Wavecrest applies for permit from US Army Corps of Engineers

I don’t know how they intend to get around the Bolsa Chica court ruling in Bolsa Chica Land Trust v. Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal. App. 4th 493

from http://www.procopio.com/publications/pdfs/HI_august_2000.pdf

“The court in Bolsa Chica held that development-related impacts on ESHAs cannot be mitigated through off-site restoration —  even when the restoration project promises to create “better” habitat than that in the affected ESHA.  Instead, the ESHA itself must be protected and preserved.”

ESHA = Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area

I have two questions: are the proposed ponds to be onsite or offsite?  If they are on Wavecrest property, the Bolsa Chica decision wouldn’t apply.

And second, how do the developers propose that a recreational trail will mitigate for habitat loss?

Comment 3 by Barry Parr  on  Feb 8  at  7:28pm  •  All my comments • 

The breeding ponds will be within the delineated wetlands on the Wavecrest site.

I have been waiting for the answer, and I just got it from the Corps. I’ve updated the story to reflect it.

I don’t see anything in that PDF to indicate onsite somehow escapes the requirement to protect an ESHA.  Do you have a reference?

Does anyone know if the Corps permitting process allows for community comment and involvement?

Comment 6 by Barry Parr  on  Feb 8  at  7:39pm  •  All my comments • 

I don’t think we have enough information to say one way or the other.

One interesting thing to note is that Wavecrest is proposing to build ponds as mitigation for Red Legged Frog habitat lost, but the area has been designated as habitat for both the frogs and for the San Francisco Garter Snake.  Also, I seem to remember that in the USFWS’s letter about the disking they noted that dry grassland areas near to wetlands were important for snake burrows.  Ponds don’t seem to offer mitigation for snake habitat.

Comment 8 by Barry Parr  on  Feb 10  at  5:22pm  •  All my comments • 

I was told this by Holly Costa of the Corps of Engineers:

To answer Mr. LaGuardia’s question: Yes, the Corps does consider community comments.  All letters should be sent to:

Attn: Regulatory Branch
US Army Corps of Engineers
333 Market Street, 8th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105

and please reference file number 29405S

Will drainage from developed areas will not impact the proposed ‘constructed red-legged habitat’?  No sense in mitigating a polluted pond.

Will this habitat be suitable for the Garter Snake also?

file number: 29405s