Biological Resources Sample Clauses

Biological Resources. Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact

Biological Resources. The proposed Agreement will not have any impact on biological resources, and will not change the impacts identified in the City’s CEQA documents.

Biological Resources. Consultation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA-Fisheries) under Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act will be required based on preliminary site review and search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), which indicates the presence of federal and state listed salmonid species. Preparation of a biological assessment (BA) is required in order for Caltrans District 1 to initiate consultation with NOAA-Fisheries under Section 7 of the federal endangered species act. Based on prior experiences, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ assumes that any potential Section 7 consultation will result in a “not likely to adversely affect” determination. If the majority of work is completed when the stream is dry, informal consultation may be the appropriate level of consultation for this project. Since federal funding would be required for the project, Caltrans, as the designated non-federal representative by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), would serve as the federal lead agency for any required Section 7 consultation with NOAA-Fisheries. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ will consult with NOAA-Fisheries, as appropriate, to review potential effects of the project to the species and develop mitigation measures to avoid or minimize adverse effects to federally listed species. The results of the field surveys and informal consultations with the NOAA-Fisheries will be compiled in a BA in accordance with the template in the Caltrans SER Volume 3, Chapter 4. Based on the location of the project within designated critical habitat and Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ will conduct an EFH evaluation. An EFH evaluation will be conducted to determine if a EFH assessment is required to consult with NOAA-Fisheries. If the EFH evaluation determines that the project “may adversely affect” EFH and/or critical habitat then a EFH assessment will be prepared pursuant to the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Fishery Act. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ will also conduct a NOAA-Fisheries pile driving hydroacoustic analysis using the Caltrans hydroacoustic compendium if ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Creek is expected to contain flowing or ponded water during project activities or is found warranted after technical studies and/or agency consultation. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ will be available to meet with representatives of NOAA-Fisheries and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to respond to questions and/or conduct a site visit, if necessary.

Biological Resources. The operator shall avoid any Federal and/or State Threatened and Endangered Species habitat, as well as State Species of Concern that exist in areas where the Facility will be constructed. If any Federal and/or State Threatened and Endangered Species or any State Species of Concern, is found to exist in areas where the Facility will be constructed, then the operator will collaborate with Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) to mitigate and minimize any potential impact to these species. Arrangements with CPW will be completed prior to application with the County.

Biological Resources. The Project may result in impacts to special-status plant species, vernal pool branchiopods (fairy shrimp and tadpole shrimp and habitat), valley elderberry longhorn beetle, California tiger salamander, western spadefoot, giant garter snake, western pond turtle, nesting birds, tricolored blackbird, Swainson’s Hawk, Northern harrier, Bats (Pallid bats or any other CSC- listed bat species), San ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ kit ▇▇▇, and American badgers species at or near the propose MPDCP site. Prior to and during construction, the Awardee will implement Mitigation Measures BIO-1 – BIO-12 of the MMRP, which California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) recommends conducting pre-activity clearance surveys to avoid nesting/▇▇▇▇▇▇/den/wetlands sites. Pipeline installation in or around the areas of special-status plant and animal species, the Applicant must consult with USFWS prior to implementation of the project to obtain required permits and authorizations for potential indirect impact to listed species. The applicant shall conduct a jurisdictional delineation of the project site to confirm the limits of jurisdictional areas and potential project impacts to state or federal projected wetlands. Therefore, with mitigation, the environmental impacts on Biological Resources will be reduced to less than significant levels.

Biological Resources. The proposed Agreement will not have any impact on biological resources, and will not change the impacts identified in the County’s CEQA documents.

Biological Resources. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 0 c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, ▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇ pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? X 0 d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? X 0 f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? 0 X O 2 According to the Biotic Report (Biotic Resources Group 2015) prepared for the Project 3 (Appendix C) and reviewed by CSLC staff, the Project site is primarily a sheer cliff face 4 that supports little vegetation and provides little wildlife habitat (see Figure 4). The 5 concrete seawall is not vegetated except for bands of sea lettuce (Ulva sp.) within the Addendum to Negative Declaration 2-6 May 2016 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Seawall Repair

Biological Resources. Non-Academic Entity

Biological Resources. Issues 1. Approach and Work Program policies that protect biological resources including wildlife, rare plants, and wetlands. Within this context, ESA will conduct an analysis of direct, indirect and cumulative impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed Project. ESA’s biological resources staff will:  Review relevant studies relating to the Project, including the Marin Countywide Plan and EIR, Marin County Housing Element and Supplement, Marin County Environmental Impact Review Guidelines, Marinwood Village Guiding Principles, City of San ▇▇▇▇▇▇ General Plan, and CSA/▇▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇▇ Engineering’s Hydrology Study.  Review the Project Description and technical documents provided by the applicant to identify if additional data is needed for a tiered environmental review.  Consult online databases including California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Species Lists, and the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants to create a comprehensive list of species with potential to occur on or near the Project site.  Conduct a field reconnaissance survey, literature review, and review of materials provided by the applicant, such as the Landscaping Plan.  Summarize and evaluate federal, State, and local policies and regulations that pertain to biological resources in the area. – Identify potential impacts related to development of the proposed Project on the preferred site, including direct impacts, such as vegetation/habitat removal, and indirect impacts, such as increases in noise and lighting levels over existing ambient levels, on plant and animal species, as well as wetlands. – Consider whether Project impacts, in conjunction with similar impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable Projects, will rise to the level of cumulative significance (i.e., whether the Project’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impact is “considerable”); and