Mr. Gary N. Hamby November 21, 2002
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
California Division
980 Ninth Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814-2724
Attention: G. P. Bill Wong & David Ortez Esq.
Dear Mr. Hamby
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF RECORD OF DECISION OF THE FINAL SSEIS-DEVIL’S SLIDE
The Half Moon Bay Coastside
Foundation aka Save Our Bay (SOB ) has
reviewed the above captioned ROD in order to determine “both whether
substantial evidence supports the FHWA ROD findings and whether the findings
support the agency’s decision”. (Citation)
SOB’s review of the Devil’s Slide project Final SSEIS has determined
that the FHWA ROD approved preferred twin tunnels/bridges/mitigation
alternative does NOT cause the least
damage to the biological and physical environment and is not consistent with
the local and regional planning. Therefore, in remembrance for Flight 93 hero, SOB’s California Watershed Posse co-founder Alan
Anthony Beaven. Esq., “ a Californian aboard Flight 93 who helped prevent
the terrorists from crashing another airplane into its intended target on
September 11, 2001” (Senator Feinstein),
we respectfully ask the FHWA to re-open the Final SSEIS document for the
purpose of providing the FHWA new documented factual information revealing
effects of the Devil’s Slide Highway Improvement Project that may affect
federally listed species or critical habitat in a manner not identified to
date. For further information please
visit: www.cwposse.org or www.thepebble.info
|
|
|
STANDARDS OF REVIEW : SIERRA CLUB v. CCC PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
The standards which governed
SOB’s review of your agency’s decision are set forth in the Court of Appeals
opinion in Sierra Club v. California Coastal Commission (1993). “The agency which renders the challenged
decision must set forth findings to bridge the analytic gap between the raw
evidence and ultimate decision or order….By focusing….upon the relationships
between evidence and findings and between findings and ultimate action, the
Legislature sought to direct the reviewing courts attention to the analytic
route the administrative agency traveled from evidence to action. In so doing, we believe that the Legislature
must have contemplated the agency would
reveal this route.” (Citation)
“In determining whether
substantial evidence supports an agency’s reasoning process, the trial court
must look at the whole record (Citation) “The “in light of the whole
record” language means that the court reviewing the agency’s decision cannot
just isolate the evidence supporting the findings and call it a day, thereby
disregarding other relevant evidence in the record. (Citation) Rather, the
court must consider all relevant evidence, including evidence detracting from
the decision, a task which involves some weighing to fairly estimate the worth
of the evidence. (Citation) That limited weighing is not an independent review
where the court substitutes its own findings or inferences for the agency’s.
(Citation) It is for the agency to weigh the preponderance of conflicting
evidence (citation). Courts may reverse an agency’s decision only if ,
based on the evidence before the agency, a reasonable person could not reach
the conclusion reached by the agency.”(Citation)
ADOPTED FINDINGS SAN MATEO COUNTY LCP AMENDMENT NO.
1-96
DEVIL’S SLIDE TUNNELS
PAGE 11
Twin Tunnels Alternative:
“The conceptual tunnel design discussed above may very well be
representative of the tunnel that is actually constructed. However, the design
is only preliminary and the political process for securing funding, the
environmental review process, the permitting process, and the final design
process could all lead to significant changes in the design. Thus, in its review of the proposed LCP
amendment, the Commission must consider the possibility that other designs that
meet the basic criteria set forth in the Tunnel Initiative could ultimately be
proposed and that in CERTIFYING the proposed LCP amendment, the Commission
is NOT APPROVING ANY PARTICULAR TUNNEL DESIGN. NOTE: Page 4 of Adopted Finding for
SMC LCP Amendment No. 1-96, Timing and Capacity of Later Phases 2.54c
“Require that the roadway improvements be consistent with policies of the
Local Coastal Plan, particularly the Sensitive Habitats and Agriculture
Components.”
Bypass Alternative:
“Existing LUP Policy 2.54(b) describes the bypass alternative in the
following terms: For Route 1, allow
construction of a two-lane bypass with slow vehicle lanes on uphill grades
around Devil’s Slide. The County’s
preferred alignment is in the area of Martini Creek which bypasses Devil’s Side
and rejoins the existing Route 1 north of Montara…
Just as the proposed amendment would not dictate a particular tunnel alignment or design, the existing LCP policies do not dictate a particular bypass design. However, in February of 1986. Commission reviewed Consistency Certification No. CC-45-85-submitted by Caltrans for the development of an overland bypass. The consistency certification was necessary because Caltrans was applying for federal funding for the project. The Commission concurred with the consistency certification. As the design was approved by the Commission and other agencies, and CalTrans has invested significant resources in design, environmental review, and litigation in the project, the bypass project approved by the Commission under Consistancy Certification No. CC-45-85 represents the most likely bypass alternative design that would be built pursuant to the LCP policies..
FACTUAL HISTORY
In 1986 the Sierra Club filed suit in U.S. District Court over the issue of deficiencies in the FIES with regards to “noise” and it’s environmental consequences and mitigation measures. “In March 1995, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in cooperation with the California Departments of Transportation (Caltrans), issued a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (SEIS/EIR). The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was originally approved on April 16, 1986 , for a proposal to improve State Route 1 in San Mateo County, California. The preferred alternative, identified in the FEIS and selected in the FHWA Record of Decision signed on May 30, 1986, is known as the Martini Creek Alignment.”
“As indicated in the Draft
Supplement, the purpose of the document is to comply with the Order and
subsequent Judgment of the U.S. District Court following litigation regarding
the project. The Supplement is limited
to addressing the deficiencies in the FEIS determined in the litigation, and
therefore, only addresses noise issues.
A tunnel alternative was considered and rejected as part of the
CEQA/NEPA environmental review process in 1986. The U.S. District Court subsequently determined that the
treatment of alternatives in the 1986 FEIS was proper. Although only noise-related issues were
addressed in the 1995 Draft SEIS, comments were received indicating a tunnel
alternative would avoid project noise impacts. This issue has been
reviewed, and it is determined that the tunnel is not a reasonable alternative
because of its inconsistency with current planning policies, the lack
of funding, and various safety and cost issues.”
(Quotation from SEIS June 1995 Tunnel Investigation)
“CONSISTENCY WITH THE
COASTAL ZONE ACT HAS NOT BEEN OBTAINED”
FHWA
to CALTRANS 8/02/00“Consistency
with the Coastal Zone Act has not been obtained. The response to the County of
San Mateo’s comments that the wetlands and riparian habitat impacts and the
off-site mitigation is not currently allowed under the Coastal Act or
Local Coastal Program. There is no
indication that an alternative analysis of fill disposal option and request for
preliminary Federal Consistency Determination is in progress and therefore we
do not have closure on the consistency determination. These alternatives may
have additional unevaluated impacts that would not be disclosed in this
document.” (citation from HAD-CA File #04-SM-1 Document # P32748)
SMC to CALTRANS 01/25/01 “ Dear Mr. Yahata: You have requested that the County clarify
statements made in a letter dated May 11, 1999, from Paul M. Koenig, San Mateo
County Director of Environmental Services, to Robert Gross and Ed Pang of your
office. The letter offered comments regarding
the Second Supplemental Environmental Statement/Environmental Report. Your specific request is that the County
further explain the statement made at page four of the letter that off-site
mitigation of wetland impact is not allowed under the Coastal Act, and that ,
as a result, the County could not find that the proposed tunnel design complies
with the County’s Local Coastal Program.
After further review of this matter, we have concluded that this
statement was made in error. Our view is that a coastal development permit for
a tunnel at Devil’s Slide could be approved as consistent with the County’s
Local Coastal Program notwithstanding some impacts to wetlands. The basis for
our conclusions is set out below.”
“ Moreover, by certifying
Measure T and employing a Section 30007.5 conflict analysis, the Coastal
Commission confirmed that the choice made favoring the tunnel notwithstanding
some impacts to wetlands was, on balance, more protective of coastal
resources. Any County approval of a
coastal development permit for the Devil’s Slide project requires that the
County find that the project conforms to the policies of the County’s Local
Coastal Program. By virtue of the Coastal Commission’s certification, that
Local Coastal Program now includes Measure T, which calls for a tunnel at Devil’s
Slide, and allows for some impacts to wetlands as a result of tunnel
construction.”
“In summary, Public
Resources Code sections 30007.5 and 300200(b) require both the Coastal
Commission and local governments to resolve conflicts between competing policies
of the Coastal Act when carrying out the provisions of the Act. The electorate resolved policy conflicts in
favor of the tunnel when it adopted Measure T. The Coastal Commission Has twice
performed the analysis prescribed in Section 30007.5, certifying Measure T
despite the conclusion that construction of
tunnel would result in some wetland impacts. Measure T is now a part of the County’s certified Local Coastal
Program. It is our view that a coastal
development permit can be approved for construction of a tunnel despite some
impact to wetlands.
SOB
to FHWA 11/21/02
SOB’s review of the ROD for the
Devil’s Slide Final SSEIS finds that the above stated SMC and CCC opinions and
LCP Measure T conceptual certification do not meet the standard of review
adopted and set forth by the Court in Sierra Club v. California Coastal
Commission. Why? Because a reasonable person could not
reach the conclusion reached by the SMC, CCC or FHWA.. The CCC “conceptual
LCP certification” is NOT supported by any factual or legal findings or
consistent with the Court of Appeal of California 04/16/99 Bolsa Chica ruling regarding Coastal Act
Section 30240 (ESHA’s) and the use of Coastal Act Section 30007.5 . The CCC and SMC have provided the FHWA no evidence in the record that
destruction of the ESHA’s within the Devil’s Slide project area is a
prerequisite to the creation of their
“new” red legged frog twin tunnels off-site mitigation pond. Although the Coastal Act itself recognizes
the value and need for access to the coastal zone and coastal recreational
areas, nothing in the record or the letter from San Mateo County suggests there
is such an acute need for development of Route 1 in and around ESHA’s that cannot
be accommodated elsewhere. The certified Measure-T LCP amendment states: “The
County will (2.54a) “require that the roadway improvements be consistent with
policies of the Local Coastal Plan, particularly the Sensitive Habitats
and Agriculture Components.” (citation Adopted Findings SMC LCP 1/97 page 4)
Rather, the only articulated interests which the proposed transfer of the
“habitat values” serves is SMC subsidiary interest in retaining “the electorate
Measure-T preference for a tunnel alternative”. The Court of Appeal
ruled on April 16, 1999 “ In the absence of evidence as to why
preservation of the ESHA at its current location is unworkable, we cannot
reasonably conclude that any genuine conflict between long-term and short-term
goals exist. (Citation) In short, while compromise and balancing in light of
existing conditions is appropriate and indeed encouraged under other applicable
portions of the Coastal Act, the power to balance and compromise conflicting
interests (30007.5) cannot be found in 30240.” (citation)
The January 25, 2001
response letter authored by San Mateo
County Counsel offering clarification
regarding SMC Director of Environmental
Services Paul Koenig official statutory
SSEIS/EIR comments letter directed to CalTrans on May 11, 1999 is without proper legal
foundation. The CCC and SMC
interpretation of section 30240 was not
contemporaneous with the enactment of section 30240 or the result of any
considered official interpretative effort and it did not carry any other of the
indicia of reliability which normally requires deference to an administrative
interpretation. (See Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Board of Equalization,
supra, 19 Cal, 4th at pp.12-13)
Caltrans specific request was that the County further explain the
statement made at page four of the letter “that off-site mitigation of
wetlands impact is not allowed under the Coastal Act, and that, as a result,
the County could not find that the proposed tunnel design complies with the
County’s Local Coastal Program. After
further review of this matter, we have concluded that this statement was made
in error. Our view is that development
permit for a tunnel at Devil’s Slide could be approved as consistent with the
County’s Local Coastal Program, notwithstanding some impacts to wetlands.” The reasoning that SMC and CCC employed is unpersuasive and
clearly not supported by the April 16, 1999 Court of Appeal Bolsa Chica ruling :
First,
contrary to their argument, a court would not uphold their interpretation of section
30240 as set forth by the Commission in
its conceptual findings for the Measure-T LCP amendment certification. The CCC and SMC provide NO factual basis for
their assertion that supports the application of the balancing power provided
by section 30007.5. SOB’s review of the
Adopted Findings for San Mateo County LCP NO. 1-96 (Devil’s Slide Tunnel
Initiative) proceedings before the CCC did not disclose any policy or interest
which directly conflicts with the application of section 30240.
“Secondly, the language of section 30240 does not permit a
process by which the habitat values of an ESHA can be isolated and then
recreated in another location. Rather,
a literal reading of the statute protects the area of a ESHA from uses which
threaten the habitat values which exist in the ESHA. Importantly, while the obvious goal of section 30240 is to
protect habitat values, the express terms of the statute do not provide that
protection by treating those values as intangibles which can be moved from
place to place to suit the needs of development. Rather, the terms of the
statute protect habitat values by placing strict limits on the uses which may
occur in an ESHA and by carefully controlling the manner uses in the area
around the ESHA are developed. (Pygmy Forest, supra, 12 Cal. App. 4th
at p.611)
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
Petitioners and Real Parties in Interest Bolsa Chica Land Trust, Sierra Club and Surfrider Foundation
April
16, 1999“ The Coastal Act does not
permit destruction of an environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) simply
because the destruction is mitigated offsite.
At the very least, there must be some showing the destruction is needed
to serve some other environmental or economic interest recognized by the act.”
(Citation)
On August 23, 2000, Lennie Roberts, renown legislative
lobbyist and self proclaimed 6th
member and Chair for life of the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors
addressed the San Mateo County Planning Commission in support of Caltrans’ frog
pond “Tunnel Mitigation” project application for coastal development permit
(CDP). Here is the entire transcript of Ms. Roberts comments: “Good Morning
Mr. Chairman, I’m Lenny Roberts speaking for the Committee for Green
Foothills, and we support this project. Aaaa, it would be nice to have had
something in the staff report to the fact this is being done in conjunction
with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and because this has been a long negotiated process with the CalTrans
engineers and the U.S. Wildlife Service. How they’ve been in consultation with
the frog and other issues, “this is mitigation for the Tunnel”
and so I think it would be helpful if we put that somewhere because it is
part of a very broad extensive process that has gone through with the tunnel
construction. So, so this is one of the issues that occurs with the
endanger species is that if you are going to take the endangered species
or effect their habitat and you’re going to first do “mitigation” to first
avoid the impact aaa which the Tunnel project has done to the greatest
degree possible by building a bridge over this valley. Originally this valley was going to be
filled to go across, so that would have impacted the frog pond habitat, so
they’re bridging instead and they’re
creating this new frog habitat and one of the issues always is ...will that
work? And by doing this ahead of time, ahead of the project itself, a
there will be, I think ,sufficient assurance that the project will be a successful
“mitigation”. We hope so...a perhaps one thing you might want to
put in here is the additional condition that there will be monitoring of
project as it goes through the construction and afterwards to make sure that
the re-vegetation is successful and that the habitat is successfully
established. I think that would be a good conditional condition to put in
there. So we are very supportive of this and we appreciate the County
expediting this and I know everybody is trying to expedite this project, in spite
of everybody’s attempts it has taken a lot longer than everybody thought . Aaa
so those are my comments and yeah I
believe that the way they capture the frogs is at night with flash lights , a
time honored technique (laughter) or the tadpoles in the spring time. But to
successfully get the adults you have to do that I believe. Thank you. Planning Commission Chair: Anyone
else? Silence.....move to close the
hearing.”
On November 24, 2000, Save Our Bay staff conducted
a native species field survey at the location of the CalTrans Tunnels/Bridges
mitigation construction site , Devil’s Slide Highway 1 Project site, Pacifica,
San Mateo County, California. After the
three hour native species field survey was concluded, (attached please find
survey form for dates 7/27/000 & 11/24/000) it was found by SOB staff that
the Tunnels/Bridges mitigation project activities conducted by Caltrans, their
agents or others has resulted in a “take”
of federally listed Rana Avrora Draytonii, .. aka California Red-Legged Frog. Take
is defined by the Endangered Species Act as “ to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture,
or collect any listed wildlife species.
“Harm” in this definition includes significant habitat modification
or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife, by significantly impairing
essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. (50
CFR & 17.3)The Foundation’s Executive Director reported the take to Sheila Larson of the U.S. Fish
& Wildlife Service on Friday the 24th of November by telephone.
Sheila Larson informed Mr. Braun and Dave Cohn of SOB California Watershed
Posse, that CalTrans had diverted the water from the North Pond to construct
and fill the new EHSA mitigation pond. CalTrans
having been issued a Coastal Development Permit by SMC for the tunnel mitigation pond project,
immediately attempted to transfer the resident red legged frogs from the
drained North pond with the result being an unauthorized “take” under
CalTrans Section 7 agreement with the Service. On Monday November 27th, by
telephone, Oscar Braun filed the notice of violation (NOV) with U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service Agent Scott Pierson and provided him via fax the field survey
forms and mitigation project site location map. The Foundation also inform
Agent Pierson that they have photos of the ESHA starting 7/27/2000 up to and
including 11/24/2000. On the 24th, the Foundation also notified the
California Department of Fish & Game and San Mateo County Environmental
Services Agency.
Tunnels/Bridges ESHA Mitigation Project Description: This Tunnels/Bridges ESHA mitigation project as proposed by Lennie Roberts on behalf of San Mateo County involves the excavation of an upland area between two existing ponds found within US Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Jurisdictional Map and Project Study Area (Figure 5-3) The Tunnels mitigation pond will be deep enough to hold water of quantity and temperature. Flows would be diverted from an adjacent creek into this pond. Erosion control structures will be placed around the construction area to protect adjacent aquatic resources. Aquatic emergent vegetation, previously cultivated in wooded flats would be placed in the pond. Biologist will monitor vegetative growth in the new pond and replant as necessary to ensure success. The Service will conduct a field inspection of the new pond on or about April 15, 2001. “If the Service approves the new pond habitat, red-legged frog adults will be trapped from the north pond between April 15th and June 30, 2001 and moved to the new mitigation pond, constructed in the fall of 2000”
Factual Sequence of
Events, Court Rulings and CalTrans, CCC & SMC Violations
In October 2000, CalTrans,
having been unlawfully issued a Coastal Development Permit by SMC
for the tunnels pre-mitigation pond project, immediately conducted
mitigation construction activities in the COE delineated project areas that
included the draining of the North pond facilitating an “unauthorized take” and violating
their section 7 agreement with the
F&W Service dated September 26,
2000 (Ref. 1-1-00-TA-2980). By
unlawfully and prematurely issuing
their Devil’s Slide pre-mitigation CDP
to CalTrans, San Mateo County has 1)
defied the 1986 U.S. District Courts injunction prohibiting “all” construction
activities within the Devil’s Slide Route 1 project area from the Half Moon Bay Airport to Linda Mar
Boulevard Pacifica, San Mateo County, California. 2) Disregarded the CCC declaration shortly after the Court
of Appeals April 1999 Bolsa Chica
decision regarding Coastal Zone ESHA’s and Section 30007.5 that the CCC
would accept the courts findings and opinion and would NOT file an
appeal petition with the California Supreme Court seeking to overturn the Court of Appeal ruling. What
does that mean? It means that
neither the CCC nor SMC can overrule or
freely superced with de novo
proceedings the April 1999 Court’s ruling or legally revert back to
their pre-Bolsa Chica interpretation (circa January 1997) of section 30007.5 by re-certifying their conceptual consistency of the SMC Measure-T
LCP amendment. Note: June 17, 2002, The California Superior Court of San Mateo
County, Case # 402781, Joyce Yamagiwa, v. California Coastal Commission ruled “ The Commission’s self-righteous contention that it was merely acting
pursuant to the Coastal Act is not convincing.
In fact, this Court is disheartened with any such argument that
completely eliminates this Court’s prior order as though it was nothing more
than some minor hindrance to the Commission’s exertion of power. That the
Commission considers orders of the Superior Court as matters to be freely
superceded with de novo proceedings is saddening. The Court of Appeal has
appellate jurisdiction where the Superior Courts has original jurisdiction (Cal
.Constitution Article VI, section 11) The State Constitution limits the power
to overturn a Superior Court’s order to the appellate courts. (People v Gonzalez ( 1998) 12 Cal.4th.
804, 815) Moreover, the Legislature may not restrict appellate review in a
manner that would substantially impair the constitutional powers of the courts,
or practically defeat their exercise. (Leone v Medical Board (2000) 22 Cal.4th
660, 668) Any action by the Commission which has the effect of superseding
this Court’s order would be an infringement of the appellate court’s authority,
and would be improper.” 3)
By authorizing and issuing the Lennie Roberts proposed “pre-project mitigation
scheme activities CDP prior to seeking either District Court approval or being
granted federally required authorizations and permits from the Corp of
Engineers (COE) or .F&W Service
clearly violates both the Endangered Species Act section 7 & 9 and the
Clean Water Act section 404. These premeditated
violations of federal environmental protection laws clearly disqualifies
the County of San Mateo from receiving required and needed federal permits or
funding for the Devil’s Slide Route 1 Improvement Project. 4) The COE
has verified the SOB review findings by confirming that CalTrans did NOT acquire any of the required COE 404
permits to divert waters of the United States or conduct “ tunnels pre-mitigation
construction activities in the COE
delineated 404 ESHA. Please note
Final SSEIS/EIR volume 1 APPENDIX C : U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS NATIONWIDE
PERMIT AUTHORIZATION letter dated April
4, 2001 to CalTrans re: “You are advised to refrain from commencement of
your proposed activity until a determination has been made that your project is
covered under a existing permit.”
Factual Tunnels/Bridges ESHA Mitigation Project Background :
Th U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
by letter to Caltran’s Sid Shadle on September 26, 2000 stated: “Based on
the project description and corresponding avoidance measures proposed in your
correspondence, the Service has determined that “take” of the California
red-legged frog is not likely to concur.
Therefore, the project as proposed is in compliance with the Act, with the understanding that take is not
authorized under this agreement.” NOTE:
CalTrans characterized their
“pre-mitigation’ construction
activities as “conservation avoidance measures.” A
clear violation of the Courts ruling regarding ESHA off-site mitigation
activities.
“No further action pursuant to
the Act is necessary, unless (1) the
species is discovered within the project area; (2) new information reveals
effects of the proposed action may affect listed species in a manner or to an
extent not considered; or (3) a new species or critical habitat is designated
that may be affected by the proposed project.”
“No further action pursuant to the Endangered Species Act is necessary, unless new information reveals effects of the project that may affect federally listed species or critical habitat in a manner not identified to date. If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact Cecilia Brown or Ken Sanchez at (916) 414-6625.” Signed, Karen J. Miller, Chief, Endangered Species Division
Devil’s Slide Draft Supplemental EIS/EIR page 67. “ While the south pond at Shamrock Ranch is not within the project limits
of the proposed tunnel alternative, to ensure that the habitat will be
protected from construction activities, the south pond will be designated as an
Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) This designation restricts “any”
construction activities from occurring within its boundaries. Instead, the
transport of construction vehicles, equipment and personnel will “only” be allowed to occur on temporary roads from
existing Route 1. Note: All
activities within this COE 404 delineated areas require prior approval and permits from the COE.
“In terms of the general
protection, the Coastal Act provides for the coastal environment, we have
analogized it to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
(citation) We have found that under
both the Coastal Act and CEQA The
courts are enjoined to construe the statute liberally in light of its
beneficent purpose. (Citation) The highest priority must be given to
environmental consideration in interpreting the statute (citation).”
“ In addition to the protection
afforded by the requirement that Commission consider the environmental impact
of all its decisions, the Coastal Act provides heightened protection to
ESHA’s. Section 30107.5 identifies an
ESHA as “any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either
rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an
ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities
and developments. The consequences of
ESHA statue are delineated in section 30240(a). Environmentally sensitive
habitat areas shall be protected against any(71 Cal. App. 4th 507)
significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those
resources shall be allowed in those areas. Development in areas adjacent to
environmentally (63 CalRptr. 2d 858) sensitive habitat area and parks and
recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would
significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with continuance of
those habitat and recreational areas. Thus development in ESHA areas
themselves is limited to uses dependent on those resources, and development in
adjacent areas must carefully safeguard their preservation.”
We respectfully ask the
FHWA to re-open the Final SSEIS document for the purpose of providing the FHWA
new documented factual information revealing effects of the Devil’s Slide
Highway Improvement Project that may affect federally listed species or
critical habitat in a manner not identified to date.
Sincerely,
Oscar
Braun
Executive
Director, CWP Water Quality Protection Program , www.saveourbay.org or www.cwposse.org
CC.
Norman
Y. Mineta, U.S. Secretary of Transportation
Honorable
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Honorable
Senator Barbara Boxer
Robert
Gross, District 4 Branch Chief, Office of Environmental Planning South
Bob
Smith, Army Corp of Engineers
Karin J.
Miller, F&W Service, Chief, Endangered Species Division