD), or appropriate Native American representative and the appropriate Lead Agency. Potential treatment methods for significant and potentially significant resources may include, but would not be limited to, no action (i.e., resources determined not to be significant), avoidance of the resource through changes in construction methods or Project design, or implementation of a program of testing and data recovery, in accordance with all applicable federal and state requirements. These measures shall be implemented prior to After Mitigation January 2008 A1-21 Statement of Overriding Considerations

49 Exhibit A1: Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA for Alternatives B and C Including Actions (Findings Table) Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Potentially Significant = PS resumption of Project construction. Unanticipated Finds. If contractors identify possible cultural resources, such as unusual amounts of bone, stone, or shell, they shall be instructed to halt operation in the vicinity of the find and follow the appropriate contact procedures. Work shall not resume in the vicinity of the find until a qualified professional archaeologist has had the opportunity to examine the finds. The archaeologist shall identify the materials, determine their possible significance, if the finds are prehistoric, formulate appropriate measures for their treatment in consultation with the Native American monitor, MLD, or appropriate Native American representative and the appropriate Lead Agency. Potential treatment methods for significant and potentially significant resources may include, but would not be limited to, no action (i.e., resources determined not to be significant), avoidance of the resource through changes in construction methods or Project design, or implementation of a program of testing and data recovery, in accordance with all applicable federal and state requirements. These measures shall be implemented prior to resumption of Project construction. Human Remains. California law recognizes the need to protect interred human remains, particularly Native American burials and associated items of patrimony, from vandalism and inadvertent destruction. The procedures for After Mitigation January 2008 A1-22 Statement of Overriding Considerations

50 Exhibit A1: Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA for Alternatives B and C Including Actions (Findings Table) Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Potentially Significant = PS the treatment of discovered human remains are contained in California Health and Safety Code Section and Section 7052 and California Public Resources Code Section The California Health and Safety Code requires that if human remains are found in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, work is to be halted in the immediate area. The appropriate Agency or the Agency s designated representative shall be notified. The Agency shall immediately notify the county coroner and a qualified professional archaeologist. The coroner is required to examine all discoveries of human remains within 48 hours of receiving notice of a discovery on private or state lands (Health and Safety Code Section [b]). If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American interment, then coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The MLD may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods, as provided in Public Resources Code Section The landowner or his authorized representative shall After Mitigation January 2008 A1-23 Statement of Overriding Considerations

51 Exhibit A1: Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA for Alternatives B and C Including Actions (Findings Table) Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures Disturbance of the historic salt ponds and associated structures which may be considered a significant cultural landscape. rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance if: (1) the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a MLD or (2) the MLD fails to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission or (3) if the landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. Mitigation Measure 3.8-1: Protection for Site ALA-593H If ALA-593H (at Ponds E12 and E13) is determined to be eligible for listing to either the NRHP or CRHR, it shall be capped with soil or other appropriate materials and planted with vegetation similar to that found elsewhere on the levee to protect it. SBSP Mitigation Measure 3.8-2: Cultural Landscape, Inventory of Resources, Treatment of Finds. Cultural Landscape. Prior to implementation of any restoration action, a qualified professional shall be retained to determine whether the various salt works-related ponds, buildings, objects, and structures lining the After Mitigation Alternatives B and C and Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. DFG hereby adopts this mitigation measure. DFG, therefore, finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid the significant environmental effect as Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Potentially Significant = PS January 2008 A1-24 Statement of Overriding Considerations

52 Formatted: Normal Exhibit A1: Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA for Alternatives B and C Including Actions (Findings Table) Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures southern San Francisco Bay will be reviewed as a cultural landscape within the historic context and evaluation framework developed for this Project. This will be done for each Project phase. If a cultural landscape is identified, a determination must be made concerning NRHP and/or CRHR eligibility. If the landscape is determined to be eligible for listing to the NRHP and/or CRHR, an assessment of the Project s effects on the landscape will be conducted. This study shall include documentation of contributing elements to the resources, a list of non-contributing elements, and recommendations regarding any additional mitigation or treatment needed. Mitigation measures may include tasks such as Historic American Building Survey 1 / Historic American Engineering Record 2 / Historic American Landscapes Survey 3 (HABS/HAER/HALS) documentation, videotaping resources, a public outreach program, or signage at appropriate points along the proposed recreational trails. After Mitigation identified in the Final EIS/R. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(1).) 1 The Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) is the nation's first federal preservation program, begun by the American Institute of Architects, the Library of Congress, and NPS in 1933 to document America's architectural heritage. HABS recording combines drawings, history, and photography to produce a comprehensive, interdisciplinary record. The documentation ranges in scope depending largely upon the level of significance and complexity. 2 The Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) was established in 1969 by the NPS, the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Library of Congress to document historic sites and structures related to engineering and industry. Appropriate subjects for documentation are individual sites or objects, such as a bridge, ship, or steel works; or larger systems, like railroads, canals, electronic generation and transmission networks, parkways and roads. 3 The Historic American Landscapes Survey (HALS) mission is to record historic landscapes in the United States and its territories through measured drawings and interpretive drawings, written histories, and large-format black and white photographs and color photographs. Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Potentially Significant = PS January 2008 A1-25 Statement of Overriding Considerations

53 Exhibit A1: Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA for Alternatives B and C Including Actions (Findings Table) 3.9 Land Use Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Land use compatibility impacts. LTS, B; no mitigation required. LTS, B for Alternatives B and C and are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) 3.10 Public Health and Vector Management Potential increase in mosquito populations. LTS; no mitigation required. Alternatives B and C and are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) 3.11 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice Displace, relocate, or increase area businesses, particularly those associated with the expected increase in recreational users Change lifestyles and social inter. LTS, B; no mitigation required. LTS, B for Alternatives B and C and are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) LTS, B; no mitigation required. LTS, B for Alternatives B and C and Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Potentially Significant = PS January 2008 A1-26 Statement of Overriding Considerations

54 Exhibit A1: Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA for Alternatives B and C Including Actions (Findings Table) Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures Effects disproportionately placed on minority and low-income communities or effects on the ethnic or racial composition in a community Traffic LTS, B; no mitigation required. After Mitigation LTS, B for Alternatives B and C and are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Potential short-term degradation of traffic levels on a roadway or at an intersection due to construction Potential long-term degradation of traffic levels on a roadway or an intersection. SBSP Mitigation Measure : Timing of construction-related truck trips. The landowners (DFG and USFWS) shall include in construction plans and specifications the requirement that construction-related truck trips, specifically deliveries of fill and equipment, shall occur outside the weekday am and pm peak commute traffic hours. LTS; no mitigation required. Alternatives B and C and Alternatives B and C and Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. DFG hereby adopts this mitigation measure. DFG, therefore, finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIS/R. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(1).) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Potentially Significant = PS January 2008 A1-27 Statement of Overriding Considerations

55 Exhibit A1: Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA for Alternatives B and C Including Actions (Findings Table) Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures Potential increase in parking demand Potential increase in wear and tear on the designated haul routes during construction. SBSP Mitigation Measure : Parking at recreational facilities. The Landowners (DFG and USFWS), in coordination with the cities with jurisdiction over the proposed recreation improvements (where applicable), shall design recreational facilities with sufficient parking spaces to accommodate the projected increase in vehicles that access the site, unless adequate off-site parking is available to offset the demand for parking spaces. SBSP Mitigation Measure : Videotape road conditions. If residential streets are part of the designated haul route for any future phases of the SBSP Restoration Project, the landowners shall prepare a videotape of road conditions prior to the start-up of construction for the residential streets affected by the Project. The landowners (DFG and USFWS) shall prepare a similar videotape of road conditions after Project construction is completed. The pre- and postconstruction conditions of haul routes shall be reviewed by staff of the local Public Works Department. An agreement shall be entered into prior to construction that will detail the pre-construction conditions and postconstruction requirements of the roadway rehabilitation program. After Mitigation Alternatives B and C and Alternatives B and C and Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. DFG hereby adopts this mitigation measure. DFG, therefore, finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIS/R. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(1).) Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. DFG hereby adopts this mitigation measure. DFG, therefore, finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIS/R. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(1).) Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Potentially Significant = PS January 2008 A1-28 Statement of Overriding Considerations

56 Exhibit A1: Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA for Alternatives B and C Including Actions (Findings Table) 3.13 Noise Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Short-term construction noise effects. SBSP Mitigation Measure : Short-term noise effects. The landowners shall include in construction plans and specifications the following requirement: All construction activities shall be limited to the days and hours or noise levels designated for each jurisdiction where work activities occur, as specified below; Eden Landing o City of Hayward: construction activities shall occur between 7 am and 7 pm Monday through Saturday and 10 am to 6 pm Sunday and holidays only. Alviso o o o City of San Jose: construction activities shall not exceed 55 dba at residential-zoned districts except upon issuance of and in compliance with a Conditional Use Permit; City of Fremont: there are no restrictions for temporary construction activities; City of Sunnyvale: construction activities shall occur between 7 am and 6 pm Monday through Alternatives B and C and Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. DFG hereby adopts this mitigation measure. DFG, therefore, finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIS/R. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(1).) Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Potentially Significant = PS January 2008 A1-29 Statement of Overriding Considerations

57 Exhibit A1: Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA for Alternatives B and C Including Actions (Findings Table) Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures Friday and 8 am to 5 pm on Saturday. Construction activities shall not occur during Sunday or national holidays; o Santa Clara County: construction activities shall occur during the daytime hours of 7 am to 7 pm Monday through Saturday, except legal holidays; and o City of Mountain View: construction activities shall occur between 7 am and 6 pm Monday through Friday. Construction activities shall not occur during Saturdays, Sundays or holidays unless prior written approval is granted by the building official. Ravenswood o City of Menlo Park: construction activities shall occur between 8 am and 6 pm Monday through Friday only. Locate all construction equipment staging areas at the furthest distance possible from nearby noise-sensitive land uses; and Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and equipped with noise control, such as mufflers, in accordance with manufacturers specifications. After Mitigation Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Potentially Significant = PS January 2008 A1-30 Statement of Overriding Considerations

58 Exhibit A1: Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA for Alternatives B and C Including Actions (Findings Table) Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures Traffic-related noise impacts during construction Traffic-related noise effects during operation. SBSP Mitigation Measure : Trafficrelated noise. The landowners shall include in construction plans and specifications the following requirement: Contractors shall use haul routes that minimizes traffic through residential areas. Material hauling shall be conducted during the day-time hours only as specified in SBSP Mitigation Measure ; and A portion of the fill for the construction of the proposed levees that provide flood protection and/or habitat features shall be transported via barge. The percentage of fill transported by barge shall be determined when the amount of construction fill required for each phase of construction has been determined. The contractor shall determine the portion of fill that will be conveyed by barge based on an assessment of the land uses along proposal haul routes. LTS; no mitigation required. After Mitigation Alternatives B and C and Alternatives B and C and Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. DFG hereby adopts this mitigation measure. DFG, therefore, finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIS/R. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(1).) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Potentially Significant = PS January 2008 A1-31 Statement of Overriding Considerations

59 Exhibit A1: Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA for Alternatives B and C Including Actions (Findings Table) Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures Potential operational noise effects from pump operation and other O&M activities Potential vibration effects during construction and/or operation Air Quality SBSP Mitigation Measure : Operation of portable pumps. Where portable pumps would be operated in the vicinity of sensitive receptors such that noise levels would exceed noise standards established by affected jurisdictions, the landowners shall enclose the portable pump to ensure that a reduction of up to 10 db at 50 ft (15 m) is achieved and the noise levels of affected jurisdictions are met. LTS; no mitigation required. After Mitigation Alternatives B and C and Alternatives B and C and Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. DFG hereby adopts this mitigation measure. DFG, therefore, finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIS/R. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(1).) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Short-term constructiongenerated air pollutant emissions. SBSP Mitigation Measure : Short- Term Construction-Generated Emissions. The following Basic Control Measures shall be implemented at all construction sites within the Project Area, regardless of size: Water all active construction areas at least twice daily, and more often during times of high wind; Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least 2 ft (0.6 m) of freeboard; Pave, apply water three times daily, or Alternatives B and C and Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. DFG hereby adopts this mitigation measure. DFG, therefore, finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIS/R. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(1).) Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Potentially Significant = PS January 2008 A1-32 Statement of Overriding Considerations

60 Exhibit A1: Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA for Alternatives B and C Including Actions (Findings Table) Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites; Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites; and Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. The following Enhanced Measures shall be implemented at construction sites larger than four acres: Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more); Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (e.g., dirt, sand); To the extent practicable, limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph; Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways; Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible; and Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the site. After Mitigation Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Potentially Significant = PS January 2008 A1-33 Statement of Overriding Considerations

61 Exhibit A1: Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA for Alternatives B and C Including Actions (Findings Table) Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures Potential long-term operational air pollutant emissions Potential exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminant emissions. These additional Optional Measures shall be implemented if further emission reductions are deemed necessary by the USFWS, DFG, or BAAQMD: Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph; and Limit the area subject to excavation, grading and other construction activity at any one time. According to BAAQMD, if the required mitigation measures are implemented during project construction, short-term generated emissions would be reduced to a less-thansignificant level. LTS; no mitigation required. SBSP Mitigation Measure a: TAC emissions from construction within 500 ft (152 m) of sensitive receptors will require the following: Pursuant to BAAQMD Rule 6, the Project shall ensure that emissions from all offroad diesel-powered equipment used on the Project site do not exceed 40 percent opacity for more than three minutes in any one hour. Any equipment found to exceed After Mitigation Alternatives B and C and Alternatives B and C and are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures a-b will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. DFG hereby adopts these mitigation measures. DFG, therefore, finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIS/R. (CEQA Guidelines, Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Potentially Significant = PS January 2008 A1-34 Statement of Overriding Considerations

62 Exhibit A1: Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA for Alternatives B and C Including Actions (Findings Table) Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Potentially Significant = PS Mitigation Measures 40 percent opacity (or Ringelmann 2.0) shall be repaired immediately, and USFWS, DFG, and BAAQMD shall be notified within 48 hours of identification of noncompliant equipment. A visual survey of all in-operation equipment shall be made at least weekly, and a monthly summary of the visual survey results shall be submitted throughout the duration of the Project, except that the monthly summary shall not be required for any 30-day period in which no construction activity occurs. The monthly summary shall include the quantity and type of vehicles surveyed as well as the dates of each survey. BAAQMD and/or other officials may conduct periodic site inspections to determine compliance. USFWS and DFG shall provide a plan for approval by BAAQMD demonstrating that the heavy-duty (more than 50 horsepower) off-road vehicles to be used in the construction Project, including owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles, would achieve a Project-wide fleet average 45 percent particulate reduction compared to the most recent CARB fleet average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions may include use of late-model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels (e.g., Lubrizol, Puri NO x, biodiesel fuel) in all heavy duty off-road equipment. After Mitigation 15091, subd. (a)(1).) January 2008 A1-35 Statement of Overriding Considerations

63 Exhibit A1: Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA for Alternatives B and C Including Actions (Findings Table) Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Potentially Significant = PS Mitigation Measures USFWS and DFG shall require in construction plans and specifications that the model year of all off-road construction moving equipment shall not be older than USFWS and DFG shall require in construction plans and specifications a provision that prohibits contractors from operating pre-1996 heavy-duty diesel equipment on forecast Spare-the-Air Days or on days when air quality advisories are issued because of special circumstances (e.g., wildfires, industrial fires). USFWS and DFG shall minimize idling time to 10 minutes for all heavy-duty equipment when not engaged in work activities, including on-road haul trucks while being loaded or unloaded on-site. Staging areas and equipment maintenance activities shall be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible. In addition, where feasible and applicable, USFWS and DFG shall do the following: Establish an activity schedule designed to minimize traffic congestion around the construction site Periodically inspect construction sites to ensure construction equipment is properly maintained at all times. Require the use of low sulfur fuel (diesel with 15 parts per million or less) After Mitigation January 2008 A1-36 Statement of Overriding Considerations

64 Exhibit A1: Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA for Alternatives B and C Including Actions (Findings Table) Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures Utilize EPA-registered particulate traps and other appropriate controls to reduce emissions of diesel particulate matter and other pollutants at the construction site. SBSP Mitigation Measure b: Health and Safety Plan The landowners and/or its contractors shall prepare a Health and Safety Plan that includes Project-specific monitoring procedures and action levels for dust. The portion of the plan that relates to the control of toxic contaminants contained in fugitive dust shall be prepared in coordination with BAAQMD. The recommendations of BAAQMD to prevent the exposure of sensitive receptors to levels above applicable thresholds (probability of contracting cancer for MEI that exceeds 10 in one million or if ground level concentrations of non-carcinogenic contaminants result in hazard index greater than one for the MEI) shall be implemented. The Health and Safety Plan, applicable to all excavation activities, shall establish policies and procedures to protect workers and the public from potential hazards posed by hazardous materials (including notification procedures to nearby sensitive receptors within 1,000 ft informing them of construction activities that may generate dust containing toxic contaminants). The plan shall be prepared according to federal and California OSHA regulations. The landowners and/or its After Mitigation Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Potentially Significant = PS January 2008 A1-37 Statement of Overriding Considerations

65 Exhibit A1: Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA for Alternatives B and C Including Actions (Findings Table) Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures After Mitigation contractors shall maintain a copy of the Plan on-site during construction activities Potential odor emissions. LTS; no mitigation required. Alternatives B and C and 3.15 Public Services are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Increased demand for fire and police protection services. LTS; no mitigation required. Alternatives B and C and are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) 3.16 Utilities Reduced ability to access PG&E towers, stations or electrical transmission lines. LTS; no mitigation required. Alternatives B and C and at Alviso and Ravenswood are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) No Impact for action at Eden Landing Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Potentially Significant = PS January 2008 A1-38 Statement of Overriding Considerations

66 Exhibit A1: Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA for Alternatives B and C Including Actions (Findings Table) Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures Reduced clearance between waterways and PG&E electrical transmission lines Reduced structural integrity of PG&E towers. LTS; no mitigation required. LTS; no mitigation required. After Mitigation Alternatives B and C No Impact for Alternatives B and C and at Alviso and Ravenswood are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Changes in water level, tidal flow and sedimentation near storm drain systems. LTS; no mitigation required. No Impact for action at Eden Landing Alternatives B and C and at Eden Landing and Alviso are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), No Impact for action at Ravenswood Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Potentially Significant = PS January 2008 A1-39 Statement of Overriding Considerations

67 Exhibit A1: Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA for Alternatives B and C Including Actions (Findings Table) Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures Changes in water level, tidal flow and sedimentation near pumping facilities Changes in water level, tidal flow and sedimentation near sewer force mains and outfalls. LTS; no mitigation required. LTS; no mitigation required. After Mitigation Alternatives B and C and Alternatives B and C and action at Alviso are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Disrupt Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct service so as to create a public health hazard or extended service disruption. LTS; no mitigation required. No Impact for at Eden Landing and Ravenswood Alternatives B and C and are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Potentially Significant = PS January 2008 A1-40 Statement of Overriding Considerations

68 Exhibit A1: Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA for Alternatives B and C Including Actions (Findings Table) Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures Disruption of rail service due to construction of coastal flood levees and tidal habitat restoration Reduced access to sewer force mains due to levee construction Aesthetics SBSP Mitigation Measure : The Landowners shall coordinate with UPRR on the design of the UPRR improvements to ensure that rail service is maintained during construction of flood control and restoration elements in and around Pond A16. LTS; no mitigation required. After Mitigation Alternatives B and C No Impact for Alternatives B and C No Impact for Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. DFG hereby adopts this mitigation measure. DFG, therefore, finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIS/R. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(1).) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Alter views of the SBSP Restoration Project Area. LTS, B; no mitigation required. LTS, B for Alternatives B and C and are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Alter the existing visual character of the Project Area and its surroundings. LTS, B; no mitigation required. LTS, B for Alternatives B and C and Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Potentially Significant = PS January 2008 A1-41 Statement of Overriding Considerations

69 Exhibit A2: Table of Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA (Cumulative Impacts Findings Table) Cumulative Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures 3.3 Hydrology Flood Management and Infrastructure After Mitigation Potential for increased coastal flood risk landward of the SBSP Restoration Project Area. No mitigation required under Alternatives B and C. No feasible mitigation available for. Alternatives B and C CS for Phase 1 Finding for Alternatives B and C: Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Increased coastal flood risk due to regional changes in Bay bathymetry and hydrodynamics. No feasible mitigation available. CS for Alternatives B and C and Increased fluvial flood risk. LTS; no mitigation required. LTS, B for Alternatives Finding for : The impacts of past, present, and future projects identified in the EIS/R are considered to be cumulative significant in combination with the Project. DFG concludes that the impact is acceptable in light of the project benefits as set forth in DFG s Statement of Overriding Considerations. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(3).) Finding: The impacts of past, present, and future projects identified in the EIS/R are considered to be cumulative significant in combination with the Project. DFG concludes that the impact is acceptable in light of the project benefits as set forth in DFG s Statement of Overriding Considerations. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(3).) Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Cumulative Significant = CS January 2008 A2-1 Statement of Overriding Considerations

70 Exhibit A2: Table of Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA (Cumulative Impacts Findings Table) Cumulative Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures Increased levee erosion along channel banks downstream of tidal breaches. LTS; no mitigation required. After Mitigation B and C Alternatives B and C and Potential interference with navigation. LTS, B; no mitigation required. LTS, B for Alternatives B and C and 3.4 Surface Water, Sediment and Groundwater Quality are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Changes in algal abundance and composition, which could in turn degrade water quality by lowering DO and/or promoting the growth of nuisance species. No feasible mitigation available. CS for Alternatives B and C and Finding: The impacts of past, present, and future projects identified in the EIS/R are considered to be cumulative significant in combination with the Project. DFG concludes that the impact is acceptable in light of the project benefits as set forth in DFG s Statement of Overriding Considerations. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(3).) Finding for Alternatives B and C: Under CEQA, no mitigation measures Potential to cause localized, seasonally low DO levels as a result Alternatives B and C; no mitigation required. Alternatives Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Cumulative Significant = CS January 2008 A2-2 Statement of Overriding Considerations

71 Exhibit A2: Table of Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA (Cumulative Impacts Findings Table) Cumulative Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures of algal blooms, increased microbial activity, or increased residence time of water. CS for ; no feasible mitigation available. After Mitigation B and C CS for Phase 1 are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Finding for : The impacts of past, present, and future projects identified in the EIS/R are considered to be cumulative significant in combination with the Project. DFG concludes that the impact is acceptable in light of the project benefits as set forth in DFG s Statement of Overriding Considerations. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(3).) Finding: The impacts of past, present, and future projects identified in the EIS/R are considered to be cumulative significant in combination with the Project. DFG concludes that the impact is acceptable in light of the project benefits as set forth in DFG s Statement of Overriding Considerations. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(3).) Finding: The impacts of past, present, and future projects identified in the EIS/R are considered to be cumulative significant in combination with the Project. DFG concludes that the impact is acceptable in light of the project benefits as set forth in DFG s Statement Potential to mobilize, transport, and deposit mercury-contaminated sediments, leading to exceedance of numeric water quality objectives, TMDL allocations, and sediment quality guidelines for total mercury. No feasible mitigation available. CS for Alternatives B and C and Potential increase in net methylmercury production and bioaccumulation in the food web. No feasible mitigation available. CS for Alternatives B and C and Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Cumulative Significant = CS January 2008 A2-3 Statement of Overriding Considerations

72 Exhibit A2: Table of Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA (Cumulative Impacts Findings Table) Cumulative Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures Potential impacts to water quality from other contaminants. SBSP Mitigation Measure 3.4-5a: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. This mitigates potential impacts due to construction related-activities and maintenance activities. The Project sponsors will obtain authorization from the RWQCB prior to beginning construction. As part of this application, the Project sponsors will prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and require all construction contractors to implement BMPs identified in the SWPPP for controlling soil erosion and discharges of other construction-related contaminants. Routine monitoring and inspection of BMPs will be conducted to ensure that the quality of stormwater discharges is in compliance with the permit. BMPs that will appear in the SWPPP include: Soil stabilization measures, such as preservation of existing vegetation and use of mulch or temporary plantings to minimize soil disturbance; Sediment control measures to prevent disturbed soils from entering waterways; Tracking control measures to reduce sediments that leave the construction site on vehicle or equipment tires; and Nonstormwater discharge control After Mitigation CS for Alternatives B and C and of Overriding Considerations. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(3).) Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.4-5a-f will reduce the Project s contribution to this cumulative impact to a less-than-significant level. DFG hereby adopts these mitigation measures. However, the impacts of past, present, and future projects identified in the EIS/R are considered to be cumulative significant in combination with the Project. DFG concludes that the impact is acceptable in light of the project benefits as set forth in DFG s Statement of Overriding Considerations. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(3).). Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Cumulative Significant = CS January 2008 A2-4 Statement of Overriding Considerations

73 Exhibit A2: Table of Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA (Cumulative Impacts Findings Table) Cumulative Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures measures, such as monitoring water quality of dewatering operations and hazardous material delivery, storage, and emergency spill response requirements, and measures by the Project sponsors to ensure that soil-excavation and movement activities are conducted in accordance with standard BMPs regarding excavation and dredging of bay muds as outlined in BCDC s bay dredge guidance documents. These include excavating channels during low tide; using dredge equipment, such as sealing clamshell buckets, designed to minimize escape of the fine grained materials; and testing dredge materials for contaminants. The contractor will select specific BMPs from each area, with Project sponsor approval, on a site-specific basis. The construction general contractor will ensure that the BMPs are implemented as appropriate throughout the duration of construction and will be responsible for subcontractor compliance with the SWPPP requirements. Other impacts due to construction-related and maintenance activities can be mitigated by appropriate additions to stormwater pollution prevention plans, including a plan for safe refueling of vehicles and spill containment plans. An appropriate hazardous materials management plan will be developed for any After Mitigation Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Cumulative Significant = CS January 2008 A2-5 Statement of Overriding Considerations

74 Exhibit A2: Table of Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA (Cumulative Impacts Findings Table) Cumulative Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Cumulative Significant = CS activity that involves handling, transport or removal of hazardous materials. SBSP Mitigation Measure 3.4-5b: Selenium Management. This mitigates potential impacts from intrusion of selenium from high-selenium aquifers. As noted in Section 3.4.2, tissuebased selenium standards are currently being developed for the state of California by USEPA as part of updating the California Toxics Rule. Adoption by the state will include a plan and program of implementation. The timeline for this process is uncertain. It will likely take longer than the time to complete this EIS/R process, but is also likely to be completed before the end of the 50 year lifetime of the SBSP Restoration Project. Selenium standards and monitoring requirements will be addressed thorough the RWQCB Waste Discharge Requirements. As long as state policies and regulations are followed in the implementation of emerging selenium objectives, there will be no significant impacts to water quality. Based on experiences in other watersheds, the Project can expect that emerging selenium regulations will require: Monitoring chemical forms of selenium in water and sediments; Monitoring selenium in the food web; the National Science Panel recommended After Mitigation January 2008 A2-6 Statement of Overriding Considerations

75 Exhibit A2: Table of Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA (Cumulative Impacts Findings Table) Cumulative Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures leveraging of existing monitoring programs to monitor selenium in bivalves in the Bay. Development of food web models linking concentrations in water and sediments to concentrations in biota; and Development of management plans to avoid harmful selenium bioaccumulation. SBSP Mitigation Measure 3.4-5c: Actions to Minimize Illegal Discharge and Dumping. This mitigation addresses illegal discharge and dumping. The likelihood of increasing frequency of illegal discharge and dumping will be minimized with adequate public education and outreach, patrolling of the area, readily accessible and frequently serviced trash and recyclable materials receptacles, and timely clean-up activities. Specifically, the Project will undertake the following activities to ensure that existing programs and practices avoid impacts due to illegal discharge and dumping: Gate structures upstream of the Project Area will include a trash capture device that will prevent fouling of marsh and pond complexes; Plans for recreational access in the Project Area will include appropriate trash collection receptacles and a plan for ensuring regular collection and servicing; After Mitigation Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Cumulative Significant = CS January 2008 A2-7 Statement of Overriding Considerations

76 Exhibit A2: Table of Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA (Cumulative Impacts Findings Table) Cumulative Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Cumulative Significant = CS Mitigation Measures and No Littering signs will be posted in public access areas. SBSP Mitigation Measure 3.4-5d: Monitoring Sediments to Follow Existing Guidance and Comply with Emerging Regulations. This mitigation addresses potential impacts due to mobilization and transport of particleassociated pollutants. The Project will monitor contaminant concentrations in sediments whenever activities will involve moving, transporting, or emplacing soils and sediments or exposing older sediments by dredging and excavation. Existing guidance for the beneficial re-use of sediments establishes numeric screening guidelines for the placement of sediments in direct contact with water or at buried beneath a cover layer. This guidance may be refined by the State s emerging program of Sediment Quality Objectives. Monitoring data will be used to follow existing guidance and follow emerging regulations for the placement of sediments and other activities that affect mobilization and transport of sediments. This translates to the following specific : Sediment monitoring data will be used to determine appropriate disposal or beneficial re-use practices for sediments. If sediment monitoring data indicate that After Mitigation January 2008 A2-8 Statement of Overriding Considerations

77 Exhibit A2: Table of Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA (Cumulative Impacts Findings Table) Cumulative Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Cumulative Significant = CS Mitigation Measures tidal scour outside a levee breach could remobilize sediments that are significantly more contaminated than Bay ambient conditions, the Project will consult with the appropriate regulatory agencies regarding other potential required. SBSP Mitigation Measure 3.4-5e: Urban Runoff Management. This mitigation addresses potential impacts due to increased interaction of urban runoff with the Project Area. The RWQCB has a coordinated program of permitting and enforcement for regulating urban runoff discharge. As long as policies and regulations prohibiting the discharge of constituents causing pollution are carried out, significant impacts from urban runoff will be avoided. The Project proponents will notify the appropriate Urban Runoff Program of any physical changes (such as breaches) that will introduce urban discharges into the Project Area, and request that the Urban Runoff Program consider those changes when developing annual monitoring plans. SBSP Mitigation Measure 3.4-5f: Bacteria Monitoring and Risk Communication. This mitigation addresses for potential impacts due to bacterial growth in restored areas. The SBSP Restoration Project s National Science Panel recommended that monitoring be conducted for avian botulism and bivalve After Mitigation January 2008 A2-9 Statement of Overriding Considerations

78 Exhibit A2: Table of Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA (Cumulative Impacts Findings Table) Cumulative Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures Potential to cause seawater intrusion of regional groundwater sources. disease and toxicity to humans. Mitigation measures for avian botulism are discussed under SBSP Impact The Project will consider the need for additional monitoring of shellfish as each phase is implemented. For protection of public health, a program of public outreach and communication will be developed and implemented. The program will include posting of warning signs in multiple languages where monitoring data indicate the need to advise the public of exposure risks from swimming or shellfish consumption. SBSP Mitigation Measure 3.4-6: USFWS and DFG (Project proponents) will coordinate with ACWD and SCVWD to ensure that the following activities take place: If any abandoned wells are found before or during construction they will be properly destroyed by the Project as per local and State regulations by coordinating such activities with the local water district. If abandoned wells are located during restoration or other future activities within ACWD or SCVWD boundaries, a well destruction work plan will be prepared in consultation with ACWD or SCVWD (as appropriate) to ensure conformance to ACWD or SCVWD specifications. The work plan will include consulting the databases of well locations already provided by After Mitigation Alternatives B and C and Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. DFG hereby adopts this mitigation measure. DFG, therefore, finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIS/R. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(1).) Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Cumulative Significant = CS January 2008 A2-10 Statement of Overriding Considerations

79 Exhibit A2: Table of Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA (Cumulative Impacts Findings Table) Cumulative Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures ACWD and SCVWD. The Project will properly destroy both improperly abandoned wells and existing wells within the Project Area that are subject to inundation by breaching levees. Well destruction methods will meet local, county and state regulations. The Project proponents will also lend support and cooperation with any well identification and destruction program that may be undertaken as part of the Shoreline Study or other projects; The Project proponents will assist ACWD and SCVWD to obtain funding for the development, implementation, analysis and reporting of groundwater levels and groundwater quality adjacent to the Project boundaries. If groundwater monitoring detects seawater intrusion, the Project proponents will participate and assist ACWD and SCVWD in identifying the sources and causes, and in selecting and implementing an appropriate mitigation measure; and The Project will work to assist ACWD and SCVWD in the development and implementation of communication and outreach strategies that ensure groundwater users are informed on groundwater levels, quality, usage, and the linkage between groundwater After Mitigation Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Cumulative Significant = CS January 2008 A2-11 Statement of Overriding Considerations

80 Exhibit A2: Table of Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA (Cumulative Impacts Findings Table) Cumulative Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) 3.5 Geology, Seismicity and Soils Mitigation Measures overdraft and salinity intrusion. Groundwater data will be shared with groundwater users to the extent allowed by law. All of these mitigation are coordination and communication activities that require voluntary participation of the water agencies. An advantage of Alternatives B and C over the No Action Alternative with respect to SBSP Impact is that Project activities would motivate regional coordination concerning groundwater protection over the 50-year Project lifetime through these mitigation measures. After Mitigation Potential effects from settlement and subsidence due to consolidation of Bay Mud. LTS; no mitigation required. Alternatives B and C and are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Potential effects from liquefaction of soils and lateral spreading. LTS, B; no mitigation required. LTS, B for Alternatives B and C and Potential effects from tsunami and/or seiche. LTS; no mitigation required. Alternatives Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Cumulative Significant = CS January 2008 A2-12 Statement of Overriding Considerations

81 Exhibit A2: Table of Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA (Cumulative Impacts Findings Table) Cumulative Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures Potential for ground and levee failure from fault rupture Potential effects from consolidation of Bay mud on existing subsurface utility crossings and surface rail crossings. 3.6 Biological Resources LTS; no mitigation required. LTS; no mitigation required. After Mitigation B and C and Alternatives B and C and Alternatives B and C and are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Potential reduction in number of small shorebirds using San Francisco Bay, resulting in substantial declines in flyway-level populations. No feasible mitigation available. CS for Alternatives B and C and Finding: The impacts of past, present, and future projects identified in the EIS/R are considered to be cumulative significant in combination with the Project. DFG concludes that the impact is acceptable in light of the project benefits as set forth in DFG s Statement of Overriding Considerations. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(3).) Finding: The impacts of past, present, and future projects identified in the EIS/R are considered to be cumulative Loss of intertidal mudflats and reduction of habitat for mudflatassociated wildlife species. No feasible mitigation available. CS for Alternatives B and C and Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Cumulative Significant = CS January 2008 A2-13 Statement of Overriding Considerations

82 Exhibit A2: Table of Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA (Cumulative Impacts Findings Table) Cumulative Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures Potential habitat conversion impacts to western snowy plovers Potential reduction in the numbers of breeding, pond-associated waterbirds (avocets, stilts, and terns) using the South Bay due to reduction in habitat, concentration effects, displacement by nesting California gulls, and other Project-related effects Potential reduction in the numbers of non-breeding, salt pond-associated birds (e.g., phalaropes, eared grebes, and Bonaparte s gulls) as a result of habitat loss Potential reduction in foraging habitat for diving ducks, resulting in declines in flyway-level populations. LTS; no mitigation required. LTS; no mitigation required. LTS; no mitigation required. LTS; no mitigation required. After Mitigation Alternatives B and C and Alternatives B and C and Alternatives B and C and Alternatives B and C and significant in combination with the Project. DFG concludes that the impact is acceptable in light of the project benefits as set forth in DFG s Statement of Overriding Considerations. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(3).) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Cumulative Significant = CS January 2008 A2-14 Statement of Overriding Considerations

83 Exhibit A2: Table of Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA (Cumulative Impacts Findings Table) Cumulative Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures Reduction in foraging habitat for ruddy ducks, resulting in declines in flyway-level populations. CS for Alternatives B and C; no feasible mitigation is available. ; no mitigation required. After Mitigation CS for Alternatives B and C ) Finding for Alternatives B and C: The impacts of past, present, and future projects identified in the EIS/R are considered to be cumulative significant in combination with the Project. DFG concludes that the impact is acceptable in light of the project benefits as set forth in DFG s Statement of Overriding Considerations. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(3).) Finding for : Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Potential habitat conversion impacts on California least terns. LTS; no mitigation required. Alternatives B and C and Potential loss of pickleweeddominated tidal salt marsh habitat for the salt marsh harvest mouse and salt marsh wandering shrew, and further isolation of these species populations, due to breaching LTS, B; no mitigation required. LTS, B for Alternatives B and C and Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Cumulative Significant = CS January 2008 A2-15 Statement of Overriding Considerations

84 Exhibit A2: Table of Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA (Cumulative Impacts Findings Table) Cumulative Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures activities and scour Potential construction-related loss of or disturbance to special-status, marsh-associated wildlife Potential construction-related loss of, or disturbance to, nesting pondassociated birds Potential disturbance to or loss of sensitive wildlife species due to ongoing monitoring, maintenance, and management activities Potential effects of habitat conversion and pond management on steelhead. LTS; no mitigation required. LTS; no mitigation required. LTS, B; no mitigation required. LTS, B; no mitigation required. Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Cumulative Significant = CS After Mitigation Alternatives B and C and Alternatives B and C and LTS, B for Alternatives B and C and LTS, B for Alternatives B and C and Potential impacts to estuarine fish. LTS, B; no mitigation required. LTS, B for Alternatives B and C and are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), January 2008 A2-16 Statement of Overriding Considerations

85 Exhibit A2: Table of Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA (Cumulative Impacts Findings Table) Cumulative Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Cumulative Significant = CS After Mitigation Potential impacts to piscivorous birds. LTS; no mitigation required. Alternatives B and C and Potential impacts to dabbling ducks. LTS, B; no mitigation required. LTS, B for Alternatives B and C and Potential impacts to harbor seals. LTS, B; no mitigation required. LTS, B for Alternatives B and C and Potential recreation-oriented impacts to sensitive species and their habitats Potential impacts to special-status plants. LTS; no mitigation required. LTS; no mitigation required. Alternatives B and C and Alternatives B and C and ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), January 2008 A2-17 Statement of Overriding Considerations

86 Exhibit A2: Table of Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA (Cumulative Impacts Findings Table) Cumulative Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures Colonization of mudflats and marshplain by non-native Spartina and its hybrids. LTS; no mitigation required. After Mitigation Alternatives B and C and Colonization by non-native Lepidium. LTS; no mitigation required. Alternatives B and C and Potential increase in exposure of wildlife to avian botulism and other diseases Potential impacts to bay shrimp populations. 3.7 Recreation Resources LTS; no mitigation required. LTS, B; no mitigation required. Alternatives B and C and LTS, B for Alternatives B and C and ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Provision of new public access and recreation facilities, including the opening of new areas for recreational LTS, B; no mitigation required. LTS, B for Alternatives B and C and are less than significant. (Pub. Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Cumulative Significant = CS January 2008 A2-18 Statement of Overriding Considerations

87 Exhibit A2: Table of Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA (Cumulative Impacts Findings Table) Cumulative Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures purposes and completion of the Bay Trail spine Permanent removal of existing recreational features (trails) in locations that visitors have been accustomed to using and which would not be replaced in the general vicinity of the removed feature. 3.8 Cultural Resources Alternative B and ; no mitigation required. CS for Alternative C; no feasible mitigation available. After Mitigation Alternative B and CS for Alternative C Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Finding for Alternative B and : Under CEQA, no mitigation are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Finding for Alternative C: The impacts of past, present, and future projects identified in the EIS/R are considered to be cumulative significant in combination with the Project. DFG concludes that the impact is acceptable in light of the project benefits as set forth in DFG s Statement of Overriding Considerations. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(3).) Potential disturbance of known and/or unknown cultural resources. Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Cumulative Significant = CS SBSP Mitigation Measure 3.8-1: Discovery of Unknown Resources. Background. Restoration planned for the SBSP Restoration Project Area shall be treated as individual archaeological projects. The overall record search for this EIS/R was performed in June A new record search Alternatives B and C and Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure will reduce the Project s contribution to this cumulative impact to a less-than-significant level. DFG hereby adopts this mitigation measure. However, the impacts of past, present, and future projects identified in the EIS/R are considered to be cumulative January 2008 A2-19 Statement of Overriding Considerations

88 Exhibit A2: Table of Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA (Cumulative Impacts Findings Table) Cumulative Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Cumulative Significant = CS shall be performed for any projects within the SBSP Restoration Project Area where the previous record search is more than five years old. Site Survey. Prior to the beginning of any Project construction activity that could affect the previously unsurveyed portions of the Project Area, qualified professional archaeologists shall be retained to inventory all portions of the restoration site that have not been examined previously or have not been examined within the last 15 years. The survey(s) shall be conducted during a time when the ground surfaces of potential project sites are visible so the natural ground surface can be examined for traces of prehistoric and/or historic-era cultural resources. If the survey(s) reveals the presence of cultural resources on the Project site (e.g., unusual amounts of shell, animal bone, bottle glass, ceramics, and structure/building remains), and those resources have not been dealt with sufficiently in any Cultural Landscape documentation, the resources shall be documented according to current professional standards. The resources shall be evaluated for potential eligibility to the NRHP or CRHR. Depending on the evaluation, additional mitigation measures may be required, including avoidance of the resource through changes in construction methods or Project design or implementation of a program of After Mitigation significant in combination with the Project. DFG concludes that the impact is acceptable in light of the project benefits as set forth in DFG s Statement of Overriding Considerations. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(3).) January 2008 A2-20 Statement of Overriding Considerations

89 Exhibit A2: Table of Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA (Cumulative Impacts Findings Table) Cumulative Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures testing and data recovery, in accordance with all applicable federal and state requirements. Pre-Construction Contractor Education. Prior to any Project-related construction, a professional archaeologist shall be retained to address machinery operators and their supervisors, preferably by giving an on-site talk to the people who will perform the actual earth-moving activities. This will alert the operators to the potential for finding historic or prehistoric cultural resources. Construction Monitoring. Any Project-related construction that occurs within 100 ft (30 m) of a known prehistoric resource shall be monitored by a qualified professional archaeologist and a Native American monitor. If elements of the known resource or previously unknown cultural resources are encountered during Project construction, all ground-disturbing activities shall halt within a 100-ft radius of the find. The archaeologist shall identify the materials, determine their possible significance, and formulate appropriate measures for their treatment in consultation with the Native American monitor, Most Likely Descendant (MLD), or appropriate Native American representative and the appropriate Lead Agency. Potential treatment methods for significant and potentially significant resources may include, but would not be limited to, no action (i.e., After Mitigation Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Cumulative Significant = CS January 2008 A2-21 Statement of Overriding Considerations

90 Exhibit A2: Table of Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA (Cumulative Impacts Findings Table) Cumulative Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Cumulative Significant = CS resources determined not to be significant), avoidance of the resource through changes in construction methods or Project design, or implementation of a program of testing and data recovery, in accordance with all applicable federal and state requirements. These measures shall be implemented prior to resumption of Project construction. Unanticipated Finds. If contractors identify possible cultural resources, such as unusual amounts of bone, stone, or shell, they shall be instructed to halt operation in the vicinity of the find and follow the appropriate contact procedures. Work shall not resume in the vicinity of the find until a qualified professional archaeologist has had the opportunity to examine the finds. The archaeologist shall identify the materials, determine their possible significance, if the finds are prehistoric, formulate appropriate measures for their treatment in consultation with the Native American monitor, MLD, or appropriate Native American representative and the appropriate Lead Agency. Potential treatment methods for significant and potentially significant resources may include, but would not be limited to, no action (i.e., resources determined not to be significant), avoidance of the resource through changes in construction methods or Project design, or implementation of a program of testing and data recovery, in accordance with all After Mitigation January 2008 A2-22 Statement of Overriding Considerations

91 Exhibit A2: Table of Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA (Cumulative Impacts Findings Table) Cumulative Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures applicable federal and state requirements. These measures shall be implemented prior to resumption of Project construction. Human Remains. California law recognizes the need to protect interred human remains, particularly Native American burials and associated items of patrimony, from vandalism and inadvertent destruction. The procedures for the treatment of discovered human remains are contained in California Health and Safety Code Section and Section 7052 and California Public Resources Code Section The California Health and Safety Code requires that if human remains are found in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, work is to be halted in the immediate area. The appropriate Agency or the Agency s designated representative shall be notified. The Agency shall immediately notify the county coroner and a qualified professional archaeologist. The coroner is required to examine all discoveries of human remains within 48 hours of receiving notice of a discovery on private or state lands (Health and Safety Code Section [b]). If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American interment, then coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes After Mitigation Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Cumulative Significant = CS January 2008 A2-23 Statement of Overriding Considerations

92 Exhibit A2: Table of Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA (Cumulative Impacts Findings Table) Cumulative Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures Disturbance of the historic salt ponds and associated structures which may be considered a significant cultural landscape. to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The MLD may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods, as provided in Public Resources Code Section The landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance if: (1) the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a MLD or (2) the MLD fails to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission or (3) if the landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. SBSP Mitigation Measure 3.8-2: Cultural Landscape, Inventory of Resources, Treatment of Finds. Cultural Landscape. Prior to implementation of any restoration action, a qualified professional shall be retained to determine whether the various salt works-related ponds, After Mitigation CS for Alternatives B and C and Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure will reduce the Project s contribution to this cumulative impact to a less-than-significant level. DFG hereby adopts this mitigation measure. However, the impacts of past, present, and future projects identified in the Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Cumulative Significant = CS January 2008 A2-24 Statement of Overriding Considerations

93 Formatted: Normal Exhibit A2: Table of Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA (Cumulative Impacts Findings Table) Cumulative Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures buildings, objects, and structures lining the southern San Francisco Bay will be reviewed as a cultural landscape within the historic context and evaluation framework developed for this Project. This will be done for each Project phase. If a cultural landscape is identified, a determination must be made concerning NRHP and/or CRHR eligibility. If the landscape is determined to be eligible for listing to the NRHP and/or CRHR, an assessment of the Project s effects on the landscape will be conducted. This study shall include documentation of contributing elements to the resources, a list of noncontributing elements, and recommendations regarding any additional mitigation or treatment needed. Mitigation measures may include tasks such as Historic American Building Survey 1 / Historic American Engineering Record 2 / Historic American Landscapes Survey 3 (HABS/HAER/HALS) documentation, videotaping resources, a public outreach program, or signage at appropriate points along the proposed recreational trails. After Mitigation EIS/R are considered to be cumulative significant in combination with the Project. DFG concludes that the impact is acceptable in light of the project benefits as set forth in DFG s Statement of Overriding Considerations. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(3).) 1 The Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) is the nation's first federal preservation program, begun by the American Institute of Architects, the Library of Congress, and NPS in 1933 to document America's architectural heritage. HABS recording combines drawings, history, and photography to produce a comprehensive, interdisciplinary record. The documentation ranges in scope depending largely upon the level of significance and complexity. Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Cumulative Significant = CS January 2008 A2-25 Statement of Overriding Considerations

94 Formatted: Normal Exhibit A2: Table of Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA (Cumulative Impacts Findings Table) 3.9 Land Use Cumulative Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Land use compatibility impacts. LTS; no mitigation required. Alternatives B and C and are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) 3.10 Public Health and Vector Management Potential increase in mosquito populations. LTS, B; no mitigation required. LTS, B for Alternatives B and C and are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) 3.11 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice Displace, relocate, or increase area businesses, particularly those associated with the expected increase in recreational users. No feasible mitigation available. CS for Alternatives B and C and Finding: The impacts of past, present, and future projects identified in the EIS/R are considered to be cumulative significant in combination with the Project. DFG concludes that the impact is acceptable in light of the project benefits as set forth in DFG s Statement 2 The Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) was established in 1969 by the NPS, the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Library of Congress to document historic sites and structures related to engineering and industry. Appropriate subjects for documentation are individual sites or objects, such as a bridge, ship, or steel works; or larger systems, like railroads, canals, electronic generation and transmission networks, parkways and roads. 3 The Historic American Landscapes Survey (HALS) mission is to record historic landscapes in the United States and its territories through measured drawings and interpretive drawings, written histories, and large-format black and white photographs and color photographs. Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Cumulative Significant = CS January 2008 A2-26 Statement of Overriding Considerations

95 Exhibit A2: Table of Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA (Cumulative Impacts Findings Table) Cumulative Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures Change lifestyles and social inter Effects disproportionately placed on minority and low-income communities or effects on the ethnic or racial composition in a community Traffic LTS, B; no mitigation required. No feasible mitigation available. After Mitigation LTS, B for Alternatives B and C and CS for Alternatives B and C and of Overriding Considerations. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(3).) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Finding: The impacts of past, present, and future projects identified in the EIS/R are considered to be cumulative significant in combination with the Project. DFG concludes that the impact is acceptable in light of the project benefits as set forth in DFG s Statement of Overriding Considerations. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(3).) Potential short-term degradation of traffic levels on a roadway or at an intersection due to construction. Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Cumulative Significant = CS SBSP Mitigation Measure : Timing of construction-related truck trips. The landowners (DFG and USFWS) shall include in construction plans and specifications the requirement that construction-related truck trips, specifically deliveries of fill and equipment, shall occur outside the weekday am and pm peak commute traffic hours. CS for Alternatives B and C and Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure will reduce the Project s contribution to this cumulative impact to a less-than-significant level. DFG hereby adopts this mitigation measure. However, the impacts of past, present, and future projects identified in the EIS/R are considered to be cumulative significant in combination with the Project. DFG concludes that the impact is acceptable in light of the project benefits as set forth in DFG s January 2008 A2-27 Statement of Overriding Considerations

96 Exhibit A2: Table of Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA (Cumulative Impacts Findings Table) Cumulative Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures Potential long-term degradation of traffic levels on a roadway or an intersection. No feasible mitigation available Potential increase in parking demand. SBSP Mitigation Measure : Parking at recreational facilities. The Landowners (DFG and USFWS), in coordination with the cities with jurisdiction over the proposed recreation improvements (where applicable), shall design recreational facilities with sufficient parking spaces to accommodate the projected increase in vehicles that access the site, unless adequate off-site parking is available to offset the demand for parking spaces Potential increase in wear and tear on the designated haul routes during construction. SBSP Mitigation Measure : Videotape road conditions. If residential streets are part of the designated haul route for any future phases of the SBSP Restoration Project, the landowners shall prepare a videotape of road conditions prior to the start-up of construction for the residential After Mitigation CS for Alternatives B and C and Alternatives B and C and CS for Alternatives B and C and Statement of Overriding Considerations. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(3).) Finding: The impacts of past, present, and future projects identified in the EIS/R are considered to be cumulative significant in combination with the Project. DFG concludes that the impact is acceptable in light of the project benefits as set forth in DFG s Statement of Overriding Considerations. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(3).) Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. DFG hereby adopts this mitigation measure. DFG, therefore, finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIS/R. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(1).) Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. DFG hereby adopts this mitigation measure. However, the impacts of past, present, and future projects identified in the EIS/R are considered to be cumulative Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Cumulative Significant = CS January 2008 A2-28 Statement of Overriding Considerations

97 Exhibit A2: Table of Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA (Cumulative Impacts Findings Table) 3.13 Noise Cumulative Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures streets affected by the Project. The landowners (DFG and USFWS) shall prepare a similar videotape of road conditions after Project construction is completed. The preand post-construction conditions of haul routes shall be reviewed by staff of the local Public Works Department. An agreement shall be entered into prior to construction that will detail the pre-construction conditions and post-construction requirements of the roadway rehabilitation program. After Mitigation significant in combination with the Project. DFG concludes that the impact is acceptable in light of the project benefits as set forth in DFG s Statement of Overriding Considerations. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(3).) Short-term construction noise effects. SBSP Mitigation Measure : Shortterm noise effects. The landowners shall include in construction plans and specifications the following requirement: All construction activities shall be limited to the days and hours or noise levels designated for each jurisdiction where work activities occur, as specified below; Eden Landing o City of Hayward: construction activities shall occur between 7 am and 7 pm Monday through Saturday and 10 am to 6 pm Sunday and holidays only. Alviso o City of San Jose: construction Alternatives B and C and Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. DFG hereby adopts this mitigation measure. DFG, therefore, finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIS/R. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(1).) Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Cumulative Significant = CS January 2008 A2-29 Statement of Overriding Considerations

98 Exhibit A2: Table of Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA (Cumulative Impacts Findings Table) Cumulative Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Cumulative Significant = CS Mitigation Measures activities shall not exceed 55 dba at residential-zoned districts except upon issuance of and in compliance with a Conditional Use Permit; o City of Fremont: there are no restrictions for temporary construction activities; o City of Sunnyvale: construction activities shall occur between 7 am and 6 pm Monday through Friday and 8 am to 5 pm on Saturday. Construction activities shall not occur during Sunday or national holidays; o Santa Clara County: construction activities shall occur during the daytime hours of 7 am to 7 pm Monday through Saturday, except legal holidays; and o City of Mountain View: construction activities shall occur between 7 am and 6 pm Monday through Friday. Construction activities shall not occur during Saturdays, Sundays or holidays unless prior written approval is granted by the building official. Ravenswood After Mitigation January 2008 A2-30 Statement of Overriding Considerations

99 Exhibit A2: Table of Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA (Cumulative Impacts Findings Table) Cumulative Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Traffic-related noise impacts during construction. Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Cumulative Significant = CS Mitigation Measures o City of Menlo Park: construction activities shall occur between 8 am and 6 pm Monday through Friday only. Locate all construction equipment staging areas at the furthest distance possible from nearby noise-sensitive land uses; and Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and equipped with noise control, such as mufflers, in accordance with manufacturers specifications. SBSP Mitigation Measure : Trafficrelated noise. The landowners shall include in construction plans and specifications the following requirement: Contractors shall use haul routes that minimizes traffic through residential areas. Material hauling shall be conducted during the day-time hours only as specified in SBSP Mitigation Measure ; and A portion of the fill for the construction of the proposed levees that provide flood protection and/or habitat features shall be transported via barge. The percentage of fill transported by barge shall be determined when the amount of construction fill required for each phase of construction has been determined. The After Mitigation CS for Alternatives B and C and Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. DFG hereby adopts this mitigation measure. However, the impacts of past, present, and future projects identified in the EIS/R are considered to be cumulative significant in combination with the Project. DFG concludes that the impact is acceptable in light of the project benefits as set forth in DFG s Statement of Overriding Considerations. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(3).) January 2008 A2-31 Statement of Overriding Considerations

100 Exhibit A2: Table of Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA (Cumulative Impacts Findings Table) Cumulative Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Traffic-related noise effects during operation Potential operational noise effects from pump operation and other O&M activities Potential vibration effects during construction and/or operation. Mitigation Measures contractor shall determine the portion of fill that will be conveyed by barge based on an assessment of the land uses along proposal haul routes. LTS; no mitigation required. SBSP Mitigation Measure : Operation of portable pumps. Where portable pumps would be operated in the vicinity of sensitive receptors such that noise levels would exceed noise standards established by affected jurisdictions, the landowners shall enclose the portable pump to ensure that a reduction of up to 10 db at 50 ft (15 m) is achieved and the noise levels of affected jurisdictions are met. No feasible mitigation available. After Mitigation Alternatives B and C and Alternatives B and C and CS for Alternatives B and C and are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. DFG hereby adopts this mitigation measure. DFG, therefore, finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIS/R. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(1).) Finding: The impacts of past, present, and future projects identified in the EIS/R are considered to be cumulative significant in combination with the Project. DFG concludes that the impact is acceptable in light of the project benefits as set forth in DFG s Statement of Overriding Considerations. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(3).) Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Cumulative Significant = CS January 2008 A2-32 Statement of Overriding Considerations

101 Exhibit A2: Table of Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA (Cumulative Impacts Findings Table) 3.14 Air Quality Cumulative Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Short-term construction-generated air pollutant emissions. SBSP Mitigation Measure : Short- Term Construction-Generated Emissions. The following Basic Control Measures shall be implemented at all construction sites within the Project Area, regardless of size: Water all active construction areas at least twice daily, and more often during times of high wind; Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least 2 ft (0.6 m) of freeboard; Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites; Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites; and Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. The following Enhanced Measures shall be implemented at construction sites larger than four acres: Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten Alternatives B and C and Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. DFG hereby adopts this mitigation measure. DFG, therefore, finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIS/R. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(1).) Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Cumulative Significant = CS January 2008 A2-33 Statement of Overriding Considerations

102 Exhibit A2: Table of Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA (Cumulative Impacts Findings Table) Cumulative Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures days or more); Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (e.g., dirt, sand); To the extent practicable, limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph; Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways; Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible; and Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the site. After Mitigation Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Cumulative Significant = CS These additional Optional Measures shall be implemented if further emission reductions are deemed necessary by the USFWS, DFG, or BAAQMD: Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph; and Limit the area subject to excavation, grading and other construction activity at any one time. According to BAAQMD, if the required mitigation measures are implemented during project construction, short-term generated emissions would be reduced to a less-thansignificant level. January 2008 A2-34 Statement of Overriding Considerations

103 Exhibit A2: Table of Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA (Cumulative Impacts Findings Table) Cumulative Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures Potential long-term operational air pollutant emissions Potential exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminant emissions. LTS; no mitigation required. Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Cumulative Significant = CS SBSP Mitigation Measure a: TAC emissions from construction within 500 ft (152 m) of sensitive receptors will require the following: Pursuant to BAAQMD Rule 6, the Project shall ensure that emissions from all offroad diesel-powered equipment used on the Project site do not exceed 40 percent opacity for more than three minutes in any one hour. Any equipment found to exceed 40 percent opacity (or Ringelmann 2.0) shall be repaired immediately, and USFWS, DFG, and BAAQMD shall be notified within 48 hours of identification of noncompliant equipment. A visual survey of all in-operation equipment shall be made at least weekly, and a monthly summary of the visual survey results shall be submitted throughout the duration of the Project, except that the monthly summary shall not be required for any 30- day period in which no construction activity occurs. The monthly summary shall include the quantity and type of vehicles surveyed as well as the dates of After Mitigation Alternatives B and C and CS for Alternatives B and C and are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures a-b will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. DFG hereby adopts these mitigation measures. However, the impacts of past, present, and future projects identified in the EIS/R are considered to be cumulative significant in combination with the Project. DFG concludes that the impact is acceptable in light of the project benefits as set forth in DFG s Statement of Overriding Considerations. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(3).) January 2008 A2-35 Statement of Overriding Considerations

104 Exhibit A2: Table of Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA (Cumulative Impacts Findings Table) Cumulative Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures each survey. BAAQMD and/or other officials may conduct periodic site inspections to determine compliance. USFWS and DFG shall provide a plan for approval by BAAQMD demonstrating that the heavy-duty (more than 50 horsepower) off-road vehicles to be used in the construction Project, including owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles, would achieve a Project-wide fleet average 45 percent particulate reduction compared to the most recent CARB fleet average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions may include use of late-model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels (e.g., Lubrizol, Puri NO x, biodiesel fuel) in all heavy duty off-road equipment. USFWS and DFG shall require in construction plans and specifications that the model year of all off-road construction moving equipment shall not be older than USFWS and DFG shall require in construction plans and specifications a provision that prohibits contractors from operating pre-1996 heavy-duty diesel equipment on forecast Spare-the-Air Days or on days when air quality advisories are issued because of special circumstances (e.g., wildfires, industrial fires). After Mitigation Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Cumulative Significant = CS January 2008 A2-36 Statement of Overriding Considerations

105 Exhibit A2: Table of Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA (Cumulative Impacts Findings Table) Cumulative Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures USFWS and DFG shall minimize idling time to 10 minutes for all heavy-duty equipment when not engaged in work activities, including on-road haul trucks while being loaded or unloaded on-site. Staging areas and equipment maintenance activities shall be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible. In addition, where feasible and applicable, USFWS and DFG shall do the following: Establish an activity schedule designed to minimize traffic congestion around the construction site. Periodically inspect construction sites to ensure construction equipment is properly maintained at all times. Require the use of low sulfur fuel (diesel with 15 parts per million or less). Utilize EPA-registered particulate traps and other appropriate controls to reduce emissions of diesel particulate matter and other pollutants at the construction site. SBSP Mitigation Measure b: Health and Safety Plan The landowners and/or its contractors shall prepare a Health and Safety Plan that includes Project-specific monitoring procedures and action levels for dust. The portion of the plan that relates to the control of toxic contaminants contained in fugitive dust shall After Mitigation Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Cumulative Significant = CS January 2008 A2-37 Statement of Overriding Considerations

106 Exhibit A2: Table of Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA (Cumulative Impacts Findings Table) Cumulative Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Cumulative Significant = CS After Mitigation be prepared in coordination with BAAQMD. The recommendations of BAAQMD to prevent the exposure of sensitive receptors to levels above applicable thresholds (probability of contracting cancer for MEI that exceeds 10 in one million or if ground level concentrations of non-carcinogenic contaminants result in hazard index greater than one for the MEI) shall be implemented. The Health and Safety Plan, applicable to all excavation activities, shall establish policies and procedures to protect workers and the public from potential hazards posed by hazardous materials (including notification procedures to nearby sensitive receptors within 1,000 ft informing them of construction activities that may generate dust containing toxic contaminants). The plan shall be prepared according to federal and California OSHA regulations. The landowners and/or its contractors shall maintain a copy of the Plan on-site during construction activities Potential odor emissions. LTS; no mitigation required. Alternatives B and C and 3.15 Public Services are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Increased demand for fire and police LTS; no mitigation required. January 2008 A2-38 Statement of Overriding Considerations

107 Exhibit A2: Table of Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA (Cumulative Impacts Findings Table) 3.16 Utilities Cumulative Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures protection services. After Mitigation Alternatives B and C and are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Reduced ability to access PG&E towers, stations or electrical transmission lines. LTS; no mitigation required. Alternatives B and C and are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), Reduced clearance between waterways and PG&E electrical transmission lines. LTS; no mitigation required. Alternatives B and C and Reduced structural integrity of PG&E towers. LTS; no mitigation required. Alternatives B and C and Changes in water level, tidal flow and sedimentation near storm drain systems. LTS, B; no mitigation required. LTS, B for Alternatives B and C and Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Cumulative Significant = CS January 2008 A2-39 Statement of Overriding Considerations

108 Exhibit A2: Table of Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA (Cumulative Impacts Findings Table) Cumulative Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures Changes in water level, tidal flow and sedimentation near pumping facilities Changes in water level, tidal flow and sedimentation near sewer force mains and outfalls. LTS, B; no mitigation required. LTS; no mitigation required. After Mitigation LTS, B for Alternatives B and C and Alternatives B and C and action at Alviso ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Disrupt Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct Service so as to create a public health hazard or extended service disruption Disruption of rail service due to construction of coastal flood levees and tidal habitat restoration. LTS, B; no mitigation required. SBSP Mitigation Measure : The Landowners shall coordinate with UPRR on the design of the UPRR improvements to ensure that rail service is maintained during No Impact for at Eden Landing and Ravenswood LTS, B for Alternatives B and C and CS for Alternatives B and C and are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. DFG hereby adopts this mitigation measure. Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Cumulative Significant = CS January 2008 A2-40 Statement of Overriding Considerations

109 Exhibit A2: Table of Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA (Cumulative Impacts Findings Table) Cumulative Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures Reduced access to sewer force mains due to levee construction Aesthetics construction of flood control and restoration elements in and around Pond A16. LTS; no mitigation required. After Mitigation Alternatives B and C No Impact for However, the impacts of past, present, and future projects identified in the EIS/R are considered to be cumulative significant in combination with the Project. DFG concludes that the impact is acceptable in light of the project benefits as set forth in DFG s Statement of Overriding Considerations. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(3).) are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Alter views of the SBSP Restoration Project Area. No feasible mitigation available. CS for Alternatives B and C and Finding: The impacts of past, present, and future projects identified in the EIS/R are considered to be cumulative significant in combination with the Project. DFG concludes that the impact is acceptable in light of the project benefits as set forth in DFG s Statement of Overriding Considerations. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(3).) are less than significant. (Pub Alter the existing visual character of the Project Area and its surroundings. LTS; no mitigation required. Alternatives B and C and Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Cumulative Significant = CS January 2008 A2-41 Statement of Overriding Considerations

110 Exhibit A2: Table of Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA (Cumulative Impacts Findings Table) Cumulative Environmental Impact ( before Mitigation) Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, , subd. (a)(3), ) Less than Significant = LTS Beneficial = B Cumulative Significant = CS January 2008 A2-42 Statement of Overriding Considerations

111 Exhibit B: Table MITIGATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION AND REPORTING ACTIONS MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY TIMING COMPLETION DATE APPROVED BY 3.4 Surface Water, Sediment and Groundwater Quality SBSP Impact 3.4-5: Potential impacts to water quality from other contaminants. SBSP Mitigation Measure 3.4-5a: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. This mitigates potential impacts due to construction related-activities and maintenance activities. The Project sponsors will obtain authorization from the RWQCB prior to beginning construction. As part of this application, the Project sponsors will prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and require all construction contractors to implement BMPs identified in the SWPPP for controlling soil erosion and discharges of other construction-related contaminants. Routine monitoring and inspection of BMPs will be conducted to ensure that the quality of stormwater discharges is in compliance with the permit. BMPs that will appear in the SWPPP include: Soil stabilization measures, such as preservation of existing vegetation and use of mulch or temporary plantings to minimize soil disturbance; Sediment control measures to prevent disturbed soils from entering waterways; Tracking control measures to reduce sediments that leave the construction site on vehicle or equipment tires; and Nonstormwater discharge control measures, such as monitoring water quality of dewatering operations and hazardous material delivery, storage, and emergency spill response requirements, and measures by the Project sponsors to ensure that soil-excavation and movement activities are conducted in accordance with 1. Prepare SWPPP in accordance with SBSP Mitigation Measure and RWQCB requirements, and include the SWPPP in the project files 2. Incorporate the SWPPP into contractor specifications 3. Contractor implements SWPPP 4. Monitor construction activities to verify implementation of the SWPPP. If noncompliance is noted, USFWS and CDFG will notify the contractor of required and the deadline for compliance. USFWS and CDFG will prepare regular reports documenting compliance or non-compliance, and include them in the project files 1. USFWS and CDFG or its contractors 2. USFWS and CDFG or its contractors 3. USFWS and CDFG or its contractors 4. USFWS and CDFG or its contractors 1. Prior to construction 2. Prior to construction 3. During construction 4. During construction January 2008 B-1 Statement of Overriding Considerations

112 Exhibit B: Table MITIGATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION AND REPORTING ACTIONS MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY TIMING COMPLETION DATE APPROVED BY standard BMPs regarding excavation and dredging of bay muds as outlined in BCDC s bay dredge guidance documents. These include excavating channels during low tide; using dredge equipment, such as sealing clamshell buckets, designed to minimize escape of the fine grained materials; and testing dredge materials for contaminants. The contractor will select specific BMPs from each area, with Project sponsor approval, on a site-specific basis. The construction general contractor will ensure that the BMPs are implemented as appropriate throughout the duration of construction and will be responsible for subcontractor compliance with the SWPPP requirements. Other impacts due to construction-related and maintenance activities can be mitigated by appropriate additions to stormwater pollution prevention plans, including a plan for safe refueling of vehicles and spill containment plans. An appropriate hazardous materials management plan will be developed for any activity that involves handling, transport or removal of hazardous materials. SBSP Mitigation Measure 3.4-5b: Selenium Management. This mitigates potential impacts from intrusion of selenium from high-selenium aquifers. As noted in Section 3.4.2, tissue-based selenium standards are currently being developed for the state of California by USEPA as part of updating the California Toxics Rule. Adoption by the state will include a plan and program of implementation. The timeline for this process is uncertain. It will likely take longer than the time to complete this EIS/R process, but is also likely to be completed before the end of the 50 year lifetime of the SBSP Restoration Project. Selenium standards and monitoring requirements will be addressed thorough the RWQCB Waste Discharge Requirements. As 1. Comply with the State s selenium standards through the RWQCB Waste Discharge requirements 2. Monitor selenium and develop food web models in accordance with RWQCB requirements 3. Based on the results of the monitoring and modeling, develop management plans to 1. USFWS and CDFG or their contractors 2. USFWS and CDFG or their contractors 3. USFWS and CDFG or their contractors 1. Throughout operation of the SBSP Restoration Project 2. Throughout operation of the SBSP Restoration Project 3. Throughout operation of the SBSP Restoration January 2008 B-2 Statement of Overriding Considerations

113 Exhibit B: Table MITIGATION MEASURES long as state policies and regulations are followed in the implementation of emerging selenium objectives, there will be no significant impacts to water quality. Based on experiences in other watersheds, the Project can expect that emerging selenium regulations will require: Monitoring chemical forms of selenium in water and sediments; Monitoring selenium in the food web; the National Science Panel recommended leveraging of existing monitoring programs to monitor selenium in bivalves in the Bay. Development of food web models linking concentrations in water and sediments to concentrations in biota; and Development of management plans to avoid harmful selenium bioaccumulation. SBSP Mitigation Measure 3.4-5c: Actions to Minimize Illegal Discharge and Dumping. This mitigation addresses illegal discharge and dumping. The likelihood of increasing frequency of illegal discharge and dumping will be minimized with adequate public education and outreach, patrolling of the area, readily accessible and frequently serviced trash and recyclable materials receptacles, and timely clean-up activities. Specifically, the Project will undertake the following activities to ensure that existing programs and practices avoid impacts due to illegal discharge and dumping: Gate structures upstream of the Project Area will include a trash capture device that will prevent fouling of marsh and pond complexes; Plans for recreational access in the Project Area will include appropriate trash collection receptacles and a IMPLEMENTATION AND REPORTING ACTIONS ensure avoidance of bioaccumulation 4. Implement management plans and report on the findings. The findings shall be included in the project files 1. Conduct public education, outreach, and patrolling of area for illegal discharge and dumping 2. Install trash captures devices on gate structures MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY 4. USFWS and CDFG or their contractors 1. USFWS and CDFG or their contractors 2. USFWS and CDFG or their contractors Project TIMING 4. Throughout operation of the SBSP Restoration Project 1. Throughout operation of the SBSP Restoration Project 2. Throughout construction and/or operations of the SBSP Restoration Project 3. Install trash collection 3. USFWS and 3. During future COMPLETION DATE APPROVED BY January 2008 B-3 Statement of Overriding Considerations

114 Exhibit B: Table MITIGATION MEASURES plan for ensuring regular collection and servicing; and No Littering signs will be posted in public access areas. SBSP Mitigation Measure 3.4-5d: Monitoring Sediments to Follow Existing Guidance and Comply with Emerging Regulations. This mitigation addresses potential impacts due to mobilization and transport of particle-associated pollutants. The Project will monitor contaminant concentrations in sediments whenever activities will involve moving, transporting, or emplacing soils and sediments or exposing older sediments by dredging and excavation. Existing guidance for the beneficial re-use of sediments establishes numeric screening guidelines for the placement of sediments in direct contact with water or at buried beneath a cover layer. This guidance may be refined IMPLEMENTATION AND REPORTING ACTIONS receptacles at the newly constructed recreational features, where appropriate 4. Ensure regular collection and servicing of trash collection receptacle 5. Post No Littering signs in public access areas. 6. Report annually on their efforts to minimize illegal discharge and dumping through the means identified above. The report shall be included in the administrative record. 1. Monitor contaminant concentration in sediments whenever activities involve moving, transporting, or placing soils and sediments or exposing older sediments by dredging and excavation. 2. Use the monitoring data to determine appropriate disposal or beneficial re-use MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY CDFG or their contractors 4. USFWS and CDFG or their contractors 5. USFWS and CDFG or their contractors 6. USFWS and CDFG 1. USFWS and CDFG or their contractors TIMING phases of the Project that includes public access futures 4. Throughout operations of the SBSP Restoration Project 5. During future phases of the Project that includes public access futures 6. Annual, throughout the life of the Project 1. Throughout operation of the SBSP Restoration Project 2. PMT 2. Throughout operation of the SBSP Restoration Project COMPLETION DATE APPROVED BY January 2008 B-4 Statement of Overriding Considerations

115 Exhibit B: Table MITIGATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION AND REPORTING ACTIONS MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY TIMING COMPLETION DATE APPROVED BY by the State s emerging program of Sediment Quality Objectives. Monitoring data will be used to follow existing guidance and follow emerging regulations for the placement of sediments and other activities that affect mobilization and transport of sediments. This translates to the following specific : Sediment monitoring data will be used to determine appropriate disposal or beneficial re-use practices for sediments. If sediment monitoring data indicate that tidal scour outside a levee breach could remobilize sediments that are significantly more contaminated than Bay ambient conditions, the Project will consult with the appropriate regulatory agencies regarding other potential required. practices for sediments. 3. Prepare reports identifying the results of the monitoring activities and appropriate disposal methods and include them in the project files 3. USFWS and CDFG or their contractors 3. Throughout operation of the SBSP Restoration Project SBSP Mitigation Measure 3.4-5e: Urban Runoff Management. This mitigation addresses potential impacts due to increased interaction of urban runoff within the Project Area. The RWQCB has a coordinated program of permitting and enforcement for regulating urban runoff discharge. As long as policies and regulations prohibiting the discharge of constituents causing pollution are carried out, significant impacts from urban runoff will be avoided. The Project proponents will notify the appropriate Urban Runoff Program of any physical changes (such as breaches) that will introduce urban discharges into the Project Area, and request that the Urban Runoff Program consider those changes when developing annual monitoring plans. SBSP Mitigation Measure 3.4-5f: Bacteria Monitoring and Risk Communication. This mitigation addresses for potential impacts due to 1. Notify the appropriate Urban Runoff Program of any changes that would introduce urban discharges into the Project Area and request the Program consider such changes when developing the annual monitoring plans. 2. Comply with all relevant RWQCB policies and regulations prohibiting urban runoff discharge 1. USFWS and CDFG or their contractors 2. USFWS and CDFG or their contractors 1. Throughout operations of the SBSP Restoration Project 2. Throughout operations of the SBSP Restoration Project 1. Consider the need for additional monitoring of shellfish at each phase of the Project 1. USFWS and CDFG or their contractors 1. At each phase of the SBSP Restoration Project January 2008 B-5 Statement of Overriding Considerations

116 Exhibit B: Table MITIGATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION AND REPORTING ACTIONS MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY TIMING COMPLETION DATE APPROVED BY bacterial growth in restored areas. The SBSP Restoration Project s National Science Panel recommended that monitoring be conducted for avian botulism and bivalve disease and toxicity to humans. Mitigation measures for avian botulism are discussed under SBSP Impact The Project will consider the need for additional monitoring of shellfish as each phase is implemented. For protection of public health, a program of public outreach and communication will be developed and implemented. The program will include posting of warning signs in multiple languages where monitoring data indicate the need to advise the public of exposure risks from swimming or shellfish consumption. 2. Prepare a program of public outreach and communication (including the posting of warning signs regarding risks of swimming and shellfish consumption) 3. Implement the program and include evidence of implementation (photos of installed signs, material from public outreach events, etc.) in project file 2. USFWS and CDFG or their contractors 3. USFWS and CDFG or their contractors 2. Throughout operation of the SBSP Restoration Project 3. Throughout operation of the SBSP Restoration Project SBSP Impact 3.4-6: Potential to cause seawater intrusion of regional groundwater sources. SBSP Mitigation Measure 3.4-6: USFWS and CDFG (Project proponents) will coordinate with ACWD and SCVWD to ensure that the following activities take place: If any abandoned wells are found before or during construction they will be properly destroyed by the Project as per local and State regulations by coordinating such activities with the local water district. If abandoned wells are located during restoration or other future activities within ACWD or SCVWD boundaries, a well destruction work plan will be prepared in consultation with ACWD or SCVWD (as appropriate) to ensure conformance to ACWD or SCVWD specifications. The work plan will include consulting the databases of well locations already provided by ACWD and SCVWD. The Project will properly destroy both improperly abandoned wells and existing wells within the Project 1. Document all abandoned wells that require destruction associated with the SBSP Restoration Project 2. Prepare a well destruction work plan(s) for destroying wells within the ACWD or SCVWD boundaries, in association with these agencies 3. Destroy wells in accordance with local, State regulations, or ACWD/SCVWD 1. USFWS and CDFG or their contractors 2. USFWS and CDFG or their contractors 3. USFWS and CDFG or their contractors 1. Prior to construction of each phase of the SBSP Restoration Project 2. Prior to construction of each phase of the SBSP Restoration Project 3. Prior to construction of each phase of the SBSP Restoration Project January 2008 B-6 Statement of Overriding Considerations

117 Exhibit B: Table MITIGATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION AND REPORTING ACTIONS MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY TIMING COMPLETION DATE APPROVED BY Area that are subject to inundation by breaching levees. Well destruction methods will meet local, county and state regulations. The Project proponents will also lend support and cooperation with any well identification and destruction program that may be undertaken as part of the Shoreline Study or other projects; The Project proponents will assist ACWD and SCVWD to obtain funding for the development, implementation, analysis and reporting of groundwater levels and groundwater quality adjacent to the Project boundaries. If groundwater monitoring detects seawater intrusion, the Project proponents will participate and assist ACWD and SCVWD in identifying the sources and causes, and in selecting and implementing an appropriate mitigation measure; and The Project will work to assist ACWD and SCVWD in the development and implementation of communication and outreach strategies that ensure groundwater users are informed on groundwater levels, quality, usage, and the linkage between groundwater overdraft and salinity intrusion. Groundwater data will be shared with groundwater users to the extent allowed by law. All of these mitigation are coordination and communication activities that require voluntary participation of the water agencies. An advantage of Alternatives B and C over the No Action Alternative with respect to SBSP Impact is that Project activities would motivate regional coordination concerning groundwater protection over the 50-year Project lifetime through these mitigation measures. specifications 4. Retain records of well destruction material (forms, photos, etc.) in the project files 5. Establish Memorandum of Understandings (MOUs) with ACWD and SCVWD to assist these agencies in their groundwater monitoring programs. The MOUs shall be included in the project files 6. Participate and assist ACWD/SCVWD in addressing seawater intrusion problems. Records of all correspondences with these agencies and shall be included in the project files 4. USFWS and CDFG or their contractors 5. USFWS and CDFG or their contractors 6. USFWS and CDFG or their contractors 4. Prior to construction of each phase of the SBSP Restoration Project 5. Prior to construction of each phase of the SBSP Restoration Project 6. Throughout operation of the SBSP Restoration Project January 2008 B-7 Statement of Overriding Considerations

118 Exhibit B: Table MITIGATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION AND REPORTING ACTIONS MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY TIMING COMPLETION DATE APPROVED BY 3.8 Cultural Resources SBSP Impact 3.8-1: Potential disturbance of known and/or unknown cultural resources. SBSP Mitigation Measure 3.8-1: Discovery of Unknown Resources. Background. Restoration planned for the SBSP Restoration Project Area shall be treated as individual archaeological projects. The overall record search for this EIS/R was performed in June A new record search shall be performed for any projects within the SBSP Restoration Project Area where the previous record search is more than five years old. Site Survey. Prior to the beginning of any Project construction activity that could affect the previously unsurveyed portions of the Project Area, qualified professional archaeologists shall be retained to inventory all portions of the restoration site that have not been examined previously or have not been examined within the last 15 years. The survey(s) shall be conducted during a time when the ground surfaces of potential project sites are visible so the natural ground surface can be examined for traces of prehistoric and/or historic-era cultural resources. If the survey(s) reveals the presence of cultural resources on the Project site (e.g., unusual amounts of shell, animal bone, bottle glass, ceramics, and structure/building remains), and those resources have not been dealt with sufficiently in any Cultural Landscape documentation, the resources shall be documented according to current professional standards. The resources shall be evaluated for potential eligibility to the NRHP or CRHR. Depending on the evaluation, additional mitigation measures may be required, including avoidance of the resource through changes in construction methods or Project design or 1. Conduct a record search for any projects within the SBSP Restoration Area in accordance with SBSP Mitigation Measure Copies of searches shall be included in the project files 2. Hire a qualified professional archaeologist to inventory the restoration site and take appropriate if cultural resources are found in accordance with SBSP Mitigation Measure The qualified professional archaeologist shall prepare a report specifying the findings of the inventory and any taken to address cultural resources. Copies of the reports shall be included in the project files 1. USFWS and CDFG or their contractors 2. USFWS and CDFG or their contractors (not the professional archaeologist) 3. USFWS and CDFG or their contractors (not the professional archaeologist) 1. Prior to construction of each phase of the SBSP Restoration Project 2. Prior to construction of each phase of the SBSP Restoration Project 3. Prior to construction of each phase of the SBSP Restoration Project January 2008 B-8 Statement of Overriding Considerations

119 Exhibit B: Table MITIGATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION AND REPORTING ACTIONS MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY TIMING COMPLETION DATE APPROVED BY implementation of a program of testing and data recovery, in accordance with all applicable federal and state requirements. Pre-Construction Contractor Education. Prior to any Project-related construction, a professional archaeologist shall be retained to address machinery operators and their supervisors, preferably by giving an on-site talk to the people who will perform the actual earth-moving activities. This will alert the operators to the potential for finding historic or prehistoric cultural resources. Construction Monitoring. Any Project-related construction that occurs within 100 ft (30 m) of a known prehistoric resource shall be monitored by a qualified professional archaeologist and a Native American monitor. If elements of the known resource or previously unknown cultural resources are encountered during Project construction, all ground-disturbing activities shall halt within a 100-ft radius of the find. The archaeologist shall identify the materials, determine their possible significance, and formulate appropriate measures for their treatment in consultation with the Native American monitor, Most Likely Descendant (MLD), or appropriate Native American representative and the appropriate Lead Agency. Potential treatment methods for significant and potentially significant resources may include, but would not be limited to, no action (i.e., resources determined not to be significant), avoidance of the resource through changes in construction methods or Project design, or implementation of a program of testing and data recovery, in accordance with all applicable federal and state requirements. These measures shall be implemented prior to resumption of Project construction. Unanticipated Finds. If contractors identify possible cultural resources, such as unusual amounts of bone, stone, 4. Retain a qualified professional archaeologist to conduct a pre-construction contractor education session. The material from the session shall be included in the project files 5. Retain a qualified professional archaeologist and a Native American to conduct monitoring activities where construction would occur within 100 feet of a known prehistoric resource. 6. If cultural resources are found, the (stoppage of work, treatment, contact Native American representative, etc.) as identified in SBSP Mitigation Measure shall be implemented. The qualified professional archaeologist shall prepare a 7. The qualified professional archaeologist shall 4. USFWS and CDFG or their contractors (not the professional archaeologist) 5. USFWS and CDFG or their contractors (not the professional archaeologist) 7. USFWS and CDFG or their contractors (not the 4. Immediately prior to construction of the SBSP Restoration Project phase 5. During construction of each phase of the SBSP Restoration Project 6. During construction of each phase of the SBSP Restoration Project 7. During construction of each phase of the SBSP January 2008 B-9 Statement of Overriding Considerations

120 Exhibit B: Table MITIGATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION AND REPORTING ACTIONS MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY TIMING COMPLETION DATE APPROVED BY or shell, they shall be instructed to halt operation in the vicinity of the find and follow the appropriate contact procedures. Work shall not resume in the vicinity of the find until a qualified professional archaeologist has had the opportunity to examine the finds. The archaeologist shall identify the materials, determine their possible significance, if the finds are prehistoric, formulate appropriate measures for their treatment in consultation with the Native American monitor, MLD, or appropriate Native American representative and the appropriate Lead Agency. Potential treatment methods for significant and potentially significant resources may include, but would not be limited to, no action (i.e., resources determined not to be significant), avoidance of the resource through changes in construction methods or Project design, or implementation of a program of testing and data recovery, in accordance with all applicable federal and state requirements. These measures shall be implemented prior to resumption of Project construction. prepare a report identifying the treatment and disposition of the cultural resources. USFWS and CDFG shall include the copies of reports in the project files professional archaeologist) Restoration Project Human Remains. California law recognizes the need to protect interred human remains, particularly Native American burials and associated items of patrimony, from vandalism and inadvertent destruction. The procedures for the treatment of discovered human remains are contained in California Health and Safety Code Section and Section 7052 and California Public Resources Code Section The California Health and Safety Code requires that if human remains are found in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, work is to be halted in the immediate area. The appropriate Agency or the Agency s designated representative shall be notified. The Agency shall immediately notify the county coroner and a qualified professional archaeologist. The coroner is required to examine all discoveries of human remains within 48 hours January 2008 B-10 Statement of Overriding Considerations

121 Exhibit B: Table MITIGATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION AND REPORTING ACTIONS MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY TIMING COMPLETION DATE APPROVED BY of receiving notice of a discovery on private or state lands (Health and Safety Code Section [b]). If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American interment, then coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The MLD may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods, as provided in Public Resources Code Section The landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance if: (1) the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a MLD or (2) the MLD fails to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission or (3) if the landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. SBSP Impact 3.8-2: Disturbance of the historic salt ponds and associated structures which may be considered a significant cultural landscape. SBSP Mitigation Measure 3.8-2: Cultural Landscape, Inventory of Resources, Treatment of Finds. Cultural Landscape. Prior to implementation of any restoration action, a qualified professional shall be retained to determine whether the various salt works-related ponds, buildings, objects, and structures lining the southern San 1. Retain a qualified professional to determine whether the elements included in each phase of the project would be considered a cultural 1. USFWS, CDFG, or its contractors 1. Prior to construction of each phase of the SBSP Restoration Project January 2008 B-11 Statement of Overriding Considerations

122 Exhibit B: Table MITIGATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION AND REPORTING ACTIONS MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY TIMING COMPLETION DATE APPROVED BY Francisco Bay will be reviewed as a cultural landscape within the historic context and evaluation framework developed for this Project. This will be done for each Project phase. If a cultural landscape is identified, a determination must be made concerning NRHP and/or CRHR eligibility. If the landscape is determined to be eligible for listing to the NRHP and/or CRHR, an assessment of the Project s effects on the landscape will be conducted. This study shall include documentation of contributing elements to the resources, a list of non-contributing elements, and recommendations regarding any additional mitigation or treatment needed. Mitigation measures may include tasks such as Historic American Building Survey 1 / Historic American Engineering Record 2 / Historic American Landscapes Survey 3 (HABS/HAER/HALS) documentation, videotaping resources, a public outreach program, or signage at appropriate points along the proposed recreational trails. landscape and to make a determination concerning NRHP and/or CRHR eligibility 2. A qualified professional shall prepare a Study evaluating the project effect on the landscape. In accordance with SBSP Mitigation Measure A copy of the Study shall be included in the project files 3. A qualified professional shall document additional mitigation and taken. Copies of all relevant material related to the shall be included in the project files 1. Retain a qualified professional 2. USFWS, CDFG, or its contractors 3. USFWS, CDFG, or its contractors 2. Prior to construction of each phase of the SBSP Restoration Project 3. Prior to construction of each phase of the SBSP Restoration Project Mitigation Measure 3.8-1: Protection for Site ALA-593H 1. CDFG or its contractor 1. Prior to the construction of 1 The Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) is the nation's first federal preservation program, begun by the American Institute of Architects, the Library of Congress, and NPS in 1933 to document America's architectural heritage. HABS recording combines drawings, history, and photography to produce a comprehensive, interdisciplinary record. The documentation ranges in scope depending largely upon the level of significance and complexity. 2 The Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) was established in 1969 by the NPS, the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Library of Congress to document historic sites and structures related to engineering and industry. Appropriate subjects for documentation are individual sites or objects, such as a bridge, ship, or steel works; or larger systems, like railroads, canals, electronic generation and transmission networks, parkways and roads. 3 The Historic American Landscapes Survey (HALS) mission is to record historic landscapes in the United States and its territories through measured drawings and interpretive drawings, written histories, and large-format black and white photographs and color photographs. January 2008 B-12 Statement of Overriding Considerations

123 Exhibit B: Table MITIGATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION AND REPORTING ACTIONS MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY TIMING COMPLETION DATE APPROVED BY If ALA-593H (at Ponds E12 and E13) is determined to be eligible for listing to either the NRHP or CRHR, it shall be capped with soil or other appropriate materials and planted with vegetation similar to that found elsewhere on the levee to protect it. archaeologist to determine the site s eligibility for listing to either the NRHP or CRHR 2. The qualified professional shall provide a written report of its findings and recommendations, including the need to cap the site if it is eligible for listing 3. If the site requires capping, CDFG shall retain a qualified professional(s) (based on the recommendations of the report) to cap and revegetate the site 4. Documentation (photos, reports, etc.) of the effort shall be prepared by the professional and included in the administrative record 2. CDFG or its contractor 3. CDFG or its contractor 4. CDFG or its contractor 2. Prior to construction of 3. Prior to construction of 4. Prior to construction of 3.12 Traffic SBSP Impact : Potential short-term degradation of traffic levels on a roadway or at an intersection due to construction. SBSP Mitigation Measure : Timing of construction-related truck trips. 1. Incorporate into contractor specifications the requirement to limit 1. USFWS, CDFG or its contractors 1. Prior to construction January 2008 B-13 Statement of Overriding Considerations

124 Exhibit B: Table MITIGATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION AND REPORTING ACTIONS MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY TIMING COMPLETION DATE APPROVED BY The landowners (CDFG and USFWS) shall include in construction plans and specifications the requirement that construction-related truck trips, specifically deliveries of fill and equipment, shall occur outside the weekday am and pm peak commute traffic hours. construction-related truck trips to non weekday peak hours 2. Contractor implements condition 2. USFWS, CDFG or its contractors 2. During construction 3. Monitors construction truck traffic to ensure that the limitations are met 3. USFWS, CDFG or its contractors 3. Throughout construction SBSP Impact : Potential increase in parking demand. SBSP Mitigation Measure : Parking at recreational facilities. The Landowners (CDFG and USFWS), in coordination with the cities with jurisdiction over the proposed recreation improvements (where applicable), shall design recreational facilities with sufficient parking spaces to accommodate the projected increase in vehicles that access the site, unless adequate off-site parking is available to offset the demand for parking spaces. 1. Assess the adequacy of parking spaces for future proposed recreational facilities. 2. Conduct environmental analysis of proposed recreational facilities (including parking facilities as needed). The environmental document shall be included in the administrative record 3. Include necessary parking facilities in the design of the recreational component 4. Verify that design of the proposed recreational components include 1. USFWS, CDFG or its contractors 2 USFWS, CDFG or its contractors 3 USFWS, CDFG or its contractors 4 USFWS, CDFG or its contractors 1. Prior to the design of each subsequent phase 2. During the environmental document preparation for each subsequent phase 3. During preliminary design of the components 4. During final design of the components January 2008 B-14 Statement of Overriding Considerations

125 Exhibit B: Table MITIGATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION AND REPORTING ACTIONS MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY TIMING COMPLETION DATE APPROVED BY adequate parking facilities 5. Contractors build the recreational facilities, including parking as needed 6. Verify that parking facilities have been built 5 USFWS, CDFG or its contractors 5. During construction 6. USFWS, CDFG or its contractors 6. After construction of the components SBSP Impact : Potential increase in wear and tear on the designated haul routes during construction. SBSP Mitigation Measure : Videotape road conditions. If residential streets are part of the designated haul route for any future phases of the SBSP Restoration Project, the landowners shall prepare a videotape of road conditions prior to the start-up of construction for the residential streets affected by the Project. The landowners (CDFG and USFWS) shall prepare a similar videotape of road conditions after Project construction is completed. The pre- and post-construction conditions of haul routes shall be reviewed by staff of the local Public Works Department. An agreement shall be entered into prior to construction that will detail the pre-construction conditions and post-construction requirements of the roadway rehabilitation program. 1. Incorporate into contractor specifications the requirement to videotape road conditions for the haul routes which are residential streets (both before and after construction) 2. Enter into an agreement with the affected jurisdiction(s) to establish the improvements required for the rehabilitation program. Signed copies of the agreements shall 1. USFWS, CDFG or its contractors 2. USFWS and CDFG 1. Prior to each phase construction 2. Prior to each phase of construction January 2008 B-15 Statement of Overriding Considerations

126 Exhibit B: Table MITIGATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION AND REPORTING ACTIONS MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY TIMING COMPLETION DATE APPROVED BY be included in the administrative record 3. Contractor implements condition and submits the videotapes to public works department(s) of affected jurisdictions. Copies of the before- and after- videotapes shall also be included in the administrative record 3. USFWS, CDFG or its contractors 3. Prior to and after each phase of construction 4. Review the improvements necessary along the haul routes 4. USFWS, CDFG and the public works department of the affected jurisdiction(s) 4. Prior to each phase of construction 5. Implement improvements. The public works department shall provide documentation that improvements have been completed. The documentation shall be included in the administrative record 5. USFWS, CDFG and the public works department of the affected jurisdiction(s) 5. USFWS and CDFG 5. After each phase of construction 3.13 Noise SBSP Impact : Short-term construction noise effects. SBSP Mitigation Measure : Short-term noise effects. The landowners shall include in construction plans and 1. If conditional use permits are acquired, file these permits in the 1. USFWS, CDFG or its contractors 1. Prior to construction January 2008 B-16 Statement of Overriding Considerations

127 Exhibit B: Table MITIGATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION AND REPORTING ACTIONS MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY TIMING COMPLETION DATE APPROVED BY specifications the following requirement: All construction activities shall be limited to the days and hours or noise levels designated for each jurisdiction where work activities occur, as specified below; Eden Landing o City of Hayward: construction activities shall occur between 7 am and 7 pm Monday through Saturday and 10 am to 6 pm Sunday and holidays only. Alviso o City of San Jose: construction activities shall not exceed 55 dba at residential-zoned districts except upon issuance of and in compliance with a Conditional Use Permit; o City of Fremont: there are no restrictions for temporary construction activities; o City of Sunnyvale: construction activities shall occur between 7 am and 6 pm Monday through Friday and 8 am to 5 pm on Saturday. Construction activities shall not occur during Sunday or national holidays; o Santa Clara County: construction activities shall occur during the daytime hours of 7 am to 7 pm Monday through Saturday, except legal holidays; and o City of Mountain View: construction activities shall occur between 7 am and 6 pm Monday through Friday. Construction activities shall not occur during Saturdays, Sundays or holidays unless prior written approval is granted by the building official. administrative record. 2. Incorporate into contractor specifications construction noise limitations of the affected jurisdictions as well as the requirement to maintain construction equipment and install noise control as necessary 2 USFWS, CDFG, or its contractors 3. Implement condition 3 USFWS, CDFG, or its contractors 4. Monitor construction activities to ensure that the limitations are met 5. If construction activities occur outside the permitted hours or noise levels exceed affected jurisdictions noise standards, then USFWS, CDFG, or its contractor shall document the incidence and take preventive action. All documentation shall be included in the administrative record 4 USFWS, CDFG, or its contractors 5. USFWS, CDFG, or its contractors 2. Prior to construction 3. During construction 3. Throughout construction 4. Throughout construction 5 During and after construction January 2008 B-17 Statement of Overriding Considerations

128 Exhibit B: Table MITIGATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION AND REPORTING ACTIONS MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY TIMING COMPLETION DATE APPROVED BY Ravenswood o City of Menlo Park: construction activities shall occur between 8 am and 6 pm Monday through Friday only. Locate all construction equipment staging areas at the furthest distance possible from nearby noise-sensitive land uses; and Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and equipped with noise control, such as mufflers, in accordance with manufacturers specifications. SBSP Impact : Traffic-related noise impacts during construction. SBSP Mitigation Measure : Traffic-related noise. The landowners shall include in construction plans and specifications the following requirement: Contractors shall use haul routes that minimizes traffic through residential areas. Material hauling shall be conducted during the day-time hours only as specified in SBSP Mitigation Measure ; and A portion of the fill for the construction of the proposed levees that provide flood protection and/or habitat features shall be transported via barge. The percentage of fill transported by barge shall be determined when the amount of construction fill required for each phase of construction has been determined. The contractor shall determine the portion of fill that will be conveyed by barge based on an assessment of the land uses along proposal haul routes. 1. Review possible construction haul routes and identify routes that minimize constructionrelated traffic through residential areas or opportunities for transport by barge 2. Incorporate into contractor specifications the requirement to follow specified construction haul routes 1. USFWS, CDFG or its contractors 2. USFWS, CDFG or its contractors 3. Implement condition 3. USFWS, CDFG or its contractors 4. Monitors activity to ensure that construction contractors complies with the specification requirements 4. USFWS, CDFG or its contractors 1. Prior to construction 2. During construction 3. Throughout construction 4. Throughout construction January 2008 B-18 Statement of Overriding Considerations

129 Exhibit B: Table MITIGATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION AND REPORTING ACTIONS MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY TIMING COMPLETION DATE APPROVED BY SBSP Impact : Potential operational noise effects from pump operation and other O&M activities. SBSP Mitigation Measure : Operation of portable pumps. Where portable pumps would be operated in the vicinity of sensitive receptors such that noise levels would exceed noise standards established by affected jurisdictions, the landowners shall enclose the portable pump to ensure that a reduction of up to 10 db at 50 ft (15 m) is achieved and the noise levels of affected jurisdictions are met. 1. Review the locations of the portable pumps relative to the nearest sensitive receptor and calculate the projected noise levels based on the manufacture specifications of the pumps and the distance of the nearest sensitive receptors 2. If noise levels would exceed specified noise standards of affected jurisdictions, USFWS, CDFG, or its contractors shall construct enclosure for the portable pumps. Photodocumentation of the pumps shall be included in the administrative record 3. Operate pump with the enclosure 1. USFWS, CDFG or its contractors 1. Prior to operation 2. USFWS, CDFG or its contractors 2. Prior to operation 3. USFWS, CDFG or its contractors 3. Throughout operation 4. USFWS, CDFG or its contractors 3.14 Air Quality SBSP Impact : Short-term construction-generated air pollutant emissions. SBSP Mitigation Measure : Short-Term 1. Incorporate into 1. USFWS, CDFG 1. Prior to January 2008 B-19 Statement of Overriding Considerations

130 Exhibit B: Table MITIGATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION AND REPORTING ACTIONS MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY TIMING COMPLETION DATE APPROVED BY Construction-Generated Emissions. The following Basic Control Measures shall be implemented at all construction sites within the Project Area, regardless of size: Water all active construction areas at least twice daily, and more often during times of high wind; Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least 2 ft (0.6 m) of freeboard; Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (nontoxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites; Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites; and Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. The following Enhanced Measures shall be implemented at construction sites larger than four acres: Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more); Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (e.g., dirt, sand); To the extent practicable, limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph; Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways; Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible; and Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash contractor specifications or its contractors basic, enhanced, and optional dust control measures 2. Implement condition 2 USFWS, CDFG or its contractors 3. USFWS, CDFG, or its contractors monitors construction activities to ensure that the specification requirements are met 3. USFWS, CDFG or its contractors construction 2. Throughout construction 3. Throughout construction January 2008 B-20 Statement of Overriding Considerations

131 Exhibit B: Table MITIGATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION AND REPORTING ACTIONS MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY TIMING COMPLETION DATE APPROVED BY off the tires or tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the site. These additional Optional Measures shall be implemented if further emission reductions are deemed necessary by the USFWS, CDFG, or BAAQMD: Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph; and Limit the area subject to excavation, grading and other construction activity at any one time. According to BAAQMD, if the required mitigation measures are implemented during project construction, short-term generated emissions would be reduced to a lessthan-significant level. SBSP Impact : Potential exposure of sensitive receptors to TAC emissions. SBSP Mitigation Measure a: TAC emissions from construction within 500 ft (152 m) of sensitive receptors will require the following: Pursuant to BAAQMD Rule 6, the Project shall ensure that emissions from all off-road diesel-powered equipment used on the Project site do not exceed 40 percent opacity for more than three minutes in any one hour. Any equipment found to exceed 40 percent opacity (or Ringelmann 2.0) shall be repaired immediately, and USFWS, CDFG, and BAAQMD shall be notified within 48 hours of identification of noncompliant equipment. A visual survey of all inoperation equipment shall be made at least weekly, and a monthly summary of the visual survey results shall be submitted throughout the duration of the Project, except that the monthly summary shall not be required for any 30-day period in which no construction activity occurs. The monthly summary 1. Review the locations of the sensitive receptors relative to the construction site. Iif construction activities are within 500 feet of sensitive receptors, then the following would be taken: 2. Conduct weekly visual survey of all in-operation equipment and monthly summary of the visual surveys. The summaries shall be included in the administrative record. 3. Prepare and submit a plan to BAAQMD that 1. USFWS, CDFG or its contractors 2 USFWS, CDFG or its contractors 3 USFWS, CDFG or its contractors 1. Prior to construction 2. Throughout construction 3. Throughout construction January 2008 B-21 Statement of Overriding Considerations

132 Exhibit B: Table MITIGATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION AND REPORTING ACTIONS MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY TIMING COMPLETION DATE APPROVED BY shall include the quantity and type of vehicles surveyed as well as the dates of each survey. BAAQMD and/or other officials may conduct periodic site inspections to determine compliance. USFWS and CDFG shall provide a plan for approval by BAAQMD demonstrating that the heavy-duty (more than 50 horsepower) off-road vehicles to be used in the construction Project, including owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles, would achieve a Project-wide fleet average 45 percent particulate reduction compared to the most recent CARB fleet average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions may include use of late-model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels (e.g., Lubrizol, Puri NO x, biodiesel fuel) in all heavy duty off-road equipment. USFWS and CDFG shall require in construction plans and specifications that the model year of all off-road construction moving equipment shall not be older than USFWS and CDFG shall require in construction plans and specifications a provision that prohibits contractors from operating pre-1996 heavy-duty diesel equipment on forecast Spare-the-Air Days or on days when air quality advisories are issued because of special circumstances (e.g., wildfires, industrial fires). USFWS and CDFG shall minimize idling time to 10 minutes for all heavy-duty equipment when not engaged in work activities, including on-road haul trucks while being loaded or unloaded on-site. Staging areas and equipment maintenance activities shall be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible. demonstrates that the heavy-duty off-road vehicles used in construction would achieve particulate reduction. The plan and approval shall be included in the administrative record. 4. Incorporate into contractor specifications prohibitions on the equipment that can be used based on the model year, idling time, and staging areas. 4 USFWS, CDFG or its contractors 5. Implement. 5 USFWS, CDFG or its contractors 6. Monitor construction activities to ensure that the specification requirements are met 6. USFWS, CDFG or its contractors 4. Prior to construction 5. Throughout construction 6 Throughout construction January 2008 B-22 Statement of Overriding Considerations

133 Exhibit B: Table MITIGATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION AND REPORTING ACTIONS MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY TIMING COMPLETION DATE APPROVED BY In addition, where feasible and applicable, USFWS and CDFG shall do the following: Establish an activity schedule designed to minimize traffic congestion around the construction site Periodically inspect construction sites to ensure construction equipment is properly maintained at all times. Require the use of low sulfur fuel (diesel with 15 parts per million or less) Utilize EPA-registered particulate traps and other appropriate controls to reduce emissions of diesel particulate matter and other pollutants at the construction site. SBSP Mitigation Measure b: Health and Safety Plan The landowners and/or its contractors shall prepare a Health and Safety Plan that includes Project-specific monitoring procedures and action levels for dust. The portion of the plan that relates to the control of toxic contaminants contained in fugitive dust shall be prepared in coordination with BAAQMD. The recommendations of BAAQMD to prevent the exposure of sensitive receptors to levels above applicable thresholds (probability of contracting cancer for MEI that exceeds 10 in one million or if ground level concentrations of non-carcinogenic contaminants result in hazard index greater than one for the MEI) shall be implemented. The Health and Safety Plan, applicable to all excavation activities, shall establish policies and procedures to protect workers and the public from potential hazards posed by hazardous materials (including notification procedures to nearby sensitive receptors within 1,000 ft informing them of construction activities that may generate dust containing toxic 1. Prepare a Health and Safety Plan related to the control of toxic contaminants 2. Incorporate into contractor specifications the requirement to maintain a copy of the plan at the construction site and to implement the plan. 1. USFWS, CDFG or its contractors 2 USFWS, CDFG or its contractors 3. Implement condition 3. USFWS, CDFG or its contractors 4. Monitor construction activities to ensure that the specification requirements are met 4 USFWS, CDFG or its contractors 1. Prior to construction 2. Prior to construction 3. Throughout construction 4. Throughout construction January 2008 B-23 Statement of Overriding Considerations

134 Exhibit B: Table MITIGATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION AND REPORTING ACTIONS MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY TIMING COMPLETION DATE APPROVED BY contaminants). The plan shall be prepared according to federal and California OSHA regulations. The landowners and/or its contractors shall maintain a copy of the Plan onsite during construction activities Utilities SBSP Impact : Disruption of rail service due to construction of coastal flood levees and tidal habitat restoration. SBSP Mitigation Measure : The Landowners shall coordinate with UPRR on the design of the UPRR improvements to ensure that rail service is maintained during construction of flood control and restoration elements in and around Pond A Coordinate with UPRR during design of subsequent phases at and around Pond A16 2. Include records of coordination, including final design of Pond A16 in Administrative Record 3. Provide evidence that design had been completed in Administrative Record 1. USFWS or its contractors 1. During design of Pond A16 2. USFWS 1. Throughout design and implementation of Pond A16 3. USFWS 2. After design has been completed at Pond A16 January 2008 B-24 Statement of Overriding Considerations

135 Exhibit 4: Ravenswood Pond Complex

136 Exhibit 5: Project Letters

137 Exhibit 5: Project Letters

138 Exhibit 5: Project Letters BOARD OF DIRECTORS Gerald (Jerry) M. Serventi, President Port of Oakland Michael J. Giari, Vice- President Port of Redwood City Rick Rhoads, Secretary- Treasurer Moffatt & Nichol William Adams International Longshore & Warehouse Union Richard Aschieris Port of Stockton Capt. Marc A. Bayer Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company Omar Benjamin Port of Oakland Tom Bishop URS Corporation John Briscoe Briscoe, Ivester & Bazel LLP William Butler Hanson Aggregates, Northern California Claude Corvino Nichols Consulting Engineers Peter Dailey Port of San Francisco JoAnne L. Dunec Ellman Burke Hoffman & Johnson Bill T. Dutra The Dutra Group James Fiedler Santa Clara Valley Water District Greg Gibeson Pacific Inter-Club Yacht Association Roberta Goulart Contra Costa County Water Agency Bill Hanson Great Lakes Dredge & Dock, Inc. Eric Haug Manson Construction Co. Eric J. Hinzel Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. David W. Jefferson Burdell Ranch Wetland Conservation Bank Phillip Lebednik LFR Inc. Gary M. Levin Levin Richmond Terminal Corp. James D. Levine Montezuma Wetlands LLC Tery Lizarraga Chevron Products Company Barry Luboviski Building & Construction Trades Council of Alameda County Thomas A. Marnane T. Marnane Associates James C. Matzorkis Port of Richmond Gary Oates Environmental Science Associates Joseph Perkins Home Builders Association of N. California Paul Shepherd Cargill Salt Ellis A. Wallenberg III Treadwell & Rollo Scott D. Warner Geomatrix Daniel Woldesenbet Alameda County Public Works Agency October 15, 2008 Mr. Douglas Bosco Chair, California State Coastal Conservancy 1330 Broadway 13 th Floor Oakland CA Subject: South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project Dear Chairman Bosco and Board members, Bay Planning Coalition is writing to convey our support for the Conservancy Board authorization of $4.5 million for the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project implementation and the South Bay Shoreline Study on November 6, This 15,100 acre project is one of the largest wetland restoration projects on the West coast of the United States. This restoration project is a unique opportunity to restore critical habitat on a large landscape scale and contribute to the recovery of threatened and endangered species. The BPC was one of the early supporters of the subject Project eight years ago, has been and continues to be a strong advocate for state and federal funding, and has been honored to serve on the Stakeholders Advisory Committee. The Project team has worked very hard, and we are excited to see the progress. Continued funding is very important for the project's success. We also encourage the Conservancy to support additional funding for the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study. The Shoreline Study is a critical component of the project since this will enable the Corps of Engineers to participate in some aspects of this multi-objective project including a flood protection project. As sea level rises and the existing salt pond levees erode, flood protection has become more critical than ever. We look forward to continuing our active involvement and support. Sincerely yours, Ellen Joslin Johnck Executive Director 10 Lombard Street, Suite 408 San Francisco, CA Tel. (415) Fax (415)

139 Exhibit 5: Project Letters October 14 th, 2008 Mr. Douglas Bosco Chair, California State Coastal Conservancy 1330 Broadway 13 th Floor Oakland CA Dear Chair Bosco: On behalf of the Board of Directors and 3,500 members of the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, I am writing to convey our support for the Conservancy Board authorization of $4.5 million for the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project implementation and the South Bay Shoreline Study on November 6, This 15,100 acre project is one of the largest wetland restoration projects on the West coast of the United States. This restoration project is a unique opportunity to restore critical habitat on a large landscape scale and contribute to the recovery of threatened and endangered species. For over 50 years, our Audubon chapter has organized volunteers to conduct bird counts in the south bay salt ponds. From first hand experience we can attest to the extraordinary resource the salt ponds are, representing a rare combination of summer breeding, migratory stopover, and wintering non-breeding habitat of hemispheric importance. The south bay salt ponds are identified by the Audubon Society as an Important Bird Area, carrying our organization s stamp of significance for the value and importance of the salt pond footprint for both migratory and resident bird species. Funding for both restoration construction and adaptive management is needed to make the project a success. The adaptive management program has been integrated into the project starting before construction and continuing over time. This will ensure that undesired impacts will be detected early enough to take corrective action and that project success will be documented. Furthermore adaptive management will chart the course of future implementation phases since we ll answer key questions through the adaptive management process. We also encourage the Conservancy to support additional funding for the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study. The Shoreline Study is a critical component of the project since this will enable the Corps of Engineers to participate in some aspects of this multi-objective project including a flood protection project. We look forward to continuing to support the South Bay Salt Ponds Restoration Project and South Bay Shoreline Study and wish to thank you and the Conservancy Board for your thoughtful consideration of funding approval for these projects. Sincerely yours, Bob Power, Executive Director Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society

140 Exhibit 5: Project Letters October 17, 2008 Mr. Douglas Bosco Chair, California State Coastal Conservancy 1330 Broadway 13 th Floor Oakland CA The Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge urges you and your fellow Board members to vote on November 6, 2008 for the authorization of $4.5 million for the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project implementation and the South Bay Shoreline Study. The Citizens Committee has played a long and vital role in the acquisition and restoration of wetlands along the South Bay shoreline from Oakland to Redwood City. With the tremendous help of Congressman Don Edwards we played a key role in the expansion of the boundaries of the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge (DESFBNWR) by 20,000 acres. The 2001 acquisition of the Cargill salt pond lands helped fulfill much of the goals of that boundary extension. A prior incarnation of the Citizens Committee was responsible for the creation of the original San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge in 1972, again with the leadership of Congressman Don Edwards. Therefore we look forward with great anticipation at the prospect of restoring to tidal action many of the 15,000 acres of salt ponds acquired from Cargill and urge you to authorize $4.5 million towards that goal. However, as expressed in our comments on the South Bay Salt Pond DEIS/FEIS we have grave concerns over this project. There are still substantial amounts of land within the DESFBNWR boundary that are yet to be acquired. Some of these lands could be restored to tidal marsh at less cost and with less sediment demand than will be required for tidal restoration of the recently acquired properties. Also, some of these lands could play an important role in offsetting the impacts to shorebirds and waterfowl that are expected to result from the South Bay Salt Pond Project s alteration of salt ponds into tidal marsh. Finally, we fear that absent the acquisition of these properties rare habitats such as willow sausals and transitional and upland habitats not included in the Cargill purchase will be lost forever. Therefore, in your authorization resolution we suggest you include a statement urging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game to continue to make every effort to acquire the remaining lands within the DESFBNWR boundary.

141 Exhibit 5: Project Letters Despite these concerns, we recognize that funding for both restoration construction and adaptive management is essential if the current project is to succeed. Funding for monitoring is also essential since adaptive management is a futile concept if one does not know what management needs are necessary and that can only be determined through extensive monitoring of project conditions over time. We also encourage the Conservancy to support additional funding for the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study. The Shoreline Study is a critical component of the project since this will enable the Corps of Engineers to participate in some aspects of this multi-objective project including a flood protection project. As sea level rises and the existing salt pond levees erode, flood protection has become more critical than ever. This is yet another reason for the acquisition of the remaining DESFBNWR boundary parcels, since these all will help put a buffer between sea level rise and existing communities. We look forward to continuing to work with your staff in making the South Bay Salt Ponds Restoration Project one that not only helps recover endangered species but also preserves and restores rare habitats and continues to provide essential habitat for the shorebirds and waterfowl currently dependent upon the salt ponds. Sincerely yours, Arthur Feinstein Conservation Coordinator

142 Exhibit 5: Project Letters 1. Regional Open Space ~ ---- October 20, 2008 Mr. Douglas Bosco Chair, California State Coastal Conservancy 1330 Broadway 13thFloor Oakland CA MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT RE: Support for South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project Funding November 6, 2008 Conservancy Board Meeting Dear Chair Bosco: The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District wishes to convey its support for the Conservancy Board authorization of $4.5 million to implement the first phase of the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project and to provide additional funding for the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study. The District currently provides public shoreline access at one of the restoration project sites - the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Salt Pond SF2 restoration project adjacent to the Highway 84 approach to the Dumbarton Bridge. With the goal of converting a former commercial salt pond into managed pond habitat supporting a dense shorebird population, the Salt Pond SF2 restoration project incorporates public access improvements including an ADAcompliant trail, wildlife viewing platforms, and trailhead facilities that will greatly improve the visitor experience and accessibility to this shoreline. To allow this project to move forward, the District Board of Directors recently granted permission to the FWS to construct these public access improvements and pond restoration features along a shoreline where the District manages 106 acres of baylands either owned in fee or leased from the State Lands Commission. This pond restoration project furthers the expressed purposes of the District's lease of State lands to provide public access and preserve these baylands for wildlife habitat and environmental study. Funding for both the initial restoration work and ongoing adaptive management is needed to make the project a success. In this regard, the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study is also a critical component of the project since this will enable the Corps of Engineers to participate in key flood protection aspects of this multi-objective project. As sea levels rise and the existing salt pond levees erode, flood protection will become more critical than ever. We look forward to seeing the restoration projects get underway, and wish to thank the Conservancy Board for considering the authorization of significant funding support for this worthwhile effort. Sincerely, ~(~ General Manager RECEIVED OCT 2 1 lo08 COASTALCONSERVANCY OAKLAND,CALIF. 330 Distel Circle LosAltos CA fax info@openspace.org BOARDOFDIRECTORS: PeteSiemens,Mary Davey,Jed Cyr, Curt Riffle, Nonette Hanko, Larry Hassett, Kenneth C.Nitz GENERAL MANAGER: Stephen E.Abbors ~ ::,~,w,~ \~ ::~~:~g~o"

143 n --- Exhibit 5: Project Letters ANDY COHEN MAYOR HEYWARD ROBINSON VICE MAYOR JOHN BOYLE COUNCIL MEMBER RICHARDCLINE COUNCIL MEMBER. CITY OF MENLO PARK. 701 LAURELSTREET,MENLOPARK,CA KELLYFERGUSSON COUNCIL MEMBER Building TEL FAX City Clerk TEL FAX City Council TEL FAX City Manager'sOffice TEL FAX Community Services TEL FAX Engineering TEL FAX Environmental TEL FAX Finance TEL FAX Housing & Redevelopment TEL FAX Library TEL FAX Maintenance TEL FAX Personnel TEL FAX Planning TEL FAX Police TEL FAX Transportation TEL FAX October 20, 2008 Mr. Douglas Bosco, Chair California State Coastal Conservancy 1330 Broadway 13th Floor Oakland, California Subject: Dear Mr. Bosco: Support for Coastal Conservancy Authorization of Funding for the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project The City of Menlo Park wishes to convey support for the Conservancy Board authorization of funding for the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project implementation on November 6, This 15,100 acre project is one of the largest wetland restoration projects on the west coast of the United States. This project is a unique opportunity to restore critical habitat on a large scale and to contribute to the recovery of threatened and endangered species. Funding for both construction and adaptive management is needed to make this restoration project a success. The City of Menlo Park has contributed to this project by executing an agreement between the City, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and the Peninsula Open Space Trust to use $488,000 from the Menlo Park Bay Fund (mitigation fund for the former Marsh Road Landfill currently named Bedwell Bayfront Park) to finance a portion of the work. We look forward to continuing to support the South Bay Salt Ponds Restoration Project and encourage your Board to authorize the requested funding. Sincerely, ~~ Assitant Director of Public Works RN:LE:eg ~ECEIVED OCT COASTALCONSERVANCY OAKLAND,CALIF. Cc: Steve Ritchie, South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project Manager

144 Exhibit 5: Project Letters October 22, 2008 Mr. Douglas Bosco Chair, California State Coastal Conservancy 1330 Broadway 13 th Floor Oakland CA Subject: Support for South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project and South Bay Shoreline Study Implementation Funding Dear Chairman Bosco: On behalf of the Association of Bay Area Governments San Francisco Bay Trail Project, I am writing to express our support for Coastal Conservancy Board authorization of $4.5 million for implementation of the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project and the South Bay Shoreline Study. This 15,100 acre project is one of the largest wetland restoration projects on the West coast of the United States. This restoration project is a unique opportunity to restore critical habitat on a large scale and contribute to the recovery of threatened and endangered species. It also presents an opportunity to increase public access to restored wetlands, provide settings for environmental education and complete gaps in the planned 500 mile Bay Trail. This funding authorization includes improvements to the bayfront levee at Pond SF2 in the Ravenswood Complex. Resurfacing this 0.7 mile segment of the Bay Trail and installation of two interpretive platforms will greatly improve this area of the Ravenswood Open Space Preserve as a destination along the Bay. In addition, funding will contribute to the completion of a viewing platform at Bayfront Park in the City of Menlo Park. Administered by the Association of Bay Area Governments P.O. Box 2050 Oakland, CA Phone: Fax: Web:

145 Exhibit 5: Project Letters Located directly adjacent to the existing Bay Trail spur that encircles the park, this overlook will provide interpretation of marsh ecology and views of the restoration project. Authorization of this funding will also enable the implementation of the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project Adaptive Management Plan. Applied studies, monitoring and research are essential components of the decision making process that will be used by project managers to develop current and future restoration. These studies will help restoration managers and trail planners understand the necessary to incorporate public access into restoration areas without significantly impacting habitat. We also encourage the Conservancy to support additional funding for the South Bay Shoreline Study. The Shoreline Study is a critical component of the project since this will enable the Corps of Engineers to participate in some aspects of this multi objective project including a flood protection project. As sea level rises and the existing salt pond levees erode, flood protection has become more critical than ever. Thank you for the Conservancy s long standing dedication to the Bay Trail. We look forward to continued collaboration with the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project and South Bay Shoreline Study. Sincerely, Laura Thompson Bay Trail Project Manager

146 Exhibit 5: Project Letters 350 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 900 Oakland, CA t f savesfbay.org October 23, 2008 Douglas Bosco Chairman of the Board California Coastal Conservancy 1330 Broadway, 13th Floor Oakland, CA Dear Doug: Save The Bay strongly supports the Conservancy Board authorizing $4.5 million for the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project implementation and the South Bay Shoreline Study. As the region s largest membership organization working to protect and restore San Francisco Bay, Save The Bay has a long history of support for this project to restore Bay wetlands for people and wildlife. Save The Bay worked closely with state and federal authorities to encourage and consummate the acquisition of these salt ponds from Cargill Salt, with the Project s stakeholder forum on planning and promotion of the restoration project, and with public and private entities to encourage funding of the project. We are providing direct support for on-the-ground restoration and planning on salt ponds with the California Department of Fish and Game at Eden Landing in Hayward, and with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at Ravenswood Pond SF-2. The Conservancy s leadership in planning and execution of the South Bay Salt Pond Project has significantly advanced the goals of its Bay Area Conservancy program, and offers an unmatched opportunity for progress towards the Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals objective of 100,000 acres of restored tidal marsh habitat. We highlighted this opportunity in our 2007 report, Greening the Bay. Additional funding support for the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study is also crucial for project success, as that study will enable U.S. Army Corps of Engineers participation in essential flood protection planning that incorporates sea level rise projections. Thank you for supporting this important work to improve the Bay s health. Sincerely, David Lewis Executive Director