ARCHIVED REPORTS_1993_1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Michael Niblock City of Stockton 2 as a part of the proposal. Figures accurately depicting proposed project features in relation to natural features ,in the project areas should also be included. Finally, a detailed mitigation plan with monitoring and appropriate contingencies should be provided to compensate for project-induced habitat losses determined to be unavoidable. Wetlands and Other Wildlife Habitats. The document should map and describe all vegetative cover types in the areas potentially affected by each project alternative. Tables with acreages of each cover type under with- and without- project conditions for each alternative would also be appropriate. We recommend that all wetlands in the project areas be delineated and described according to the classification system found in Cowardin et al. (1979) . In the analysis of project alternatives, at least one alternative configuration should be designed to avoid all impacts to wetlands, including riparian areas. Similarly, with each of the remaining alternatives, measures to minimize or avoid impacts to wetlands should be included. Lists of fish and wildlife species expected to occur in the project areas should be present in the Report. For each of these species, the lists should also indicate whether it is a resident or migrant, and the period(s) of the year it would be expected to be found in the project area. The sections on impacts to fish and wildlife should discuss impacts due to vegetation removal (both permanent and temporary) , filling of wetlands or alteration of their hydrology, and interruption of fish and wildlife migration. Impacts on water quality, including nutrient loading, toxics, and biological oxygen demand should also be discussed in detail, along with the resultant effects on fish and aquatic invertebrates. Indirect impacts to fish, wildlife, and their habitats, should also be addressed in the Report. The impacts of each alternative should be discussed in sufficient detail to allow comparison between them. It is likely that this proposal will require a permit from the Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. When reviewing Corps public notices, the Service generally recommends against developments in wetlands, particularly when the project is not water dependent. Only when the applicant has considered all the practicable alternatives to the project, and has demonstrated that the selected alternative is the least environmentally damaging, should mitigation for unavoidable fish and wildlife losses become an issue. In that instance, full mitigation that leads to no net loss of wetland acres and habitat value is recommended for any unavoidable losses. Mitigation. When projects affecting waterways or wetlands are deemed acceptable to the .Service, we recommend full mitigation for any impacts to fish and wildlife. The Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act define mitigation to include 1) avoiding the impact, 2) minimizing the impact, 3) rectifying the impact, 4) reducing or eliminating the impact over time, and 5) compensating for impacts. The Service supports and adopts this definition of mitigation