Wildlife service says proposed OC toll road safe

A heavily criticized plan to extend a toll road through San Onofre State Beach would not put at-risk wildlife in danger, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said Monday, according to the LA Times.
Nine species were reviewed, including endangered species, according to Jane Hendron, a wildlife service spokeswoman, the Times stated. For the most part the project's scope would be outside of the endangered species area, the spokesperson said.
But in other cases, the Pacific pocket mouse would benefit from the toll road agency's plans to manage the habitat.
In February, the California Coastal Commission voted 8-2 against the Transportation Corridor Agencies proposal to extend Orange County's Foothill South toll road, that would have cost $875 million.
The meeting drew hundreds of environmentalists and surfers who fought to block the agency's plans because of anticipated effects on wildlife and the effect the toll road would have on nearby surf spot Trestles beach.
But toll road officials have said disapproving the proposed extension of the current 67-mile system would stop the plan to help reduce traffic congestion.
The TCA has already filed an appeal with the United States Department of Commerce.
In addition the toll way would have had more of an effect on the San Mateo campground than anything.
Also, according the TCA spokesperson Jennifer Seaton, the project would:
• avoid certain wetland areas.
• create wildlife under crossings.
• treat water that comes from the San Mateo Creek
She said the environment would actually benefit from the toll road creating a net water quality benefit in the area in addition to improving air quality by moving cars more efficiently on the road, according to research done by independent biologists.
However, environmental and land preservation groups beg to differ. And these studies and reports are "very complicated," even according to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who even sent a letter to the commission to postpone the hearing 30 days.
Among the hundreds of attendants who came out to the commission meeting Feb. 7 many said the Environmental Impact Report was done sloppily and hides certain unavoidable concerns regarding the proposed project. They also said the commission's decision puts forth a message to preserve state land and upholds the Coastal Act.