SU0012793 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Fi Page 78 Fri 0.859 acre of wetlands along the stream channel (see discussion under Existing S to i Y Conditions Drainages). , - a , The wetland mitigation and monitoring plan prepared for the relocation of North Branch of the South Fork of Little Johns Creek(Jones&Stokes, 1996)is included as Appendix D in this Supplemental EIR. The wetland mitigation and monitoring plan describes the existing conditions of the creek, the botanical f F and wildlife resources that exist within the creek channel,and the proposal to relocate and enhance the creek to allow the landfill expansion to make more complete use of the land. The wetland mitigation and monitoring plan was submitted as part of the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers(Corps)wetland permit' process(Regulatory Program, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act). Authorization of the project was issued on May 12, 1997. By authorizing the proposed creek relocation,the Corps recognizes that the long term impacts to the aquatic environment will be less than significant.. The mitigation plan includes widening of the flood plain,extensive a replanting and five years of monitoring as part of the project,and would result in an overall improvement of habitat quality associated with the creek. The creek relocation will create a channel of similar length as the existing creek channel (see Appendix D,Figure 3-1,but will substantially increase the width of the flood plain and will add 39.4 acres of riparian habitat that currently is lacking at the site. Im acts and MitiLration Measures i Standards of Significance 's Section a 15065 f ( )a the CEQA Guidelines specifies that a lead agency shall find that a project may have a � significant effect an the environment when the project has the potential"...to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining r levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,or reduce the number umber of a rare or endangered species ...". The Guidelines provide examples of impacts that normally are considered significant, including those that would: , • substantially affect a rare or endangered species of animal or plant or the habitat of the species; 1 • interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species; • substantially diminish habitat for fish,wildlife or plants. t ;F The CEQA Guidelines(Section 15380)further define rare or endangered species as those species i officially listed as threatened,endangered or rare under Federal or California law. In addition,the F-'i Guidelines provide that plant or animal species may be treated as"rare or endangered"even if not on one of the official lists if. _ Fk • its survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy , • the species is existing in such small numbers throughout all or a significant portion of its range that it may become endangered if its environment worsens;or t • if it is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future and may be categorized as"threatened" under federal law. Given these standards,a project would be considered to have a significant adverse impact on biological resources if it would result in substantial disruption to,or destruction of,any special status species, their GRASSETTI ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING