David Magney Environmental Consulting - California Native Plant ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Comments on Draft EIR for Newhall Ranch Mission Village Development DMEC Project No. 10-0181 1/3/2011 Page 60 D:\DMEC\Jobs\Friends_SantaClaraRiver\Newhall-MissionVillage\DMEC_comments_on_Newhall_MissionVillage_DEIR-20110103.doc DMEC The RMPD/SCP & EIS/EIR had not been certified by the CDFG by the time the Mission Village DEIR was released, as only the draft SCP has been issued to date. CDFG certified the SCP EIR only on 3 December 2010, and DMEC’s clients will file a CEQA and CESA legal challenge on that decision in early January 2011. Therefore, there is no legitimate mitigation plan that would compensate for the proposed impacts to Special-status species and waters of the U.S. Exotic Wildlife Species Control Plan Mitigation Measure MV 4.3-29 (page 4.3-345) states: “The project applicant will retain a qualified biologist to develop an Exotic Wildlife Species Control Plan and implement a control program for bullfrog, African clawed frog, and crayfish… After the first 5 years, the NLMO or other entity will be responsible for controlling exotic aquatic species.” Mitigation Measure MV 4.3-48 (page 4.3-353) states: “Upon completion of landscaping within a development area, quarterly monitoring shall be initiated for Argentine ants along the urban–open space interface at sentinel locations where invasions could occur (e.g., where moist microhabitats that attract Argentine ants may be created)… After the first 5 years, the NLMO or other entity will be responsible for controlling Argentine ants.” There is no biological evidence presented that the ecological threats posed by the Argentine Ant and species included in the Exotic Wildlife Species Control Plan will end after 5 years. There are no enforcement and funding provisions for continuation of the Exotic Wildlife Species Control Plan and Argentine Ant control beyond 5 years. These mitigation measures must assume as a baseline condition that exotic wildlife control will be required in perpetuity and require an endowment of adequate financial resources needed for perpetual implementation of the Exotic Wildlife Species Control Plan. These mitigation measures will not continue in perpetuity as there function beyond 5 years is essentially terminated with the vague statement that “after the first 5 years, the NLMO or other entity will be responsible for controlling Argentine ants”. The mitigation measures must have explicit funding and enforcement of Argentine Ant and exotic wildlife species control programs that will continue in perpetuity. As constructed, the mitigation measures absolve the project applicant of responsibility for fully mitigating the impacts of Argentine Ant and exotic wildlife species, which must be assumed to be a permanent impact and not one that will be resolved in 5 years. In the absence of clear language that these mitigation measures will be continued and adequately funded in perpetuity, Mitigation Measures MV 4.3-29 and MV 4.3-48, will not reduce the impacts that they address to less-than-significant levels and the many impacts that depend on these mitigation measures will not be reduced to less than significant levels as the project applicants claim. WETLANDS Wetlands, focusing only on wetlands under the jurisdiction of the Corps, are discussed starting on page 4.3- 133 of the DEIR). The area and types of wetlands on the Mission Village project site are derived entirely from a 2007 wetland delineation performed by URS, and then by Glenn Lukos Associates in 2008, and a revised preliminary delineation was prepared in mid-2010. There was no effort to identify all wetlands that were not under the Corps’ jurisdiction. The Clean Water Act regulations focus the Corps’ jurisdiction narrowly and excludes a wide range of wetlands that the State and ecologists recognize. The GLA
Comments on Draft EIR for Newhall Ranch Mission Village Development DMEC Project No. 10-0181 1/3/2011 Page 61 D:\DMEC\Jobs\Friends_SantaClaraRiver\Newhall-MissionVillage\DMEC_comments_on_Newhall_MissionVillage_DEIR-20110103.doc DMEC delineation did include riparian areas that are also under CDFG permit authority; however, these two agencies do not require permits for work within/modification to all types of wetlands. This is a major flaw in the CEQA assessment of project-related impacts to wetlands, focusing only on wetland types for which a permit is required to do work within or disturb in some fashion. The wetlands assessment in the Mission Village DEIR primarily refers to the Resource Management Plan/Spineflower Conservation Plan DEIR/EIS. The Mission Village project is estimated to impact (Table 4.3-9 on page 4.3-144): �� 1.6 acres of 4.0 acres of herbaceous wetlands (page 4.3-59); �� 19.7 acres of 115.1 acres of River Wash waters/wetland; �� 0.5 acre of 0.5 acre of Alluvial Scrub wetlands; �� 22.3 acres of 24.6 acres of riparian Big Sagebrush Scrub wetland; �� 0.1 of 55.6 acres of Giant Reed wetland; �� 6.9 acres of 7.6 acres of Arrow Weed wetlands; �� 5.6 acres of 5.8 acres of Mexican Elderberry Riparian Scrub wetlands; �� 2.8 acres of 2.8 acres of Mulefat Scrub wetlands; �� 0.7 acre of 1.5 acres of Southern Willow Riparian Scrub wetlands; and �� 28.8 acres of 109.2 acres of Fremont Cottonwood Riparian Forest wetlands. That is a total of 89 acres of jurisdictional wetlands that will be impacted, most of it permanently, to accommodate over 1,400 acres of non-water-dependent urban development uses. Several mitigation measures are proposed for wetland habitats to be created or enhanced as mitigation for wetlands destroyed by the Newhall Ranch project. Mitigation measures specifically pertaining to wetlands are detailed on Pages 4.5-1,975-1,982 under mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-16 in Section 4.5 (Biological Resources) of the EIS/EIR. Page 4.3-151 of the DEIR states: “Further, the River Corridor SMA/SEA 23 (totaling 977.5 acres) would be protected in perpetuity. Combined, these measures would reduce the project impacts on riparian habitat to below a level of significance. This finding is consistent with the findings of the Newhall Ranch Final Additional Analysis (May 2003).” Claiming that implementation of the previously adopted and recommended mitigation measures will reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level is not supported by the evidence. As clearly stated by DMEC previously and by the EPA in its comment letter on the SCP DEIR/EIS, the approach used and mitigations proposed are not even close to sufficient to reduce projectrelated direct and indirect impacts to wetland functions at Newhall Ranch. For example, development of a “conceptual mitigation plan” is not mitigation as defined by CEQA, it is a plan, a study. There must be details provided on how it will accomplish the goal of reducing the larger variety of impacts to wetland functions before it can meet the high test of reducing impacts to a less-thansignificant level. Specific issues/problems with this approach are discussed below. Appropriate Taxa for Mitigation <strong>Plant</strong> Palettes The mitigation measures section of Section 4.5 mentions that all detailed wetlands mitigation plans must include several specific elements as outlined in the Comprehensive Mitigation Implementation Plan (page
Page 1 and 2:
David Magney Environmental Consulti
Page 3 and 4:
Comments on Draft EIR for Newhall R
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10: Comments on Draft EIR for Newhall R
Page 59: Comments on Draft EIR for Newhall R
show all

David Magney Environmental Consulting - California Native Plant ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?