8B Consent 2010 1004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

• r ESA L � C. Project Scope L 2. Restoring the site to provide higher quality wetland habitat than currently exists there; or 3. Setting it aside for restoration at a later date as part of a mitigation project or land bank for developments undertaken in the other portions of the study area, other parts of San Leandro or the greater Bay Area. For Option I, the ESA team would work with the City to characterize the expected demand for a dredged material handling facility. Fill drying and reuse could be become increasingly critical for sea level rise adaptation, as the demand for fill to protect low -lying areas from flooding increases. Potential impacts to adjoining land uses due to grading activities and material transport from the DMMS would need to be considered under this option. For Option 2, the ESA team would assess a range of potential restoration approaches including managed habitat (c.g., shorebird and waterfowl foraging and roosting) and tidal wetland habitat (c.g., mudflats, marsh, tidal channels, and high tide refugia). For Option 3, the ESA team would consider potential restored habitat types for inclusion in a mitigation bank (similar to those considered in Option 2), mitigation bank demand, permitting, and administrative requirements. The ESA team would qualitatively evaluate each option for habitat value, initial construction costs, ongoing maintenance costs, potential to generate • revenue, permit requirements, compatibility with other City objectives, and other relevant criteria. Note that since the DMMS is a jurisdictional wetland in its entirety, any change in hydrologic function would require compliance with state and federal wetland regulations. Analysis of DMMS options would be incorporated into the team meeting reports and the final report (see Section E, Work Products and Budget, of this proposal). • Cay or San Leandro Harbor Basin Alternatives Study RFP 50576 C-5