SU0012488 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Frank Girardi San Joaquin County Community Development Department September 24, 2019 Page 4 of 7 Project to biological resources including fish, wildlife, and their habitats, 2)feasible avoidance, minimization mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to a level of less-than-significant, and 3) specific and sufficient compensatory mitigation for all impacts that cannot be fully avoided, including on-site habitat loss in the event SJMSCP will not provide coverage of the Project in whole or part as a means to mitigate impacts to a level of less-than-significant. To correct this, please revise and recirculate the IS/MND to include an impacts analysis that provides an evaluation and discussion of potential impacts of the Project to on-site biological resources including plants, fish, wildlife, and their habitats. Based on this impact analysis, please update the section to include mitigation measures that will ensure Project impacts are less-than-significant in the event SJMSCP does not approve of coverage of the Project in whole or part, or in the event the Proponent opts-out of participation in the SJMSCP. If the impacts analysis indicates there will be direct or indirect take of CESA-listed species, and the Project cannot fully avoid take of CESA-listed species and SJMSCP does not offer take coverage, then CDFW recommends the IS/MND include language defining the Project's obligation to obtain take coverage through an ITP issued by CDFW. Comment 4: revisions needed to identify and mitigate impacts to burrowing owls to a level of less-than-significant. The IS/MND does not mitigate potential impacts to burrowing owls (Achene cunicularia)to less- than-significant because the IS/MND lacks an evaluation of impacts to burrowing owls and does not include mitigation measures requiring 1) pre-construction surveys conducted according to CDFW'S Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012), 2) avoidance measures determined by CDFW if and when burrowing owls are discovered at the Project site, and 3) a measure requiring participation in SJMSCP. The IS/MND does not define avoidance measures in the event burrowing owls are discovered or reduce impacts from permanent loss of burrowing owl nesting or foraging habitats to a level of less-than-significant as it does not offset those impacts with a compensatory mitigation requirement. Burrowing owls are designated as a California Species of Special Concern (SSC), a designation used to describe at-risk taxa within the state that warrant proactive conservation to ensure the populations' persistence. As an SSC, the Project's potential impacts are compounded with ongoing impacts to the populations within the San Joaquin Valley through the loss of and scrub and upland habitats. In addition, the urbanization and conversion of row-crop agriculture to orchard and vineyard agriculture has also contributed to the species' decline. Therefore, loss of burrowing owl habitat can be considered a significant impact that warrants mitigation to less-than-significant through the IS/MND. To correct this, CDFW recommends the IS/MND be revised and recirculated to include an impacts analysis that provides an evaluation and discussion of potential impacts of the Project to burrowing owls and their habitats. If impacts are identified, CDFW recommends the IS/MND be revised to include adherence to the mitigation strategies defined in the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012) in addition to adherence to the survey protocol or require participation in the SJMSCP. If the IS/MND does not include a measure that requires participation in the Plan, CDFW recommends the IS/MND be updated to include a measure requiring compensatory mitigation for impacts to burrowing owl foraging habitat at a minimum of a 3:1 mitigation ratio (conserved habitat to impacted habitat)for permanent impacts and a 1:1 ratio for temporary impacts.