Laserfiche WebLink
It is inequitable to require a condition to stock pile the excavated soil <br /> when this has an even greater potential for adverse impacts than its removal <br /> would. In addition, the stock piling will not only adversely affect Mr. <br /> Hardesty's property but has the potential of adversely affecting the adjoining <br /> properties. Therefore, we request that this condition be removed. <br /> California State Department of Fish and Game <br /> Condition (a). Habitat protection, replacement and management plan <br /> preparation. <br /> The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) authorizes ". . . <br /> feasible mitigation measures . . . which would substantially lessen the <br /> significant environmental consequences of . . . projects . . ." (Public Resources <br /> Code § 21002). Intrinsic to that authorization is the assumption that there is a <br /> significant impact to mitigate. Staff has not presented substantial evidence to <br /> prove that this project creates a significant impact on the Swainson's hawk <br /> foraging habitat. Under CEQA Guideline § 15384(a), substantial evidence <br /> means "enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this <br /> information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion." Staff <br /> relied upon the Department of Fish and Game's Informal Guidelines and the <br /> Department's determination of significant impact. However, the Department <br /> did not provide substantial evidence to substantiate its determination. <br /> This project is an agricultural project. It is not a housing development. <br /> This project will convert fallow, disturbed land into agricultural ponds that <br /> will enhance the foraging potential of the remaining 32 acres. In our <br /> previous letters to staff we presented biological information to prove that this <br /> project will not impact the foraging habitat of the Swainson's hawk. The <br /> Department did not refute our findings. The letters sent by individuals and <br /> groups that supported the Department's position also did not refute our <br /> information. <br /> In addition, the ponds will create habitat for other species, such as the <br /> giant garter snake. The ponds will provide water to irrigate the remaining 32 <br /> acres of this property, enabling the existing wetlands to remain wet for a <br /> longer period of time. This would increase the habitat for existing or <br /> potentially existing wetland plant and animal species. It is counter- <br /> productive to require mitigation for one species, when at least two other <br /> species will benefit from this project. <br /> Unless staff establishes the nexus between the impact and this <br /> mitigation measure, it cannot require it. Because this nexus is lacking, we <br /> request that this condition be removed. <br /> File No. SA-92-0041/Hardesty -4- 4/12/93 <br />