8F Consent 2007 0618 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

and the Port of Oakland (refer also to the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program in Appendix B). Comment 2-11: Impacts to burrowing owls during construction should be discussed. Response 2-11: The biological evaluation found that the potential for burrowing owl to be present in the project area is low because of dense vegetation, limited borrowing habitat, and regular human and dog disturbances. The Draft IS/MND indicates on page 26 that, if construction were to occur on the levee, pre-construction surveys would be conducted to determine absence or presence of owls; this action is part of the proposed project. In addition, the Natural Environment Study (WRA, 2005a) referenced in the Initial Study concludes that the project has been designed to avoid all impacts to the burrowing owl and that compensatory mitigation is therefore not required. The avoidance and minimization efforts included in the project include pre-construction surveys in accordance with CDFG protocols. If owls are observed during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31), a 125-foot buffer must be established, and CDFG notified, before work can occur in the buffer area. Comment 2-12: Mitigation Measure N-2 is inadequate regarding erosion control.. Response 2-12: This mitigation measure requires erosion control measures to be implemented as part of project construction. Mitigation Measure VIII-l provides further direction on implementation and monitoring of erosion control measures through preparation of a SWPPP, which must also include any conditions imposed by the Corps of Engineers and RWQCB as part of their permitting process. Comment 2-13: Mitigation Measure N-3(c) is inadequate since shrub avoidance will not be feasible during construction. Response 2-13: The mitigation measure provides requirements for actions if shrub habitat cannotbe avoided, including avoiding construction until after the breeding season. Comment 2-14: Preparation of a SWPPP without long-term monitoring and commitment by a sponsoring agency is inadequate to protect against erosion. Response 2-14: Please refer to Response 2-2. Comment 2-15: Mitigation Measure VII-l should include personal protective equipment and compliance with OSHA standards and performance criteria Response 2-15: It is uncertain whether contaminants may be present in the subsurface in the areas of proposed construction. A Phase II investigation has therefore been recommended in the Draft IS/MND. Depending on the results of the testing, a health and safety plan would be required. The mitigation measure mentions some of the items to be included in the health and safety plan; the list was not meant to be exhaustive, only illustrative of a site health and safety plan. The contractor for the proposed project would be responsible for the health and safety of hislher workers and would determine the specific personal protective equipment and action levels to be employed for their protection. Y 4204.00693.rtc.doc-4/5/07 A4