How to use the comment letter database
Search letters
Select your criteria and see the table of results below. The table provides information on project and document type, lead agency, location, local CNPS chapter, as well as a link to the full comment letter. Click any row in the table below to view full letter details.
Upload a letter of your own
To submit a comment letter to be added to the database please fill out the Comment Letter Upload form.
Creating your own letter
Avoid copying and pasting significant portions of letters in this database. Statements in a previous comment letter may not be applicable to the project you are working on. See Writing Comment Letters for more guidance. If you need assistance with your comment letter or have questions, please reach out to Conservation Program staff.
| Title | Project Name | Year | SCH Number | Statute | Document | Sub type of Document | Stage of Process | Lead Agency Type | Lead Agency | County | CNPS Chapter | CNPS Author of Letter | Non-CNPS Author of Letter | Project Type | Project Outcome | Full Comment Letter Text | Issues Raised | Link to Comment Letter | Cases cited | Statutes Cited | CNPS Policy Cited | Link to Documents | Latitude | Longitude |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021_Aratina_EIRScoping | Aratina Solar Project 2.0 | 2021 | 2021020513 | CEQA | EIR | NOP | Scoping | County | Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department | Kern | Kern Chapter | State Office | N/A | Energy, Local Planning Action | Ongoing | March 29, 2021 Ronelle Candia Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department 2700 M Street, Suite 100 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Sent electronically to: CandiaR@kerncounty.com Re: Scoping Comments on Aratina Solar Project 2.0 Notice of Preparation Dear Ms. Candia, Thank you for the opportunity to provide scoping comments on the proposed Aratina Solar Project 2.0 (#20401) (the “Project”) in Kern County, California. The Aratina Solar Project 2.0 consists of five sites of approximately 2,317 acres of privately-owned desert habitat. The sites are located in unincorporated Kern County, to the East of the San Bernardino county line and north of the Edwards Air Force Base boundary, in the vicinity of the unincorporated communities of Boron and Desert Lake. The applicant, 64NB 8ME LLC, is proposing to develop a 530-MW photovoltaic solar facility and associated infrastructure for 600 MW of energy storage. The California Native Plant Society (“CNPS”) is a statewide, non-profit organization with more than 10,000 members distributed across 35 local chapters. The mission of CNPS is to conserve California native plants and their natural habitats, and to increase the understanding, appreciation, and horticultural use of native plants. CNPS works closely with decision-makers, scientists, and local planners to advocate for well-informed policies, regulations, and land management practices. CNPS supports renewable energy development that is sited and planned to avoid adverse environmental impacts to sensitive biological resources. Our concerns regarding the Project include impacts to rare plants, vegetation, and ecological processes. Importantly, the Project is sited in the western Mojave Desert. The deserts of Western North America represent one of Earth’s last remaining large, intact ecosystems. These habitats are a reservoir of biodiversity, ecosystem services, and evolutionary processes. In the face of climate change, and a myriad of other impacts including renewable energy development, the maintenance of the primary roles of desert habitats is of utmost importance. Renewable energy projects should be sited to avoid 2 direct and indirect impacts to plant species (including transmission lines and roads), such as habitat reduction, alteration, fragmentation, exposure to contaminants or fires, and introduction of non-native species. With that in mind, please consider the following recommendations as the Project is evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”). 1. Complete Full-Floristic Surveys Comprehensive botanical scoping and surveys consistent with CDFW Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities 1 should be performed prior to construction and ground disturbing activities. In line with CDFW guidelines, botanists should conduct inventories of all plants that have potential to occur on the Project site, using databases such as the California Natural Diversity Database and the CNPS Rare Plant Inventory. It should be noted that many areas of the California desert have not been surveyed adequately for the presence of sensitive species. Consequently, the review of existing databases is not a substitute for comprehensive, on-the- ground surveys. Surveys should be “full-floristic” in nature, meaning they should document all plant species that occur on the Project site, and should be conducted by a qualified botanist. This is necessary in order to catalog and assess impacts to all sensitive species, not just those that are predetermined to have a likelihood of occurring on the Project site. Impacts to all plants included on the CDFW Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List2 need to be evaluated, as well as all plants in the CNPS Rare Plant Inventory. For rare plants found on the site, the DEIR must address the cumulative impacts of the large number of already-implemented renewable energy projects in addition to the effects of projects that are expected to be implemented in the future in Kern County. The cumulative impact on ecological processes and biological corridors also needs to be addressed. 2. Conduct Surveys in a Year with Adequate Rainfall Botanical surveys need to be conducted following adequate amounts of precipitation and timed appropriately to ensure that rare plants are detectable. The detectability of special status plants with potential to occur on a project site can be verified by botanists visiting nearby reference populations of rare plants. The timing and details of visits to reference populations of special status plants should be detailed in the DEIR. Lastly, details of the rare plant survey effort should also be documented in the DEIR, including information on the dates of surveys, number of surveyors, names of surveyors, and the survey methods used. 1 https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline 2 https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109383&inline 3 3. Vegetation Communities Must Be Mapped to the Alliance Level Vegetation types and sensitive natural communities on the Project sites should be mapped, at a minimum, to the Alliance level in accordance with CDFW’s Vegetation Classification and Mapping Standards3 . Sensitive communities should be mapped to Alliance and Association according to the Manual of California Vegetation (MCV), Second Edition (Sawyer et al. 2009) and California Sensitive Natural Community List (CDFW 2020), in consultation with a qualified botanist, and the total acres of temporary and permanent impacts associated with each MCV Alliance/Association should be disclosed. High salinity/alkaline wetlands in desert ecosystems are often home to rare plant species. Special care should be taken to delineate any wetlands, riparian areas, and washes that may be impacted by the Project. The conservation of wetlands is essential to maintaining the hydrological function of desert ecosystems and sensitive habitats. The methods used to identify and map wetlands on the Project site should be clearly reported in the DEIR. 4. Required Mitigation Measures Must Be Sufficient to Fully Compensate for Impacts In the event that the Project has unavoidable impacts to plants, mitigation measures that reduce impacts to less than significant levels should be planned and implemented. The mitigation plan should include a discussion of suitability of off-site mitigation locations and on- and off-site mitigation ratios. Adequate monitoring must be a part of the mitigation plan to fully compensate for significant impacts. An ecosystem-based habitat mitigation and monitoring plan for impacts to sensitive plants and vegetation communities should be developed in consultation with a qualified botanist and restoration specialist. Thank you for the opportunity to provide scoping comments on the Aratina Solar Project 2.0. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Isabella Langone Conservation Analyst California Native Plant Society 2707 K Street, Suite 1 Sacramento, CA 95816 ilangone@cnps.org 3 https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=102342&inline | survey, mapping, mitigation, desert, wetlands | N/A | N/A | N/A | https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2021020513 | 34.99 | -117.68 | |
| 2020_AricaVictory_EIRScoping | Arica and Victory Pass Solar Projects | 2020 | 2020100076 | CEQA | EIR | NOP | Scoping | State | California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Inland Deserts Region 6 | Riverside | Riverside-San Bernadino Chapter | State Office | N/A | Energy | Ongoing | November 4, 2020 Magdalena Rodriguez Project Manager California Department of Fish and Wildlife 3602 Inland Empire Boulevard, Suite C220 Ontario, CA 91764 Sent electronically to: magdalena.rodriguez@wildlife.ca.gov Re: Arica and Victory Pass Solar Projects Notice of Preparation Scoping Comments Dear Ms. Rodriguez, Thank you for the opportunity to provide scoping comments on the proposed Arica and Victory Pass Solar Projects (the Projects) in Riverside County, California. For Arica, the project proponent, Clearway, proposes to construct and operate a 265-MW photovoltaic solar project on 2000 acres, and, for Victory Pass, proposes to construct and operate a 200-MW photovoltaic solar project on approximately 1800 acres of land. Combined, the Projects would affect a total of 3800 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management in Riverside County. In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the potential impacts of the Project will be evaluated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) in an environmental impact report (EIR). The Projects must comply with the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) including all Conservation Management Actions (CMAs) outlined in the Land Use Plan Amendment (LUPA), in addition to other applicable state, local, and federal laws. The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) is a statewide, non-profit organization with more than 10,000 members distributed across 35 local chapters. The mission of CNPS is to conserve California native plants and their natural habitats, and to increase the understanding, appreciation, and horticultural use of native plants. CNPS works closely with decision-makers, scientists, and local planners to advocate for well-informed policies, regulations, and land management practices. Our concerns regarding the Projects include, but are not limited to, impacts to rare plants, vegetation, and ecological processes. Given the scale of the Projects and existing site conditions, impacts to native plants and plant communities are unavoidable. Importantly, the Projects are sited in the northern Sonoran Desert near the area in which this desert intergrades with the Mojave Desert to the north. The deserts of Western North America represent one of Earth’s last remaining large, intact ecosystems. These habitats are a reservoir of biodiversity, ecosystem 2 services, and evolutionary processes. In the face of climate change, and a myriad of other impacts including renewable energy development, the maintenance of the primary roles of desert habitats is of utmost importance. Furthermore, renewable energy projects (including transmission lines and roads associated with the projects) should be sited to avoid direct and indirect impacts to plant species, such as habitat reduction, alteration, fragmentation, exposure to contaminants or fires, and introduction of non-native species. With that in mind, we recommend that the following potential impacts be evaluated comprehensively in the EIR. 1. Impacts to Rare Plants. Based on a review of existing sources (the California Natural Diversity Database1 , Consortium of California Herbaria2 , and CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants3 ) the Project sites are potentially home to populations of numerous sensitive plant species. Two rare plants, Wislizenia refracta subsp. palmeri (Palmer’s jackass clover, California Rare Plant Rank [CRPR] 2B) and Ditaxis serrata var. californica (California ditaxis, CRPR 3), are either present on or highly likely to occur on the Project sites. Additionally, based a review of rare plants known to occur in adjacent habitats, numerous rare species have the potential to occur on the Project sites. These include: Scientific Name Common Name CRPR BLM Special- Status? Astragalus insularis var. harwoodii Harwood's milk-vetch 2B no Castela emoryi Emory's crucifixion-thorn 2B no Colubrina californica Los Animas Colubrina 2B no Ditaxis claryana glandular ditaxis 2B no Eriastrum harwoodii Harwood's eriastrum 1B yes Penstemon pseudospectabilis subsp. pseudospectabilis desert beardtongue 2B no The Project must complete comprehensive botanical surveys consistent with CDFW Botanical Survey Protocols4 . This also means that the impacts to all plants included on the CDFW Special Status Plant List5 need to be evaluated, including those that are on CRPR Ranks 2B, 3, and 4. In line with these guidelines, botanists should conduct inventories of all plants on the Project site. Additionally, it should be noted that many areas of the California desert have not been surveyed adequately for the presence of sensitive species. Consequently, the review of existing databases is not a substitute for comprehensive, on-the-ground surveys. These surveys should be “full-floristic” in nature, meaning they should document all plant species that occur on 1 https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB 2 http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/ 3 http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/ 4 https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline 5 https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109383&inline 3 the Project sites. This is necessary in order to catalog and assess impacts to all sensitive species, not just those that are predetermined to have a likelihood of occurring on the Project sites. Botanical surveys need to be conducted following adequate amounts of precipitation and timed appropriately to ensure that rare plants are detectable. Rare plants with the potential to occur on the Project sites includes annuals that germinate following summer/fall precipitation. This means that surveys must be completed not only in the spring following adequate precipitation, but also in the fall following adequate precipitation. The detectability of special status plants with potential to occur on a project site can be verified by botanists visiting nearby reference populations of rare plants. The timing and details of visits to reference populations of special status plants should be detailed in the EIR. Lastly, details of the rare plant survey effort should also be documented in the EIR, including information on the dates of surveys, number of surveyors, names of surveyors, and the survey methods used. For rare plants found on the sites, the analysis of the Projects’ impacts to those plants needs to consider the impacts to the same species on other renewable energy project sites in the region. Numerous solar energy projects at various stages in the development process – from existing and operational to the early planning stages – are located in the region surrounding the Project sites. Given that the Projects are located in a DRECP Development Focus Area (DFA), additional solar energy development projects may be sited adjacent to the Project, and the cumulative impacts to rare species in the region remain a primary concern. Solar energy development projects and associated infrastructure projects located close to the Project sites include, but are not limited to: Desert Sunlight Desert Harvest PV solar Palen Solar Oberon Athos An analysis of cumulative impacts should include the effects of already-implemented projects in addition to the effects of projects that will be implemented in the future. Also, the Projects should ensure the maintenance of biological corridors necessary for the movement of species in the face of climate change. The cumulative impact on ecological processes and biological corridors stemming from the large number of proposed and already-implemented solar energy development projects in the region needs to be addressed. Finally, any impacts to special-status plants must comply with CMAs adopted in the DRECP. These include: LUPA-BIO-PLANT-2: Implement an avoidance setback of 0.25 mile or all plant Focus and BLM Special-Status Species occurrences. Setbacks will be placed strategically adjacent to occurrences to protect ecological processes necessary to support the plant Species (see Appendix Q, Baseline Biology Report). 4 LUPA-BIO-PLANT-3: Impacts to suitable habitat for plant Focus and BLM Special- Status Species should be avoided to the extent feasible and is limited [capped] to a maximum of 1% of their suitable habitat in the LUPA Decision Area. 2. Impacts to Vegetation and Habitats. Vegetation types and sensitive natural communities on the Project sites should be mapped to the Alliance level in accordance with CDFW’s Vegetation Classification and Mapping Standards6 . Mapping to the Alliance level is necessary to determine the potential impact to sensitive natural communities and the special habitats identified in DRECP CMAs. The Projects are required to document impacts to special vegetation features, as detailed in LUPA-BIO-SVF-1 through LUPA-BIO-SVF-7. Special vegetation features with the potential to occur on the Project sites include microphyll woodland and crucifixion thorn stands. Should sand dune habitats occur on the Project sites, these habitats must comply with the CMAs LUPA-BIO-DUNE-1 through CMA LUPA-BIO-DUNE-4. Lastly, any riparian or wetland habitats must be fully documented and must comply with CMAs LUPA-BIO-RIPWET-1 through LUPA-BIO-RIPWET-7. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to provide scoping comments on the Arica and Victory Pass Solar Projects. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, Isabella Langone Conservation Analyst California Native Plant Society 2707 K Street, Suite 1 Sacramento, CA 95816 ilangone@cnps.org 6 https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/data/vegcamp/publications-and-protocols | rare plants, vegetation, ecologial processes, habitat, fragmentation, rare species, Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, DRECP | N/A | N/A | N/A | https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2020100076/2 | 33.71 | -115.27 | |
| 2020_AricaVictory_EISScoping | Arica and Victory Pass Solar Projects | 2020 | N/A | NEPA | EIS | Proposal | Scoping | Federal | Bureau of Land Management | Riverside | Riverside-San Bernadino Chapter | State Office | N/A | Energy | Ongoing | November 2, 2020 Miriam Liberatore Project Manager Bureau of Land Management 3040 Biddle Road Medford, OR 97504 Sent electronically to: blm_ca_clearways_solar_project@blm.gov Re: Scoping Comments on Arica and Victory Pass Solar Projects Dear Ms. Liberatore, Thank you for the opportunity to provide scoping comments on the proposed Arica and Victory Pass Solar Projects (the Projects) in Riverside County, California. For Arica, the project proponent, Clearway, proposes to construct and operate a 265-MW photovoltaic solar project on 2000 acres, and, for Victory Pass, proposes to construct and operate a 200-MW photovoltaic solar project on approximately 1800 acres of land. Combined, the Projects would affect a total of 3800 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management in Riverside County. In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the potential impacts of the Project will be evaluated by the BLM in an environmental impact statement (EIS). The Projects must comply with the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) including all Conservation Management Actions (CMAs) outlined in the Land Use Plan Amendment (LUPA), in addition to other applicable state, local, and federal laws. The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) is a statewide, non-profit organization with more than 10,000 members distributed across 35 local chapters. The mission of CNPS is to conserve California native plants and their natural habitats, and to increase the understanding, appreciation, and horticultural use of native plants. CNPS works closely with decision-makers, scientists, and local planners to advocate for well-informed policies, regulations, and land management practices. Our concerns regarding the Projects include, but are not limited to, impacts to rare plants, vegetation, and ecological processes. Given the scale of the Projects and existing site conditions, impacts to native plants and plant communities are unavoidable. Importantly, the Projects are sited in the northern Sonoran Desert near the area in which this desert intergrades with the Mojave Desert to the north. The deserts of Western North America represent one of Earth’s last remaining large, intact ecosystems. These habitats are a reservoir of biodiversity, ecosystem services, and evolutionary processes. In the face of climate change, and a myriad of other 2 impacts including renewable energy development, the maintenance of the primary roles of desert habitats is of utmost importance. Furthermore, renewable energy projects (including transmission lines and roads associated with the projects) should be sited to avoid direct and indirect impacts to plant species, such as habitat reduction, alteration, fragmentation, exposure to contaminants or fires, and introduction of non-native species. With that in mind, we recommend that the following potential impacts be evaluated comprehensively in the EIS. 1. Impacts to Rare Plants. Based on a review of existing sources (the California Natural Diversity Database1 , Consortium of California Herbaria2 , and CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants3 ) the Project sites are potentially home to populations of numerous sensitive plant species. Two rare plants, Wislizenia refracta subsp. palmeri (Palmer’s jackass clover, California Rare Plant Rank [CRPR] 2B) and Ditaxis serrata var. californica (California ditaxis, CRPR 3), are either present on or highly likely to occur on the Project sites. Additionally, based a review of rare plants known to occur in adjacent habitats, numerous rare species have the potential to occur on the Project sites. These include: Scientific Name Common Name CRPR BLM Special- Status? Astragalus insularis var. harwoodii Harwood's milk-vetch 2B no Castela emoryi Emory's crucifixion-thorn 2B no Colubrina californica Los Animas Colubrina 2B no Ditaxis claryana glandular ditaxis 2B no Eriastrum harwoodii Harwood's eriastrum 1B yes Penstemon pseudospectabilis subsp. pseudospectabilis desert beardtongue 2B no The DRECP CMA, LUPA-BIO-PLANT-1 requires that the project proponent “conduct properly timed protocol surveys in accordance with the BLM’s most current (at time of activity) survey protocols for plant Focus and BLM Special-Status Species.” Additionally, it should be noted that many areas of the California desert have not been surveyed adequately for the presence of sensitive species. Consequently, the review of existing databases is not a substitute for comprehensive, on-the-ground surveys. These surveys should be “full-floristic” in nature, meaning they should document all plant species that occur on the Project sites. This is necessary in order to catalog and assess impacts to all sensitive species, not just those that are predetermined to have a likelihood of occurring on the Project sites. 1 https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB 2 http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/ 3 http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/ 3 Botanical surveys need to be conducted following adequate amounts of precipitation and timed appropriately to ensure that rare plants are detectable. Rare plants with the potential to occur on the Project sites includes annuals that germinate following summer/fall precipitation. This means that surveys must be completed not only in the spring following adequate precipitation, but also in the fall following adequate precipitation. The detectability of special status plants with potential to occur on a project site can be verified by botanists visiting nearby reference populations of rare plants. The timing and details of visits to reference populations of special status plants should be detailed in the EIS. Lastly, details of the rare plant survey effort should also be documented in the EIS, including information on the dates of surveys, number of surveyors, names of surveyors, and the survey methods used. For rare plants found on the sites, the analysis of the Projects’ impacts to those plants needs to consider the impacts to the same species on other renewable energy project sites in the region. Numerous solar energy projects at various stages in the development process – from existing and operational to the early planning stages – are located in the region surrounding the Project sites. Given that the Projects are located in a DRECP Development Focus Area (DFA), additional solar energy development projects may be sited adjacent to the Project, and the cumulative impacts to rare species in the region remain a primary concern. Solar energy development projects and associated infrastructure projects located close to the Project sites include, but are not limited to: Desert Sunlight Desert Harvest PV solar Palen Solar Oberon Athos An analysis of cumulative impacts should include the effects of already-implemented projects in addition to the effects of projects that will be implemented in the future. Also, the Projects should ensure the maintenance of biological corridors necessary for the movement of species in the face of climate change. The cumulative impact on ecological processes and biological corridors stemming from the large number of proposed and already-implemented solar energy development projects in the region needs to be addressed. Finally, any impacts to special-status plants must comply with CMAs adopted in the DRECP. These include: LUPA-BIO-PLANT-2: Implement an avoidance setback of 0.25 mile or all plant Focus and BLM Special-Status Species occurrences. Setbacks will be placed strategically adjacent to occurrences to protect ecological processes necessary to support the plant Species (see Appendix Q, Baseline Biology Report). LUPA-BIO-PLANT-3: Impacts to suitable habitat for plant Focus and BLM Special- Status Species should be avoided to the extent feasible and is limited [capped] to a maximum of 1% of their suitable habitat in the LUPA Decision Area. 4 2. Impacts to Vegetation and Habitats. Vegetation types on the Project sites should be mapped to the Alliance level in accordance with CDFW’s Vegetation Classification and Mapping Standards4 . Mapping to the Alliance level is necessary to determine the potential impact to sensitive natural communities and the special habitats identified in DRECP CMAs. The Projects are required to document impacts to special vegetation features, as detailed in LUPA-BIO-SVF-1 through LUPA-BIO- SVF-7. Special vegetation features with the potential to occur on the Project sites include microphyll woodland and crucifixion thorn stands. Should sand dune habitats occur on the Project sites, these habitats must comply with the CMAs LUPA-BIO-DUNE-1 through CMA LUPA-BIO-DUNE-4. Lastly, any riparian or wetland habitats must be fully documented and must comply with CMAs LUPA-BIO-RIPWET-1 through LUPA-BIO-RIPWET-7. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to provide scoping comments on the Arica and Victory Pass Solar Projects. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, Isabella Langone Conservation Analyst California Native Plant Society 2707 K Street, Suite 1 Sacramento, CA 95816 ilangone@cnps.org 4 https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/data/vegcamp/publications-and-protocols | rare plants, vegetation, ecologial processes, habitat | N/A | N/A | N/A | https://go.usa.gov/xGw6u , https://go.usa.gov/xGwFc | 33.72 | -115.28 | |
| 2019_CalVTP_DraftPEIR | California Vegetation Treatment Program | 2019 | 2019012052 | CEQA | EIR | Program EIR | Draft | State | Board of Forestry and Fire Protection | Statewide | N/A | State Office | N/A | Vegetation Management | Approved | August 9, 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Attn: CalVTP PO Box 944246 Sacramento, CA 94244-2460 By electronic transmission to: CalVTP@bof.ca.gov RE: Comments on the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Statewide Vegetation Treatment Program – CalVTP To the members of the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection: The California Native Plant Society appreciates the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations in response to the California Board of Forestry’s (the Board, or BoF) 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report for the California Vegetation Treatment Program (CalVTP or PEIR). The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) is a non-profit environmental organization with over 10,000 members in 35 Chapters across California and Baja California, Mexico. CNPS’ mission is to protect California’s native plant heritage and preserve it for future generations through application of science, research, education, and conservation. CNPS works closely with decision- makers, scientists, and local planners to advocate for well-informed policies, regulations, and land management practices. CNPS has advocated ecologically appropriate vegetation management of forests, shrublands, and grasslands across California for decades. It is imbued within the mission and vision of our organization. We have participated in the review of a statewide Vegetation Treatment Program (VTP) since at least 2005. During each draft VTP iteration, we have advocated increasing the pace and scale of prescribed fire as an ecological restoration tool in forests where too infrequent fire threatens forest health, while at the same time advocating a decrease in prescribed fire as a vegetation treatment tool on chaparral and coastal sage scrub dominated landscapes, where too frequent fires threaten shrubland habitats. We are encouraged to see the 2019 CalVTP acknowledge that, even at increased in pace and scale, vegetation treatments represent only a part of what is needed to address the current state of wildfire preparedness in California (see CalVTP at p. 1-1). Simultaneously with vegetation treatment, California must commit both resources and actions that will ensure that its citizens can harden their homes against ember ignition, create and maintain appropriate defensible space, have an effective alert system when danger approaches and the means to evacuate to safety, understand and practice ways to reduce unintentional ignitions, and that will provide land-use decision-makers the wherewithal to decide when and where not to approve WUI-expanding development in high fire-hazard areas. 2 The current 2019 CalVTP is an improvement over previous versions, however there are significant issues that still need to be resolved before our organization can support certification of the PEIR. We provide both general and chapter-specific comments below. 1. The CalVTP needs an effective means of public notice, public input, and public tracking of Project Specific Analysis (PSAs). In order to build and maintain broad public support, raise public awareness, and avoid local controversy and backlash, it is essential that such an extensive vegetation management program be designed, publicized, and implemented with transparency. In addition, due to the magnitude of the cumulative effects of the CalVTP, we strongly recommend that the state develop and maintain a transparent, tracking system for present and future vegetation treatment projects in order to account for annual acres treated, and help assess whether, cumulatively, these actions contribute positively or negatively toward the goal of a fire and climate resilient California. Over time, the CalVTP could be adapted based on findings of such assessments. While the CalVTP references an existing system that tracks acres treated by CalFIRE and contracting counties, it is clear the data collected is incomplete and this system needs improvement (see CalVTP Chapter 2.3.1 at p. 2-2). We believe designing the tracking system aligns with the scope of the Forest Management Task Force and the Ecological Performance Measures Work Group. There needs to be a clear and effective process for the submittal, review, approval, and subsequent tracking and monitoring of projects. Such a process needs to include: • timely notice to the interested public that a project has been proposed; • an opportunity for public input on the proposed project; • consultation with California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) and the State Water Board (SWRCB) on project design to ensure that the “fuel reduction project protects water resources and wildlife habitat while addressing fire behavior and public safety” consistent with PRC 41231 ; • Consultation and coordination with local tribes and traditional cultural practitioners, where appropriate; • Identification of PSA-certifying entity; • tracking of proposed, ongoing, and completed projects in a publicly available online dashboard, to inform evaluation of cumulative impacts and track progress toward state goals. The process as currently described in the CalVTP lacks public notice or an opportunity for public input. This non-transparent approach, combined with the massive scale of the proposed PEIR, is a recipe for community conflict and acrimony. CNPS continues to commmit resources to educate our members and the general public about the need to address unnatural fuel conditions and improve ecosystem resiliency. These efforts to build public support for mechanical treatments, 1 Section 4123 of the Public Resources Codes reads: When selecting a fuel reduction project, the department [CalFIRE] shall collaborate with the State Water Resources Control Board and the Department of Fish and Wildlife to ensure the design of the fuel reduction project protects water resources and wildlife habitat while addressing fire behavior and public safety. 3 prescribed fire, and other vegetation treatments could be quickly undermined if the public has no advanced knowledge of, or opportunity to comment on, projects that may directly affect their community or local region. It is essential to provide a clear mechanism for informing the public of proposed projects. This is likely best accomplished through an online portal where the public can subscribe to receive notifications of projects proposed in their region of interest, and also see what other projects have been approved or completed. There must also be a meaningful opportunity for public input on proposed projects. The Project Specific Analysis will be the first time an interested party has a clear description of the proposed action and they must be afforded an opportunity to engage with the process in a meaningful manner. A comment period consistent with existing CEQA standards, and beginning when the Project Specific Analysis is available and notification is sent to parties who have indicated interest in projects in that region, will build and maintain community support for vegetation management projects without causing meaningful delay. Further, the project proponent and the reviewing agencies will gain insight from citizens who may have knowledge about the project area or who may have insight about conditions that would be affected by a project. CNPS has demonstrated this can be a constructive, collaborative effort between concerned local citizens and local fire crews during the implementation of California’s 2019 Emergency Fuels Reduction projects (e.g., North Fork American, North Orinda, and Ponderosa West Fuel Reduction projects). We believe providing transparency and an opportunity for engagement will help build consensus in our effort to create a more resilient California. Establishing a clear process for public input – which assures that feedback reaches the project proponent, the appropriate local representatives from DFW, the Regional Water Board, and the CalFire unit, as well as the approving entity – will build broader social acceptance of the CalVTP and improve individual projects. 2. The CalVTP must articulate collaboration between CalFIRE, CDFW, and SWRCB during PSA review. The following language was established into state statute (at Public Resources Code section 4123) in June 2019, after the draft was written. 4123. When selecting a fuel reduction project, the department [CalFIRE] shall collaborate with the State Water Resources Control Board and the Department of Fish and Wildlife to ensure the design of the fuel reduction project protects water resources and wildlife habitat while addressing fire behavior and public safety. The CalVTP must incorporate language that clearly states CalFIRE will collaborate with CDFW SWRCB during PSA review of future project activities to reflect this new law. 3. Clarify the decision-making official for individual projects The CalVTP it is not clear about who determines whether or not a PSA meets the criteria for programmatic approval. The PEIR needs to more clearly articulate the review and approval process, including who has the final authority and responsibility to determine whether individual projects are consistent with the PEIR and appropriate for programmatic approval. A graphic flow chart illustrating decision tree scenarios when a) CalFIRE is the lead agency, and b) when 4 another entity contracts with CalFIRE would be helpful to illustrate how PSA determinations will be made. 4. The CalVTP needs to plan for maintenance of treated areas over time Once treated, the vegetation will regrow. As stated in the PEIR, on forested lands, treated areas will reestablish nearly to pre-treatment conditions within 8 years (see CalVTP Chapter 2.5.1 at p. 2-23), yet there is no consideration or analysis within the PEIR of follow-up activities that will need to be done to maintain desired conditions. The state must establish a process for monitoring the status of projects at least 10 years post treatment to determine treatment effectiveness and whether the areas still provide desired conditions, and for identifying what activities and resources are necessary to maintain desired conditions. 5. RPFs are not equivalent to qualified botanists or qualified plant ecologists in all aspects of project-level planning and monitoring, especially PSA, SPR, and MM considerations for rare plants, and rare natural communities. Consideration of botanical resources at the project level will require the knowledge and experience of qualified plant ecologists, botanists, wildlife biologists, archaeologists, and others specialized in their disciplines to survey, design, and monitor critical aspects of successful and effective vegetation treatment activities. This is particularly relevant during implementation of Standard Project Requirement (SPR) measures SPR BIO-1 and SPR BIO-7. Insufficiently planned projects can result in compensatory mitigation requirements, loss of critical wildlife habitat, type conversion to flashy weed vegetation, and an increase in long term vegetation management efforts. Within its Project Description, the CalVTP describes an equivalency between a registered professional forester (RPF) and other qualified personnel: Qualified Registered Professional Forester (RPF) or Botanist: To be qualified, an RPF or botanist would 1) be knowledgeable about plant taxonomy, 2) be familiar with plants of the region, including special-status plants, 3) have experience conducting floristic botanical field surveys as described in CDFW “Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities” (current version dated March 20, 2018), or experience conducting such botanical field surveys under the direction of an experienced botanical field surveyor, 4) be familiar with the California Manual of Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009 or current version), and 5) be familiar with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to plants and plant collecting. The project proponent will review the resume and approve the qualifications of RPFs or botanists. [2019 CalVTP Chapter 2.7.5 at p. 2-35] While Registered Professional Foresters can be excellent at their craft, no one person knows enough about every aspect of plant ecology required to achieve CalVTP objectives to substitute for those who are expert in individual disciplines, this is especially true for botanical resources 5 whose ecological needs are extremely diverse and often site-specific. To underscore our concerns regarding the CalVTP’s assumed equivalency between RPFs and qualified botanists, we refer to the November 15, 2018 letter from CDFW to the BOF, attached for reference, detailing on-going lapses and failings regarding consideration of botanical resources during development and approval of timber harvest plans (THPs), which are prepared by RPFs and approved by CalFIRE. CDFW’s findings include: Botanical scoping and survey processes, and the application of protection measures to avoid significant adverse impacts to botanical resources have been employed inconsistently in timber harvesting plans...It is unclear whether botanical resources are being adequately addressed during plan review process and if plan-specific protection measures are effective....Further, landscape-level data for plant populations and plants’ responses to timber harvesting is either not collected or is inefficiently used to guide management recommendations. As submitted to CAL FIRE, plan-specific botanical protection measures often employ a one-size-fits-all approach, which may not reflect the diversity of California’s native plants and plant communities and their varied responses to timber harvesting. [November 15, 2018 letter from CDFW to BOF, p. 2-3] Treating up to 250,000 acres annually, statewide while preserving California’s rich biodiversity and maintaining clean air and water will require far more than silvicultural prescriptions, conversant knowledge of California’s forest practice rules, or the singular understanding of even the most knowledgeable and experienced RPFs. We strongly recommend that botanists meeting the qualifications described by CDFW (guidelines reference) be consulted during development, monitoring, and mitigation of vegetation treatment activities. 6. Mitigation Measure requirements for plant species and communities (MM BIO-1a-c and MM BIO-3b) must include consultation with qualified botanists. Compensatory mitigation requirements and implementation must be less ambiguous For the reasons we present above in #5, we reiterate the need for a qualified botanist to be consulted when making project design decisions and project impact determinations related to rare native plant species and communities. We especially highlight this need as it relates to the following CalVTP Mitigation Measures: MM-BIO-1a If listed plants are determined to be present through application of SPR BIO-1 and SPR BIO-7, the project proponent will avoid and protect these species by establishing a no- disturbance buffer around the area occupied by listed plants...[t]he no-disturbance buffers will generally be a minimum of 50 feet from listed plants, but the size and shape of the buffer zone may be adjusted if a qualified RPF or botanist determines that a smaller buffer will be sufficient to avoid killing or damaging listed plants or that a larger buffer is necessary to sufficiently protect plants from the treatment activity. The appropriate buffer size will be determined based on plant phenology at the time of treatment (e.g., whether the plants are in a dormant, vegetative, or flowering state), the individual species’ 6 vulnerability to the treatment method being used, and environmental conditions and terrain. [2019 CalVTP Chapter 3.6.3 at p. 3.6-132] While a 50' buffer around rare plants could be sufficient depending on activity, both MM BIO-1a and MM BIO-1b provide latitude to decrease or increase buffer size. Microclimate requirements for listed species and rare non-listed species must be considered when determining buffer zones. For example, if vegetation treatments result in drying of microhabitats that are dependent upon shade and moisture, even though the buffer may be greater than 50' then there is an impact. A qualified botanist must be consulted when making buffer determinations when applying SPR- BIO1, SPR-BIO7, and/or MM BIO-1a and MM BIO-1b. MM-BIO-1b For the reasons explained above If non-listed special-status plant species (i.e., species not listed under ESA or CESA, but meeting the definition of special-status as stated in Section 3.6.1 of the Program EIR) are determined to be present...A qualified RPF or botanist with knowledge of the special- status plant species habitat and life history will review the treatment design and applicable impact minimization measures (potentially including others not listed above) to determine if the anticipated residual effects of the treatment would be significant under CEQA.... [2019 CalVTP Chapter 3.6.3 at p. 3.6-132] Determining how much impact to a special-status plant would be significant will require consultation with a qualified botanist. MMBIO-1a and MM-BIO-1b The only exception to this mitigation approach is in cases where it is determined by a qualified RPF or botanist that the special-status plants would benefit from treatment in the occupied habitat area even though some of the non-listed special-status plants may be killed during treatment activities. If it is determined that treatment activities would be beneficial to special-status plants, no compensatory mitigation will be required. Determining when and where such treatment benefits are possible in order to rely on this exception must occur in consultation with a qualified botanist. In addition, requirements for monitoring and reporting of special-status plant conditions upon which this exception would be based should not be ignored even if there is a claim (by qualified botanist) that the vegetation treatment benefits the listed species. Documentation and success criteria must still be required. MM-BIO-1c and MM-BIO-3b The CalVTP language directing compensatory mitigation for both special-status plant species (MM-BIO-1c) and rare natural communities (MM-BIO-3b) must be more clear and less ambiguous regarding compensatory mitigation ratio requirements, implementation and enforcement requirements, and remedial actions that must occur if/when requirements are not met. 7 Specifically, the phrase, “in perpetuity” must be added to the requirement to preserve rare plant populations via compensatory mitigation measure in MM-BIO-1c. Additionally, compensatory mitigation actions and benchmarks associated with MM-BIO-1c and MM-BIO-3b must include remedial actions that shall occur if/when mitigation benchmarks or success criteria are not met, and clearly identify which entity(ies) will be responsible to ensure these measures occur. Lastly, both compensatory mitigation-related plant measures refer to establishing compensatory mitigation at “sufficient quantities” (MM-BIO-1c) or at a “sufficient ratio” (MM-BIO-3b) to offset the loss of either rare plant species or communities. This language is too vague. The CalVTP must articulate compensatory mitigation ratio requirements to be assessed for loss of listed or special-status native plants, and for loss of sensitive natural communities. 7. Minimize herbicide use CNPS recognizes that limited, spot-specific herbicide use can be an effective tool for controlling invasive non-native plants (weeds) that impact native vegetation. However, herbicide, like other vegetation treatments, has potential adverse effects. The decision of whether or not to use herbicide in a specific vegetation treatment project must be site-specific, and based on an evaluation of herbicide and alternative treatments. Herbicide treatments should have clear and achievable objectives that are target species-specific, preferably including a gradual reduction or phase-out of the need for continued intervention. Chemical treatments can result in adverse consequences to biodiversity, water quality, and public health. Herbicides should in most cases be the tool of last resort due to the potential for contamination, accidents, health impacts, synergistic effects, and many other potential impacts. We recommend that significant additional constraints be inserted into the PEIR to reduce risk and to avoid broad, programmatic approval and use of herbicides. When herbicides are employed, herbicide labels should be followed. Triclopyr, for example, volatilizes and drifts. The drift can kill susceptible plants at distance. A 50-foot rare plant avoidance buffer for herbicide use may not be far enough depending on the herbicide and potential for drift, air temperature, etc. Monitoring (including of non-target species) and reporting should also be required for any herbicide use. We urge that any programmatic approval of the CalVTP for herbicide use should be limited to removal of invasive non-native plants, where alternative treatment methods are not feasible. Herbicide treatments intended to eliminate vegetative cover across broad areas must go through a site-specific CEQA analysis, rather than the expedited programmatic approval process of the CalVTP. 8. The foundation for the Environmentally Superior Alternative and a supportable CalVTP We feel strongly that a modified Alternative C, amended to include Ecological Restoration treatments, more constrained herbicide use, greater transparency and opportunity for public input, and a project tracking system could form the building block to a supportable CalVTP. 8 9. Treatment Activities WUI Fuel Reduction The CalVTP describes how forest ecosystem restoration activities would be designed to approximate natural habitat conditions, processes, and values to those occurring prior to the period of fire suppression (see CalVTP Chapter 2.3.2 at p. 2-3). Ecological Restoration treatment design could also be incorporated into the "outer edges" of the 1.5-mile wide WUI treatment areas where the modeled WUI areas feather into California’s wildlands. Further, we believe it is critical that ecological restoration be designed, overseen, and monitored by qualified plant ecologists. CalVTP Figure 2-3 (Chapter 2.5.1 at p.2-9) illustrates an example WUI Fuel Reduction Treatment, intended for projects outside of PRC 4291’s 100-foot defensible space zone and within the modeled WUI zone. The example in Figure 2-3 depicts a treatment area well within the pictured structure’s defensible space zone, and shows vegetation removed to mineral soil beneath limbed trees, presenting at once a confusing and unnecessarily severe treatment example. We believe it would be more helpful for the CalVTP to include illustrations presenting a range of WUI project examples that would clearly illustrate WUI fuel reduction objectives while simultaneously providing examples of how even WUI fuel reduction projects can retain ground cover vegetation that provides additional benefits, including retention of some habitat qualities, and reduced probability of invasive, non-native weed infestation. When used without justification, the WUI fuel reduction practice illustrated in figure 2-3 is contrary to both retaining biodiversity and the long term fuel reduction objectives of the CalVTP. We recommend the draft CalVTP be amended to include photo examples that illustrate 2019 CalVTP Figure 2-3 Source: California Native Plant Society 2019 Example of WUI treatments with all ground vegetation removed and using native herbaceous vegetation for weed completion and habitat values. the range of native surface vegetation that is possible, acceptable, even preferred, to meet CalVTP objectives. We provide a few images here that illustrate our point, and which our CNPS East Bay Chapter has shared with the Orinda, CA Fire Department while providing information to local fire crews designing and implementing one of the 35 Emergency Fuel Reduction projects 9 (North Orinda Fuel Reduction project). The current photo examples provided in CalVTP Chapter 2 should be considered outlier treatments that should only be used with the understanding that complete removal of native herbaceous vegetation to bare mineral soil can result in compensatory mitigation requirements, loss of critical wildlife habitat, type conversion to flashy weed vegetation, and an increase in long term vegetation management efforts. Retaining native ground vegetation, as well as habitat-supporting native shrubs, is an acceptable practice. Land managers can retain low-growing native herbaceous vegetation in WUI treatments, such as in oak woodlands, by specifying that native herbaceous vegetation shall remain. Intact, low- growing, herbaceous native vegetation (such as bracken fern, snowberry, native blackberry) tends to remain green, help prevent conversion to weedy flashy fuels, and provide wildlife habitat. Habitat-supporting native shrubs, such as Toyon (Heteromeles sp.), Coffeeberry (Frangula sp.), Gooseberry and Currant (Ribes sp.), Ceanothus sp., Elderberry (Sambucus sp.), Snowberrry (Symphoricarpos sp.), etc., that do that do not pose a significant fuel source after oak limbing, or are outside of the drip line of trees, can remain. Photo: Retained California Currant (Ribes sanguineum) outside of the drip line of nearby oaks. The plant was marked with a bright “Do Not Cut” ribbon during vegetation treatment in a Shaded Fuel Break. California Native Plant Society 2019 Fuel Breaks – Non-shaded fuel break 2019 CalVTP Figure 2-5 Example of non-shaded fuel break with no remaining native vegetation 10 On non-shaded fuel breaks, land managers can retain low-growing native herbaceous vegetation, including native grasses and low, non-resinous shrubs and forbs, such as in chaparral, especially if they help prevent erosion, conversion to weedy flashy fuels, and provide wildlife habitat. Also, some habitat-supporting native shrubs, such as Toyon (Heteromeles sp.), Coffeeberry (Frangula sp.), Gooseberry and Currant (Ribes sp.), Ceanothus sp., Elderberry (Sambucus sp.), Snowberrry (Symphoricarpos sp.), etc., can remain that do that do not pose a significant fuel source after thinning or shortening. Fuel Breaks - Shaded Fuel Breaks 2019 CalVTP Figure 2- 6. Source: California Native Plant Society 2019 Land managers can retain low-growing native herbaceous vegetation in WUI treatments, such as in oak woodlands, by specifying that native herbaceous vegetation shall remain. Intact, low- growing, herbaceous native vegetation (such as bracken fern, snowberry, native blackberry) tends to remain green, help prevent conversion to weedy flashy fuels, and provide wildlife habitat. Also, habitat-supporting native shrubs, such as Toyon (Heteromeles sp.), Coffeeberry (Frangula sp.), Gooseberry and Currant (Ribes sp.), Ceanothus sp., Elderberry (Sambucus sp.), Snowberrry (Symphoricarpos sp.), etc., that do that do not pose a significant fuel source after oak limbing, or are outside of the drip line of trees, can remain. Canopy retention for treatment activities on forest lands The CalVTP states: The WUI fuel reduction, ecological restoration and non-shaded fuel break treatment types would inherently retain some vegetation within treatment areas. Establishing a non-shaded fuel break would require complete removal of vegetation within the limited area of the fuel break. Untreated vegetation surrounding the fuel break within forest land would remain intact. Although, treatment activities would alter forest land through vegetation removal, the area would generally support 10 percent of native tree cover thereby maintaining consistency with the definition of forest land as defined by PRC Section 12220(g). Treatment activities under the CalVTP would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to a non-forest use. This impact would be less than significant. [2019 CalVTP Chapter 3.3.3 at p. 3.3-7] 11 We believe the highlighted text in the first sentence quoted above is a clerical error and should instead read, “shaded fuel break”. This error appears again in Table ES-1 on page ES-10 of the CalVTP Executive Summary. The CalVTP must clarify whether or not a WUI fuel reduction project areas on forested lands would reduce the canopy to < 30% cover. Doing so would increase, rather than decrease the fire risk to nearby communities by increasing the wind tunnel effect through the reduced canopy. While California Forest Practice Rules define forested lands as maintaining 10% or more native tree cover, treating to less than 30% canopy cover could actually create greater fire risk than intended. Regardless of intent, a treatment on forested lands resulting in minimum 10% tree cover as per PRC Sec. 12220(g) would not constitute an Ecological Restoration treatment. Fuel Break efficacy in chaparral Syphard et al. (2011) conducted a spatial analysis of the Los Padres National Forest in southern California and concluded that fires stopped at fuel breaks 46 percent of the time. [2019 CalVTP Chapter 2.5.1 at p. 2-12] This CalVTP statement summarizes Syphard et al.’s 2011 findings in a potentially misleading way. It should read, "Syphard et al. (2011) conducted a spatial analysis of the Los Padres National Forest in southern California and concluded that fires stopped at fire crew-accessed fuel breaks 46 percent of the time. As written, the reader is mistakenly left with the notion that fuel breaks per se stop fires 46 percent of the time, which no study has found to be the case. The CalVTP must be amended to reflect this finding more precisely. Ecological Restoration Ecological restoration would also improve range and forage on private property, thereby increasing land management options for private landowners. [2019 CalVTP Chapter 2.5.1 at p. 2-16] This statement is ambiguous and concerning as written. While this may be true, it could also apply to activities that convert shrublands to grasslands in order to increase range and forage on private property. This would not represent ecological restoration. The CalVTP needs to be amended to provide an example of what this is referring to. Incorporating Ecological Restoration treatments needs to be discussed more consistently throughout the PEIR. There are opportunities to include this co-equal objective in general statements regarding CalVTP goals: ...which would support the objective to increase in the pace and scale of project approvals in a manner that includes environmental protections. [2019 CalVTP Chapter 3.1 at p. 3-1] Not just "in a manner that includes environmental protections," but even more, “in a manner the includes environmental protections and cumulatively addresses fire and climate resilience across California's forests, grasslands, and shrublands.” 12 And when considering treatments that restore to historical conditions; "Ecological Restoration: Generally, outside of the WUI in areas that have departed from the natural fire regime as a result of fire exclusion, ecological restoration would focus on restoring ecosystem processes, conditions, and resiliency by moderating uncharacteristic wildland fuel conditions to reflect historic vegetative composition, structure, and habitat values." [2019 CalVTP Chapter 2 at p. 2-7] one must include considerations of how the effects of climate change, and of changed circumstances will influence outcomes. For example, historic vegetative composition may not be appropriate or achievable via some treatment activities in all environments. Climate change effects must be taken into account in considering restoration potential and goals, and the pace and scale of restoration actions. Changed conditions could confound well-intentioned ecological restoration treatments. For example, returning fire regimes to historic frequencies on the North Coast (including Native American burning) given the current assemblage of non-native grasses, may actually increase, not decrease non-native plants. Holcus lanatus and Anthoxanthum odoratum are two highly invasive, non-native perennial grasses that readily spread following burning. This presents another example where ecological restoration considerations must be site-specific, and how pre- treatment planning and qualified botanists are critical to project success. 10. Updates to rare plant and rare natural community databases must be consulted The CalVTP makes several references to project proponents consulting the CNDDB, the Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd Edition (MCV2), the rare plant species tables provided in Appendix BIO-3, and the sensitive species and communities lists by provided by ecoregion in Chapter 3.6. These data are helpful and all but the CNDDB represent static lists of dynamic natural resources, as is addressed in the footnote to page 3.6-16, which we quote below for emphasis: Given the large geographic area of the treatable landscape and anticipated use of this PEIR over the long-term, Appendix BIO-3 cannot identify every special-status species potentially affected by later CalVTP treatment activities. After certification of this PEIR, species status may change, taxonomic classification or scientific nomenclature may change, and new species may be designated as special status. If a proposed later treatment project would impact a species that meets the definition of special status in this PEIR but is not listed in Appendix BIO-3, the project could qualify for a “within the scope” finding if the potential impacts on the species’ life history group are adequately considered in the PEIR, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines sections 15152 and 15168, and any applicable mitigation is imposed, as explained in the Project Specific Analysis Instructions (see Appendix PD-3). We also urge future treatment activities to consult the Manual of California Vegetation Online source, which maintains the most updated natural communities data for California at [http://vegetation.cnps.org/]. 13 11. Determining versus assuming presence / absence of rare plants via SPR-BIO-7 SPR-BIO-7 states: Special Status Plants- Surveys to determine the presence or absence of special-status plant species will be conducted in suitable habitat that could be affected by the treatment and timed to coincide with the blooming or other appropriate phenological period of the target species (as determined by a qualified RPF or botanist), or all species in the same genus as the target species will be assumed to be special-status. The highlighted phrase at the end of the above statement is unclear. It seems to suggest that if all species of the same genus as a target special-status taxon are assumed to all be special-status, then a project where that plant genus occurs would document and treat those plants as special status plants according to SPRs and presumably MM-BIO-1(a-c). Doing so will likely over-compensate presence of rare plants species within a project area. Why would this assumption need to happen if adequate botanical surveys performed by a qualified botanist were done to inform project design? The highlighted phrase adds more confusion and concern to the CalVTP and we recommend removing it. 12. Chaparral and Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) CNPS has long-acknowledged the need for and the ecological benefits of appropriately thinning forestlands by reducing the volume of small diameter trees and understory vegetation that has accumulated during more than a century of forest fire suppression, and that can serve as ladder fuels during a forest fire. At the same time, we have and continue to stress how increased human ignitions, climate change, and drought have led to an unhealthy excess of fire in California’s chaparral and coastal sage scrub (CSS) landscapes. In these areas, which occur predominantly in southern California, too-frequent fire-return intervals lead to type-conversion from chaparral / CSS to invasive, non-native grasslands. Vegetation treatments in these landscapes do not lead to increased health or resilience of the natural landscape and though Ecological Restoration treatments are modeled for southern California shrublands, the CalVTP fails to explain how such treatments would provide benefit to either the chaparral / CSS natural plant communities, or the wildlife that inhabit them. As detailed by over a decade of publications, reports, and comments from fire ecologists, academics, and several conservation organizations who specialize in chaparral ecosystems, vegetation treatments in chaparral and CSS landscapes degrade the natural resources, and often with little or no fire suppression benefit. Rather, where reducing community wildfire exposure is the goal in Southern California shrublands, yet another recent study concludes that vegetation treatment is a low priority action. Rather, ignition prevention, land use and zoning, and home protection are all high or highest priorities.2 CNPS remains committed to finding vegetation management solutions that work for both California’s native flora and for keeping Californians fire-safe. At the same time, we do not understand how investing resources in creating a system of fuel breaks across southern California’s chaparral and CSS landscapes will provide enough fire-fighting benefit (safe, 2 Evers, C. R., Ager, A. A., Nielsen-Pincus, M., Palaiologou, P., & Bunzel, K. (2019). Archetypes of community wildfire exposure from national forests of the western US. Landscape and Urban Planning, 182, 55-66. 14 strategic deployment of fire crews during non-extreme weather fires in the WUI) to balance the well-documented challenges that come with our inability to maintain that same fuel break network, or mitigate the habitat impacts that result. Our organization genuinely seeks solutions that can keep Californian’s fire-safe and that can preserve California’s diverse native flora, and commit to finding solutions that will result in an effective, statewide CalVTP. CNPS views the CalVTP within this broader context of creating more fire-safe communities and a more fire-resilient California by addressing land-use decision-making and building practices, as well as vegetation. We remain committed to working to create a supportable CalVTP with the BOF, CalFIRE, and other California agencies and stakeholders to achieve reduced fire risk, increased forest ecological resilience, while simultaneously protecting the rich biodiversity represented within our shared public trust resources. Respectfully, Greg Suba Conservation Program Director, CNPS Attachment: • CDFW letter to BOF re: failure of THPs to consider botanical resources adequately FULL 8 (b) (1) FULL 8 (b) (1) FULL 8 (b) (1) FULL 8 (b) (1) FULL 8 (b) (1) FULL 8 (b) (1) FULL 8 (b) (1) FULL 8 (b) (1) FULL 8 (b) (1) FULL 8 (b) (1) 950 Glenn Drive, Suite 150 Folsom CA 95630 Telephone: 877.326.3778 info@forestlandowners.org www.forestlandowners.org November 21, 2018 Dr. Keith Gilless, Chairman Board of Forestry and Fire Protection 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Chairman Gilless and Members of the Board: In response to the October 3, 2018 request for suggestions for Board priorities, Forest Landowners of California submits the following comments. As background, Forest Landowners of California, FLC, represents non-industrial forest landowners throughout the state of California. Our membership owns and manages about 350,000 acres of timberland in all of the forested regions of the state. Most of FLC’s landowners own and manage parcels ranging from 10 to more than 100,000 acres but the median range is 80 to 400 acres. Prior to offering specific suggestions, we believe that it is important to have an understanding of the demographics of the state’s non-industrial owners. Non-industrial owners number about 202,000 in the state according to the U. S. Forest Service. They own approximately 3,000,000 acres of timberland and an additional 4,370,000 acres of other forest land according to the most recent FRAP data. For sake of policy and regulatory analysis, it is reasonable to assert that many of these are on smaller properties, e.g., 10 acres or less, marginally suitable for forest management except for possible fuels management in the Wildland Urban Interface, the WUI. Assuming for discussion purposes, the population that might manage their land for periodic commercial timber harvest is 50,000 owners. Based upon estimates of FLC and California Tree Farm membership data, the number of owners actively managing their forest lands for fiber, wildlife and forest resiliency is likely in the range of 1,500 to 3,000 owners. This is only 3 to 6 percent of the potential active landowners, and as little as 1 to 1.5 percent of the total non-industrial ownership base. In contrast to the larger industrial class of ownerships, the largest portion of non-industrial owners hold their property for a number of non-monetary reasons. They include recreation, wildlife habitat, preservation of natural settings, creation a family legacy, and long-term investment. Income from timber management activities is often sporadic and not a major source of income to offset annual operating costs. FLC believes the Board should set two types of priorities. The first is focused on the broader policy issues and expertise available from the Board and staff as well as the Board’s “Bully Pulpit” as leaders in forest policy and regulation. These include: 11/21/2018 FULL 8 (b) (1) FLC Letter – Board of Forestry and Fire Protection November 21, 2018 Page 2 of 3 Collaboration with and advising the California Air Resources Board regarding health and safety issues from both wildfire, such as the Tubbs fire in 1987 and the Carr and Camp fires in 2018, and the potential use of prescribed fire to reduce the wildfire risk during times when fire can have devastating effects due to high temperatures and dry fuels. This will likely require temporary relaxation of current air quality standards for prescribed burning and possibly consideration of limiting other sources to permit the prescribed burns and construction of small biomass facilities. A second issue for the Board of Forestry and the Air Resources Board is the byzantine and costly requirements to participate in the Carbon Sequestration market. Most non-industrial owners will never be able to sustain or even incrementally increase the value of a working forest based on the current prices in the carbon market. Current participants and consultants indicate that inventory requirements, the 100 year sequestration period, and the required contribution to the insurance pool, have precluded participation from nearly all landowners who have less than 10,000 acres. A relaxation of the current requirements including the time requirements with a commensurate reduction in the quantity available for sale seems possible if a goal is to voluntarily increase the current pace and scale of carbon sequestration to offset carbon emissions from other sectors of the economy. Working with the California Fish and Game Commission, to find alternatives to the current policy of treating candidate species as if they were listed and requiring mitigation by landowners, while the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) completes an assessment of the risk to species. It also seems appropriate to consider potential reductions in mitigation where forest management is not identified as responsible for a decline in species populations, e.g. Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (mining activities) or Foothill Yellow Legged Frog (development and agriculture in Southern California). Collaboration with and advising the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regarding the future of biomass as an alternative energy source even with tolling mechanism to subsidize the transportation of fuel to either Biomat or Bioram facilities. If the goal is to reach 1,000,000 acres on private, state and federal lands a large portion of the dead trees due to mortality, ladder fuels and small trees removed will likely be useful for any product except biomass given the lack of infrastructure for paper and other products such as OSB. Many landowners would like to do biomass harvests but have no manufacturing infrastructure close enough to make harvest economically feasible. While SB 1260 helped to reduce the potential liability issue for those interested in using prescribed fire, the availability and cost of insurance remains a significant impediment on use of prescribed fire on non-industrial forest lands. The second area involves specific actions that the Board can pursue to facilitate regulatory efficiency. The Board is currently engaged in some of these efforts. FLC requests that these efforts will remain high priorities during the coming year. Stocking Standards – It is fairly evident from the research that the 300 point count standard is too high and needs to be reduced. The William Main project will be offering suggestions to the Board in the near future. The Basal area stocking standards should be FULL 8 (b) (1) FLC Letter – Board of Forestry and Fire Protection November 21, 2018 Page 3 of 3 reviewed as well. Perhaps as a reduction as a part of fuels management efforts along major ridges or in the WUI. Additional flexibility in the Basal Area standards may be appropriate for landowners who wish to use unevenaged silvicultural systems especially as a part of NTMP harvest document where previous harvests have left trees of poor form or poor spacing that resulting in both short and long-term growth. NSO safe harbor – Especially for non-industrial landowners with smaller parcels, the time constraints and cost of the current NSO survey protocol often make harvest impractical or uneconomic especially with the rapidly fluctuating timber market. It is our understanding that the agencies (Cal Fire, CDFW and USFWS) are working on some type of Safe Harbor Agreement for smaller landowners, but it has not been circulated to the practitioner community for comment or input. FLC would also urge the Board to work the CDFW and the Legislature to initiate an experimental extermination policy for Barred Owls in California if the NSO and CSO are to be maintained. The preliminary results from Oregon and Washington are likely applicable to California and could possibly delay a further decline in NSO populations for an extended period. Streamlined NTMP – The NTMP has been authorized as a “light touch” alternative, requiring the use of an unevenaged silvicultural system, to the THP process since the early 1990s. It is estimated that more than 800 NTMPs have been approved since that time. The median range of an NTMP is approximately 300 to 400 acres in size. The cost of the plans has increased dramatically throughout time due to new rules, inventory complexity, and increased scrutiny by the regulatory agencies. However, a review of violations issued by Cal Fire since the inception of the program indicates violations average about 4 per year across the state, and affects about 15 percent of the approved plans since the NTMP alternative was approved. Additional preliminary analysis and discussion with Cal Fire staff suggests that most of these issues are related to administrative issues, e.g. lack of a completion report, and not field violations, e.g. silviculture or WLPZ violations. FLC would suggest that the Board consider a streamlined NTMP for landowners with less than 200 acres that encourages greater participation in active forest management that will potentially reduce wildfires, increase Carbon Sequestration, while protecting wildlife habitat and Water Quality. FLC will provide constructive suggestions and additional comments and data to the Board if requested by Board members or staff. Respectfully submitted, Lawrence D. Camp FLC Legislative Committee Co-chair RPF No. 1698 | insufficient review, public review, monitoring, maintanence, qualifications, rare plants, herbicides, fuel reduction, database | N/A | PRC §4123 | N/A | https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2019012052/2 | 38.58 | -121.50 | |
| 2017_Centennial_DraftEIR | Centennial Project | 2017 | 2004031072 | CEQA | EIR | N/A | Draft | County | Los Angeles County | Los Angeles, Kern | San Gabriel Mountains Chapter, Kern Chapter | State Office | Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety | Commercial/Educational/Industrial, Energy, Local Planning Action, Recreational, Residential, Transportation, Waste Treatment, Water Facilities | Ongoing. Intitially approved but was halted by the courts. It remains an ongoing project. | August 16, 2017 Via Electronic Mail and USPS (w/exhibits and references) Mr. Jodie Sackett County of Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning Hall of Records, 13th Floor, Room 1348 320 West Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 jsackett@planning.lacounty.gov Re: Centennial Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Sackett: These comments are submitted on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity (“Center”), the Center for Food Safety and the California Native Plant Society regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the proposed Centennial Project (“Project”). The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) mandated environmental review for the Project is inadequate and fails to comply with the requirements of the statute. The DEIR fails to adequately analyze a range of environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives. For the reasons detailed below, we urge that the Project be denied, or at a minimum, the DEIR must be revised and recirculated to remedy these deficiencies. The Center is a non-profit, public interest environmental organization dedicated to the protection of native species and their habitats through science, policy, and environmental law. The Center has over one million members and online activists throughout California and the United Sates. The Center has worked for many years to protect imperiled plants and wildlife, open space, air and water quality, and overall quality of life for people in Los Angeles County. The Center for Food Safety (“CFS”) is a nonprofit, public interest advocacy organization dedicated to protecting human health and the environment by curbing the proliferation of harmful food production technologies and promoting sustainable agriculture, including impacts to water resources. In furtherance of this mission, CFS uses legal actions, groundbreaking scientific and policy reports, books and other educational materials, and grassroots campaigns on behalf of its 850,000 farmers and consumer members across the country. The California Native Plant Society (“CNPS”) is a non-profit environmental organization with 10,000 members in 35 Chapters across California and Baja California, Mexico. CNPS’ Comments on Draft EIR for Centennial Project Page 1 mission is to protect California’s native plant heritage and preserve it for future generations through application of science, research, education, and conservation. CNPS works closely with decision-makers, scientists, and local planners to advocate for well-informed policies, regulations, and land management practices. I. The Current Project Description Does Not Represent The True Scope of the Project and is Misleading. Under CEQA, a “project” is defined as “the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment . . . .” (Tuolumne County Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Sonora (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1214, 1222 (citing CEQA Guidelines § 15378, subd. (a).) An “accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR.” (Cnty. of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193; (San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 655 (project description held unstable and misleading) [hereinafter “San Joaquin Raptor”].) “However, a curtailed, enigmatic or unstable project description draws a red herring across the path of public input.” (San Joaquin Raptor, 149 Cal.App.4th, at 655.). An inaccurate or truncated project description is prejudicial error because it fails to “adequately apprise all interested parties of the true scope of the project.” (See City of Santee v. Cnty. of San Diego (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1438, 1454-55 [hereinafter “City of Santee”].) “Only through an accurate view of the project may the public and interested parties and public agencies balance the proposed project’s benefits against its environmental cost, consider appropriate mitigation measures, assess the advantages of terminating the proposal and properly weigh other alternatives.” (San Joaquin Raptor, 149 Cal.App.4th, at 655.) The DEIR contains a number of misleading statements regarding the project description. For instance, the DEIR states “the Project anticipates and would complement the planned SR- 138 improvements, as intended by the West EOA.” (DEIR at 4-9.) The DEIR does not cite any portion of the West EOA that evidences an “intent” for the development of Centennial. Instead, the Antelope Valley Area Plan (“AVAP”) merely defines the West EOA as specific lands including “large contiguous landholdings that have been proposed for master-planned developments . . .”1 (AVAP at IMP-4.) The AVAP cautions that “any master-planned community within the West EOA will require further planning activities in addition to this Area Plan.” (Ibid.) The AVAP further states that it requires the preparation of a specific plan even for extremely small developments of only five residential dwelling units. (Ibid.) Nowhere does the AVAP state that it expects or “intends” the development of a city of nearly 60,000 people in this remote area. The DEIR’s Project Description also misleadingly claims that “No new environmental impacts occur” as a result of permitting assessor dwelling units (“ADUs”) on the project due to “variations in household occupancy.” (DEIR at 4-18-19.) Obviously, a household that contains an ADU will on average have a significantly higher occupancy than a household that does not 1 Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, Antelope Valley Area Plan (June 2015), available at http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/tnc_draft-20150601.pdf. Comments on Draft EIR for Centennial Project Page 2 contain an ADU. And with a higher occupancy comes greater environmental impacts – e.g., air pollution and GHG emissions arising from the additional occupants commuting to jobs. The DEIR needs to clarify whether the additional persons living in ADUs were calculated in assessing the Project’s impacts. While it is unclear, it appears that the DEIR excluded persons living in ADUs from its analysis by claiming that “[t]here is also no basis for estimating whether or when an ADU would be built by any given homeowner, and CEQA does not require speculation.” (DEIR at 4-19.) This claim is inconsistent with the rest of the DEIR – the DEIR includes estimates regarding the number of residents who would work onsite even though predicting such fact and location-specific phenomena is uncertain. Yet, at the same time, the DEIR avoids “speculation” regarding how many people or developers would build ADUs, even though the DEIR could easily determine ADU rates in neighboring communities. The Project Description does not adequately disclose whether grazing will be allowed on areas designated as “open space.” The DEIR states that there will be “continued grazing in some areas.” (DEIR at 4-24.) However, the actual Natural Resource/Open Space Management Plan (“OSMP”) appears to permit grazing throughout the open space designation. (Appx. 4.0-A at 3- 97.) The DEIR should be clear that the OSMP allows grazing throughout areas designated as “open space” if that is what the DEIR permits. The DEIR also vaguely states that grazing might be allowed “in perpetuity if determined necessary to maintain grassland values based Grassland Mitigation Plan.” (DEIR at 4-44.) The DEIR needs to be clear who determines whether grazing is “necessary.” The DEIR does not contain a firm timeframe as to when construction on the various phases will take place. Instead, the DEIR states that the various project phases would be timed depending upon (1) the state of the economy; (2) market demand for uses on the site; and (3) the timing of regional and off-site infrastructure conditions and needs. (DEIR at 4-91.) This indicates that the developer(s) and/or builders will be able to pick and choose which portions of the development are most profitable at any given time, and only develop those portions. For instance, if only residential – and not commercial development – is profitable, then the developer(s) and/or builders could avoid such commercial development. This lack of clarity renders the Project description unstable, such that the FEIR fails to inform decision-makers and the public of the true scope of the Project from which all interested parties could assess the direct and indirect environmental effects of the Project. (City of Santee, 214 Cal.App.3d, at 1454-55; San Joaquin Raptor, 149 Cal.App.4th, at 655; Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 83-86.) More importantly, the lack of any firm phasing plan for the Project renders the Project’s various calculations and commitments regarding traffic, air pollution, and GHGs unreliable. Even if the DEIR’s extremely optimistic internal trip capture rates are correct, they will not be met if the developer(s) build the residential project pieces first and then either abandon or only later build the commercial portions. And even if the commercial portions were eventually built, the Project would still result in a “carbon debt” for the years in which the commercial portions were not built. The DEIR contains a similarly unstable description for school sites. In particular, the DEIR states that “any rejected school site shall revert to residential land use at the density of the Comments on Draft EIR for Centennial Project Page 3 surrounding residential designation; however, the maximum number of units allowed by the Centennial Specific Plan would not be exceeded.” (DEIR at 4-26.) Neither the DEIR’s Project Description (nor the text of the Specific Plan) explain the process for “rejecting” a school site. The developer may have an incentive to have school sites “rejected” so it can build more homes. Again, this means that the air quality, traffic, and quality of life benefits of having schools close to residences will not necessarily be realized. Instead, the Project could result in more traffic, air pollution, and GHGs as residents are forced to drive many miles to send their children to schools in other areas. Additionally, the public and local government would need to add expense limited resources in adding schools for residents of the Project. The Project Description also provides that the Project “must” meet certain mobility performance standards, including minimum percentages of different types of non-single occupancy vehicle (“SOV”) trips. (DEIR at 4-29 – 4-31.) The Project Description fails to describe how such minimum standards will be met. On a practical level, it is unclear what types of mechanisms the project proponent could use to mandate this minimum percentage. Will the project proponent or HOA require residents to report how often they take SOV trips and prohibit them from taking more than a certain amount? Such a system would be unprecedented and likely unworkable. In short, the Project Description should not include promises regarding the attributes of the Project or behavior of the residents that are not enforceable or feasible. The Project Description further states that the Project will include a “transmit management authority” or “TMA.” While the DEIR’s Project Description does specify when the TMA will be formed, it does not specify how much funding it will receive or identify its funding source. (See DEIR at 4-36.) The DEIR also does not specify which entity will fund the “transit centers” near the “village cores.” (DEIR at 4-37.) These omissions are especially problematic because the Project Description elsewhere states that “funding for the local transit system would come from a combination of Proposition A and property taxes.” (DEIR at 4-37.) The Project Description needs to be clearer whether it will contain a self-funded public transportation system or whether the broader region will bear the cost of this system. The DEIR states that Caltrans has not yet identified a “preferred alternative” for the Northwest State Route 138 Improvement Project (the “138 Improvement Project”). However, the 138 Improvement Project EIR has since been certified.2 As such, the DEIR should be updated to reflect this. The DEIR also is unclear as to whether areas designated as “open space” will remain undeveloped. Notably, while 5,624 acres are designated as “open space,” only 3,681 acres are designated as “SEA 17 to be preserved in perpetuity within the Project site boundaries.” (DEIR at 4-44.) This suggests that the remaining 1,943 acres will not be preserved in perpetuity. The DEIR is unclear as to whether the project proponent and/or County can revert any of the “open space” to developable space. Elsewhere in the DEIR, the DEIR states that the Project would “permanently preserve 5,624 acres of on-site open space...” (DEIR at 5.8-59.) If this statement regarding permanent preservation is accurate, the DEIR should include conditions of approval requiring conservation easements for all 5,624 acres. 2 Northwest State Route 138 Corridor Improvement Project Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation (June 2017), available at http://www.dot.ca.gov/d7/env- docs/docs/NW_138-FED-06_28_17.pdf. Comments on Draft EIR for Centennial Project Page 4 II. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Assess the Project’s Traffic Impacts. The DEIR fails to adequately assess or mitigate the Project’s traffic impacts. The report from Griffin Cove Transportation Consulting, PLLC attached as Exhibit A outlines many of deficiencies in the traffic analysis (the “Griffin Letter”). We request that the Final EIR provide specific responses to all of the comments raised in the Griffin Letter. A. Centennial is undisputedly a sprawl project. One point that needs emphasis is that Centennial is a classic “sprawl” project and contains all of the worst elements of sprawl. As the Girffin Letter explains: Stantec Table 3-5 (p. 3.9) shows that the overall average trip length for project-generated traffic will be 25.5 miles, with “external” trips (i.e., those that have an origin or a destination outside the project) having an average trip length of 45.9 miles. Although trip lengths have no effect on the level of service at any of the intersections and roads within the study area, these extraordinary values demonstrate clearly that the project exemplifies the worst elements of “sprawl,” with its related issues of fuel consumption and pollutant emissions. The County should not approve this 20th century sprawl project centered around the automobile. County residents deserve better than to have their air further impaired with disease-causing pollutants and their streets further clogged with cars. And by locking in significant greenhouse gas emissions for the next century, approval of the Project would be a huge step backward in the County and state’s efforts to combat the climate crisis. B. The DEIR does not accurately describe the baseline conditions. The DEIR misstates the traffic baseline by including other Tejon projects such as Tejon Mountain Village and Grapevine Specific Plan. (See DEIR at 5.10-34.) The DEIR improperly suggests these are “approved” projects. While both projects do have certified EIRs, Grapevine is currently subject to litigation brought by CBD and CFS. And both projects have numerous other discretionary agency approvals that they must undergo before breaking ground; for example, both projects will likely require consultation and with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for impacts to endangered species and “take” permits. The DEIR’s misinformation regarding the traffic baseline undermines its analysis. The DEIR also uses the outdated 2012 SCAG RTP/SCS in its analysis of growth projections. The DEIR should instead reference the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS, which was adopted on April 7, 2016. C. The DEIR understates the traffic impacts of the Project. The DEIR optimistically claims that “Because of the balanced land use plan, all jobs could be filled by workers in the community and all service needs could be met by on-site retail and other service land uses.” (DEIR at 5.10-49.) While this sentence identifies a desirable goal, the DEIR does not cite any evidence showing how all jobs would or could actually be filled by onsite residents. At best, this statement constitutes unfounded speculation; at worst, it is a Comments on Draft EIR for Centennial Project Page 5 misleading attempt to downplay the enormous traffic impacts of Project, given that DEIR itself estimates average trip lengths of 45.9 miles. In addition, as explained in the Project Description section of this letter, the DEIR’s various traffic analysis are dependent upon buildout of the Project with both the residential and commercial portions. Yet, the DEIR does not require buildout in any particular order, and even allows the project proponent to avoid building entire portions of the Project if the project proponent so desires based upon “market conditions.” Accordingly, the purported “23,675 jobs” generated by the Project may never materialize, thereby requiring all the residents to still commute many dozens of miles to their jobs. This lack of stability in the Project renders all of the traffic analyses fundamentally unreliable. The DEIR also contains unreasonable and unsubstantiated assumptions regarding the frequency of non-automobile trips by residents. For example, the DEIR assumes that people will make 3 mile bike trips within 15 to 20 minutes. The DEIR does not cite evidence that people will in fact make such trips on a regular basis. Nor does the DEIR appear to account for the fact that the Project is located in an arid and extremely hot area that contains hilly topography, which may make everyday cycling less desirable to the average resident. While CBD fully supports cycling as a form of transportation for commuting, currently only 0.6 percent of commuters in the U.S. bike to work.3 The DEIR does not explain how the Project will be substantially different in the amount of cycling done by residents. The DEIR contains other unfounded assumptions regarding the traffic impacts of the Project. For example, the DEIR states that the “Existing plus Project analysis” assumes that “existing background traffic conditions do not change, other than changes directly due to the Project, over the approximate 20-year time frame required to build the Project.” (DEIR at 5.10- 53, emphasis added.) The DEIR again repeats this unfounded assumption later, claiming that “the amount of traffic that would be generated under future conditions in developed areas outside the Project site would not change with or without the Project.” (DEIR at 5.10-88.) These statements are inconsistent with the Final EIR for the Northwest State Route 138 Improvement Project – this EIR stated that Highway 138 is “anticipated to experience traffic volumes in excess of its existing capacity.” (138 Improvement Project EIR at 4, emphasis added.) Indeed, the stated purpose of the 138 Improvement Project is to accommodate “foreseeable increases in travel and goods movement” in the area of the Centennial. (Ibid.) The DEIR for the Project later changes course and states that traffic on SR-138 “is forecasted to exceed available capacity in several locations under cumulative conditions with and without the proposed Project.” (DEIR at 5.10-88.) In short, the DEIR cannot both maintain that traffic will increase and will stay the same. The DEIR also uses an outdated measure to analyze whether impacts are significant. In particular, the DEIR claims that if the 138 Improvement Project moves forward, then SR-138 “would operate within acceptable performance criteria . . .” (DEIR at 5.10-90.) The DEIR extensively uses “Level of Service” or “LOS” to analyze the Project’s impacts. (See, e.g., Table 5.10-25 & Table 5.10-28, Table 5.10-30.) This fixation on LOS is misplaced given that the State of California recently directed agencies to analyze projects using the Vehicle Miles Travelled 3 Alliance for Biking and Walking, “Bicycling and Walking in the United States 2016 Benchmarking Report,” available at http://www.bikewalkalliance.org/download-the-2016-benchmarking-report. Comments on Draft EIR for Centennial Project Page 6 (“VMT”) measure instead of LOS. In the Updated Guidance Document, the OPR stated, “vehicle miles traveled is the most appropriate measure to replace level of service.”4 In addition, while the DEIR approvingly notes Caltran’s plans to widen SR-138 are based upon the North County Combined Highway Corridors Study (DEIR at 5.10-35), this 2004 study should have no bearing upon whether the County now approves this growth-inducing and traffic- generating sprawl project. Indeed, the 2004 study did not take into account the impacts of further expanding freeways on air pollution and climate change. In fact, these detrimental impacts to expanding freeways are never mentioned in the report.5 D. The DEIR’s Traffic Mitigation Measures Are Inadequate. The County is required to adopt all feasible mitigation measures to lessen the traffic impacts of the Project. Nonetheless, the DEIR does not adequately analyze whether certain mitigation measures are feasible and instead short-circuits the process by assuming that certain impacts are “significant and unavoidable.” More specifically, the DEIR states: “If improvements at Project access points on SR-138 are not constructed, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.” (DEIR at 5.10-130.) The problem with this statement is that the DEIR does not consider whether such access points can be constructed, or whether it is feasible to do so. CEQA requires that if such improvements at project access points are “feasible,” then the DEIR must include these measures are a condition of project approval. The DEIR cannot assume that impacts are “unavoidable” merely if such improvements are not constructed. The DEIR attempts to substantiate its claims by noting that the County lacks jurisdiction over state highway facilities. (DEIR at 5.10-130.) While this is generally true, the DEIR does not require the project proponent to fund such highway facilities. The County does have the power to require the project proponent to fund them as a condition of the Project. Again, the County is prohibited from approving the Project until it has required the project proponent to comply with all feasible mitigation measures within its power to lessen the Project’s environmental impacts. Other traffic mitigation measures identified in the DEIR are illusory and unenforceable. For instance, MM 10-2 merely requires the project proponent to submit a traffic study to the County. (DEIR at 5.10-145.) This is not a mitigation measure. Similarly, MM 10-6 states that the project proponent shall comply with the terms of the Centennial Transportation Improvement Plan (“CTIP”). (DEIR at 5.10-145.) Yet, as noted above, the DEIR does not require the project proponent to even enter into a CTIP; it only requires the project proponent to seek to enter into a CTIP. MM 10-3 also just requires the project proponent to “seek” to enter into a CTIP. (Ibid.) As such, MM 10-6 is not binding upon the project proponent. Likewise, MM 10-7, 10-8, and 10- 9 contain language allowing the project proponent to either comply with the CTIP or contribute its “fair share” towards infrastructure improvements. (DEIR at 5.10-146.) At most, these measures commit the project proponent to paying some unspecified amount of money to alleviate the Project’s impacts, with no assurances that such “fair share” payment will adequately mitigate such impacts. 44 https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/Revised_VMT_CEQA_Guidelines_Proposal_January_20_2016.pdf 5 North County Combined Highway Corridors Study, SR-14, SR-138, and I-5, Final Report (June 2004), available at http://media.metro.net/board/Items/2004/07_July/NORTH%20%20COUNTY.pdf. Comments on Draft EIR for Centennial Project Page 7 The DEIR elsewhere again states that the project proponent would either enter into an agreement with Caltrans to fund transportation facility mitigation measures or it would pay its “fair share” towards MM implementation. (DEIR at 5.10-1.) The DEIR does not explain what constitutes a “fair share” and does not commit the project proponent to paying for the MMs in the event that Caltrans lacks the funds to do so. MM 11-3 merely requires the project proponent to “seek” to enter into an agreement with the County and Caltrans called the CTIP to fund mitigation measures for the project. (DEIR at 5.10-52.) The DEIR therefore impermissibly puts the burden of significant impact reduction on Caltrans and their improvement of State facilities. Moreover, the DEIR does not analyze the environmental impacts of the traffic mitigation measures. The DEIR specifically calls for widening significant portions of SR-138 to a four-lane highway in order to mitigate impacts of the Project. (See DEIR at 5.10-84.) Yet, the DEIR does not consider the environmental impacts of these mitigation measures, which undoubtedly will result in habitat destruction, growth-inducing impacts, and impaired wildlife connectivity. III. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Assess the Project’s Noise Impacts. A. The DEIR fails to adequately assess noise impacts from traffic. Traffic created and facilitated by the Project will cause direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts, including increased traffic-related noise. The DEIR recognizes that Project-related vehicular traffic will cause significant impacts to sensitive receptors. However, the mitigation that the DEIR proposes does not meet CEQA’s enforceability standards and must be revised. The mitigation measures regarding roadway noise impacts do not provide decision- makers or the public with any concrete information, as required by CEQA. (Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(2); Federation of Hillside & Canyon Ass’ns v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1261 (mitigation measures must be “fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures” so “that feasible mitigation measures will actually be implemented as a condition of development”).) Mitigation must be binding and enforceable to be valid. (Guidelines § 15126.4, subd. (a)(2)). The project proponent cannot defer formulating enforceable mitigation that would reduce impacts until after project approval. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4, subd. (a)(1)(B); Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 234 Cal. App. 4th 214, 240.) “[A]n agency goes too far when it simply requires a project applicant to obtain a [] report and then comply with any recommendations that may be made in the report.” (Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 793.) As mentioned, traffic will be one the main Project-generated noise. Despite this, the DEIR fails to provide a satisfactory description of mitigation measures for reducing traffic created noise to less than significant. The DEIR states that methods for reducing traffic related noise are out of the control of the project proponent and require alterations to private property. (DEIR 5.12-1.) MM 12.1 proposes combatting significant noise impacts from traffic by requiring the project proponent to submit a noise assessment (DEIR 5.12-48), which may or may not be used to formulate mitigation and which may or may not be effective. Furthermore, the DEIR does not provide standards outlining how the decision-maker would be able to determine whether any future mitigation measures would be deemed effective, and any mitigation would be Comments on Draft EIR for Centennial Project Page 8 proposed only after project approval. CEQA requires more. The DEIR then suggests the project proponent/other parties may be required implement noise reduction measures but provides no guidelines to show whether any future mitigation would be effective. (DEIR 5.12-1.) The burden of mitigation measures rests on the project proponent, not on private parties to install their own noise cancelling features. Additionally the mitigation measures provided fail to include any tangible actions to be taken outside of conducting an acoustical analysis and including appropriate noise-reduction features. (DEIR 5.12-1.) The mitigation measures provided fail to meet basic CEQA requirements. The DEIR provides conflicting statements about mobile source noise levels: the DEIR states that project-generated traffic would potentially create noise levels in excess of the State and County Standards but then later states that mobile equipment noise levels would not exceed County standards and would be less than significant. (DEIR 1-20.) This ignores the fact that mobile equipment cannot be distinguished from “traffic” noise as both come from mobile sources. The DEIR also states without support that, although Project-generated traffic noise would be significant, noise increases of 3.3 dBA and 3 dBA are barely perceptible to most people. (DEIR 5.12-1.) This is both unsupported by substantial evidence and discounts the noise perceptibility of wildlife. B. The DEIR fails to adequately assess General Plan consistency and noise. The DEIR states that maximum noise levels are prescribed by the County Code (“Noise Ordinance”). (DEIR 5.12-1). The DEIR attempts to underscore the noise related impacts of the project by stating that “the land uses proposed as part of the Project are routinely constructed in Southern California and are able to meet the applicable noise standards through use of common, feasible methods and materials[.]” (DEIR 5.12-1.) However, other land uses and their impacts are irrelevant to the current Project. Additionally, the DEIR states that the construction period for the Project is approximately 20 years but goes on to state, without any additional information, that despite this two-decade construction project, noise level due to construction would be relatively short-term and temporary. (DEIR 5.12-2.) MM 12-3 vaguely states that noise generated from stationary construction equipment would be mitigated by requiring stationary equipment to operate at greater than 450 feet (DEIR 5.12-2) but fails to give adequate information as to what this means: 450 feet from other equipment? 450 feet from sensitive receptors? It is unclear. The DEIR also states that equipment staging and maintenance areas should be located 500 feet from sensitive receptors, but only if feasible (DEIR 5.12-49), which creates no binding requirement on the project proponent. MM 12-3 would limit the hourly daytime noise level to 60 dBA or less, which the DEIR states would be less than significant. (DEIR 5.12-2.) However, Table 5.12-2 indicates that the County Code limits noise levels for noise-sensitive areas and residential properties at all times of the day to 50 dBA or less. (DEIR 5.12-6.) It is also unclear how Table 5.12-2 can be reconciled with Table 5.12-3 (DEIR 5.12-8) as deserving separate analyses because many of the construction noises will come from stationary sources. C. The DEIR fails to adequately assess cumulative impacts and noise. Comments on Draft EIR for Centennial Project Page 9 CEQA defines “cumulative impacts” as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” (Guidelines § 15355.) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project “when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15355(b).) And while an agency is not expected to foresee the unforeseeable, it is expected to use its “best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15144; see also City of Richmond, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at 96; Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 412, 428 [hereinafter Vineyard].) The purpose of analyzing cumulative environmental impacts is to assess adverse environmental change “as a whole greater than the sum of its parts.” (Environmental Protection Information Center v. Johnson (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 604, 625.) Absent meaningful cumulative analysis there would be no control of development and “piecemeal development would inevitably cause havoc in virtually every aspect of the [] environment.” (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 721.) The DEIR impermissibly relies on the aforementioned mitigation measures to conclude that there would be no cumulative noise impacts related to construction, stationary sources, and mobile source noise from traffic. (DEIR at 7-21.) The DEIR states that the potential for overlapping construction activity from this Project and SR-138 activities is low because of “the mobile nature of construction activities (moving from area to area on a site or alignment).” (Id.) This statement runs contrary to common sense; construction typically occurs within a confined area for the duration of that particular project. IV. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Disclose, Analyze, or Mitigate the Project’s Impacts to Population, Housing, and Employment. The DEIR states that the Project would provide an estimated jobs/housing ration of 1.22 through development of commercial and business park uses on site. (DEIR at 1-17.) The DEIR also claims that development of job opportunities at the site reduces vehicle trips and their associated emissions. (DEIR at 5.9-23.) However, there is no guarantee that those living in the area will work on site or that those working on site will live in the area. Moreover, there is no guarantee that the jobs being offered will provide adequate income to support the housing that the Project will be building. The DEIR relies on the assumption that local employment opportunities will meet most of Project residents’ employment needs. (DEIR at 5.9-3.) However, this conclusion overlooks the current state of Kern County’s job market. As the DEIR recognizes, Kern County is experiencing remarkably high rates of unemployment, and there is no evidence that this is a temporary phenomenon. (DEIR 5.9-22.) According to the DEIR, Kern County has an unemployment rate of 9.2 percent as of 2016—almost two times higher than the California average. (Id.) Employers in Kern County have been shedding rather than creating jobs, and these unemployed Kern County residents will likely welcome any new jobs the Project creates. It is therefore likely that workers residing offsite will flood the Project’s job market. The DEIR states that the Project would substantially increase population and housing relative to the existing Project site conditions, which by the DEIR’s own admission, is Comments on Draft EIR for Centennial Project Page 10 considered significant. (DEIR at 5.9-31). However, the DEIR attempts to negate this significance by stating that the Project would be growth accommodating and not growth inducing, citing consistency with regional growth plans. (DEIR at 5.9-31.) The DEIR cannot override their own finding of a significant impact by citing consistency with growth plans in the region, a separate and unrelated threshold standard. The increase in population and housing on the Project site is significant and unavoidable (DEIR at 5.9-33) and CEQA requires a discussion of mitigation measures relative to this significant impact. There is also a much higher chance than the DEIR suggests that Project residents will work in the higher-paying, larger Los Angeles job market. It is quite possible that the main demographic that could afford Project housing will be current Los Angeles residents looking for housing outside of Los Angeles. The DEIR states that SCAG projects that Los Angeles County will experience substantial growth between 2012 and 2040 (DEIR 5.9-2); SCAG actually indicates that the average annual growth rate of population has been decreasing, and a rate faster than both California and the United States (SCAG Table 2.) “The SCAG region’s population is projected to grow slower than that of the previous years.” (SCAG at 12.) Moreover, SCAG indicates that the age of residents in regional households are increasing while the working age population of 16-64 years old have shown decline which “may result in a potential shortage of works and slower job growth unless the older population extends their retirement age.” (SCAG Table 4, SCAG at 14.) This means few residents are of peak employment age living in the city, meaning the regional ability to fill employment (likely retail) of the Project are limited. The DEIR fails to address cumulative impacts regarding population, housing, and employment and instead counteracts earlier disclosures regarding significant, stating that the impacts would be less than significant and do not require mitigation because of their relationship to County and regional plans. (DEIR 7-19.) Yet the DEIR then immediately follows this by stating that the existence of the Project creates a significant adverse indirect growth-inducing impact. (Id.) V. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze the Project’s Growth-Inducing Impacts. EIRs are required to provide a detailed discussion regarding the growth-inducing impacts of a project. (Guidelines §§ 21100(b)(5); 21156.) In addition, Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 369 sets forth three factors to determine the level of detail required in a growth-inducing impacts analysis: (a) the nature of the project; (b) the directness or indirectness of the contemplated impact; and (c) the ability to forecast the actual effects the project will have on the physical environment. (Id.) Applied here, these factors militate in favor of a highly detailed analysis – (a) the Project is extremely large and will result in the installation of a city in a remote and undeveloped area; (b) the Project will result in direct impacts on thousands of acres of undeveloped land as well as indirect impacts such as further infrastructure growth; (c) forecasting the effects on the physical environment is generally feasible. Despite Napa Citizens, the DEIR’s growth-inducing impacts section is only nine pages in length, and the “analysis” portion is less than four pages. More importantly, the analysis is riddled with inconsistencies and faulty assumptions, as discussed below: Comments on Draft EIR for Centennial Project Page 11 The DEIR for the current Project references an EIR that was conducted for AVAP in 2015 as though the AVAP EIR is relevant and supersedes an analysis for the current Project. (DEIR at 6-2.) Whatever previous environmental review has occurred is irrelevant for the current Project. Additionally, alleged consistency with planned growth in the region (Id.) does not negate a need for consideration of growth-inducing impacts for the Project. Yet, despite these statements indicating consistency with anticipated growth, the DEIR by its own admission states that the Project would substantially increase population and housing relative to existing site conditions and that it is reasonably foreseeable that future unplanned development may occur. (Id.) The DEIR suggests that the Ranchwide Agreement entered into in 2008 will limit growth. (DEIR at 6-4.) As a preliminary matter, given that the Ranchwide Agreement is extensively referenced in the DEIR, a copy of the Agreement must be included as an exhibit or appendix to the DEIR. The existence of this agreement does not negate a need to consider growth-inducing impacts for the current Project, especially considering at least one the projects covered under the Agreement is currently under litigation. CEQA requires that the DEIR analyze impacts that are indirect and impacts to on adjacent properties – not just the developer’s own property. In addition, the Ranchwide Agreement is not a binding and enforceable mitigation measure under CEQA, such that the DEIR cannot rely upon it to mitigate growth-inducing impacts, impacts to biological resources, or any other impacts. Indeed, per section 3.9 of the Ranchwide Agreement, the only party that can enforce the Agreement is the Tejon Ranch Conservancy, which is partially controlled by the project proponent. The DEIR claims that the Project’s infrastructure facilities are not sized to accommodate growth beyond that which is proposed for the Centennial Project. (DEIR at 6-7.) This statement oversimplifies growth-inducing impacts; a project would not build more infrastructure than the project requires, but the mere existence of those facilities makes increasing and connecting to those facilities much easier than if they did not exist in the first place. The DEIR does admit that future nearby landowners could propose to connect to or build upon the Project’s infrastructure to serve future development in the surrounding area. (DEIR at 5.8-22.) The DEIR contains inconsistencies relating to significant impacts between and among sections of DEIR. Additionally, the DEIR does not adequately analyze impacts and develop mitigation measures for those impacts. For a finding of significant impact, CEQA requires that mitigation measures be identified to reduce the impact to less than significant. (Guidelines Appendix G p.327.) For example, in the Population section, the DEIR states that there will be significant and unavoidable increases in population and housing (DEIR at 5.9-3) but fails to address any mitigation measures. “The project would not result in significant growth-inducing impacts” (DEIR 6-9) immediately followed by “existence of project...could result in a significant impact on the environment...which is considered and an adverse indirect growth- inducing impact.” (Id.) Not only is this a clear inconsistency, which frustrates CEQA’s informational and public-participation goals, but this finding of significance nor mitigation measures are discussed in the Population section to which the DEIR is referring. [See Laurel Heights Improvement Assn v. Regents of or the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 390, 392 (“CEQA’s fundamental goal that the public be fully informed as to the environmental consequences of action by their public officials.”).] The DEIR states that there will be no Comments on Draft EIR for Centennial Project Page 12 changes by the Project that would affect population generation or otherwise lead to additional indirect growth (DEIR at 6-1) then later admits that there will be growth inducing impacts to the eastern fringes of project site. (DEIR at 6-2.) DEIR also states that the Project would not lead to substantial growth on the Project site. (DEIR at 5.9-27.) Inconsistencies also exist between the growth-inducing impacts and other sections of the DIER. For example, as previously pointed out, the DIER states that there will be significant and unavoidable growth inducing impacts regarding population but none regarding traffic. This is a clear inconsistency and fails to consider that increases in population will necessarily implicate growth-inducing impacts regarding traffic. (DEIR at 9.4.) The DEIR repeatedly attempts to understate the projects impacts by relying on the non- CEQA term “growth-accommodating.” (DEIR at 5.9-33.) CEQA requires an analysis of growth-inducing impacts; the term “growth accommodating” has no basis in CEQA and the assertion that the Project is growth accommodating is not supported by substantial evidence. The DEIR does not acknowledge its role in causing growth-inducing impacts, particularly regarding the Northwest State Route 138 Improvement Project (the “138 Improvement Project”), for which the final EIR was certified in June 2017.6 The 138 Improvement Project will turn the existing 2-lane highway into a 6-lane freeway, thereby impairing wildlife connectivity and paving over habitat. The 138 Improvement Project EIR routinely references Centennial as one of the key projects expected to cause growth in the area, thereby necessitating the 138 Improvement Project. (See 138 Improvement Project EIR at 31, 47, 83, 336.) The 138 Improvement Project EIR further states that the purpose of the project is to “[a]ccommodate foreseeable increases in travel and goods movement within northern Los Angeles County.” (Id. at 3.) In short, the specter of Centennial appears to be of the key reasons that the 138 Improvement Project was approved. The DEIR admits as much, stating that “the Project anticipates and would complement the planned SR-138 improvements.” (DEIR 4-9.) Accordingly, the DEIR must analyze, disclose, and mitigate growth-inducing impacts arising from the 138 Improvement Project. VI. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze the Project’ Impacts on Visual Resources. The Aesthetics section of the DEIR contains numerous deficiencies and inaccuracies. The DEIR concludes that there will be a less than significant impact to the Pacific Crest Trail (“PCT”) because MM 13-4 will construct a wall that would screen structures and residences (DEIR at 5.13-21.) Basic common sense indicates that it would be almost worse to put up a large wall in a scenic trail – it is difficult to conceive how this measure would mitigate the impact to hikers on the trail when compared the current environmental setting. Furthermore, the DEIR only claims that the U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Crest Trail Association, Tejon Conservancy, and Tejon Ranch Company are in ongoing discussions regarding an alternative realignment for the PCT, without giving any more on whether this is binding or how these discussions contribute to mitigating significant impacts. (DEIR at 5.13-11.) 6 Northwest State Route 138 Corridor Improvement Project, Final Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation. Comments on Draft EIR for Centennial Project Page 13 The DEIR provides an unclear analysis regarding scenic highways. The DEIR seem to be indicating that, although many of the roads are considered scenic drives on the AVAP, inclusion of the site in the West EOA counteracts these considerations. (DEIR at 5.13-2.) This is incorrect – the DEIR must analyze all direct and indirect impacts of the Project and cannot generally cite to other plans in justifying the Project. Regardless, the DEIR is wrong in claiming that the Project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway. (DEIR at 5.13-24.) The DEIR States: The greatest change in scenic views would occur on SR-138 as development occurs on both sides of this road, as it passes through the site. Existing views of undeveloped land and agricultural land would be replaced with business parks and commercial structures, as well as residential development that would be constructed onsite. While distant views of the mountains will remain, the view of passing motorists will consist of urban structures that would be different than the existing rural environment. (Id.) The DEIR states that there will be significant and unavoidable impacts regarding new sources of light and glare (5.13-2), counteracted by MM 13.6, referred to as a Dark Sky Plan (DEIR at 5.13-2.) The DEIR does not set forth adequate measures to mitigate the substantial light pollution caused by the Project. While the DEIR proposes a number of mitigation measures such as directing light downward and using time control devices (DEIR at 5.13-31), there is no way to mitigation the light impacts of installing thousands of people in an undeveloped wildlife area. The DEIR fails to cite any studies or biological opinions indicating that the mitigation measures proposed are sufficient to mitigate impacts on wildlife. The DEIR states that construction will last 20 years and result in a significant and unavoidable impact to visual character, yet provides no mitigation measures to combat this. (DEIR at 5.13-14.) The DEIR also states that converting the site from a rural to an urban condition, which would partially to wholly obstruct existing views, would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to the visual character of the Project site and surrounding area. (DEIR at 5.13-19.) The only mitigation measure discussed, though, are inadequate. MM 7-13 (DEIR at 1-58), discusses a landscaping plan including use of non-invasive species; MM 13-1 (DEIR at 5.13-19) discusses preservation of existing rock outcroppings, but only to the extent feasible,7 and implementing designs that emulate natural contours of existing topography (although none of the visuals provided, especially Exhibit 5.1-4 with its use of extensive glass windows, seem to emulate this); MM 13-2 (DEIR at 5.13-19) discusses clustering development to minimize impacts to dense stands of oak trees, steep slopes, and existing natural drainages; and MM 13-3 (DEIR at 5.13-9) indicates that off-site electrical lines may be placed underground. None of these mitigation measures are sufficient and do not impose real requirements on the Project. 7 What is “feasible” is not defined, therefore, this mitigation measure is also illusory and lacks enforceable performance standards because the project proponent may decide on its own that compliance is not “feasible.” Comments on Draft EIR for Centennial Project Page 14 VII. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze the Project’s Impacts to Fire Services. The DEIR concludes that MM’s 16-1 through 16-3 would reduce the impact to fire services to less than significant. However, these mitigation measures do not take into consideration the environmental analysis or impacts of building new facilities; instead, the DEIR defers analysis stating that actual square footage of each fire station would be determined at the time of Project development. (DEIR 5.16-12.) The DEIR also fails to conduct an analysis of | project description, grazing, traffic, sprawl, baseline, mitigation, noise, deferred mitigation, cumulative impacts, housing, population, growth inducing impacts, visual resources, fire services, alternatives, greenhouse gases, water quality, habitat, significant impacts, survey, rare plants, trees, fully-protected species, wildlife, threatened species, endangered species, candidate species, Regional Conservation Investment Strategy, wetlands, land resources, farmland, hydrological analysis, air quality, seismic risk, landslides, water supply, conservation, open space, air pollution | City of Santee v. Cnty. of San Diego (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1438, 1454-55; San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 655; Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 412, 428; Environmental Protection Information Center v. Johnson (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 604, 625; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 721, 723-724; Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 369; Watsonville Pilots Assn. v. City of Watsonville (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1089; Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of Inyo (2007) 157 Cal. App. 4th 1437, 1456-57; Californians for Alternative to Toxics v. Dept. of Food & Agric. (2005) 136 Cal.App.4th 1, 17; Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project, Sierra Club v. County of Stanislaus (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 182, 204- 206; Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale City Council (2011) 200 Cal. App. 4th 1552, 1562-1563 | CEQA §15126.4, CEQA §15126.6(a), CEQA §15355(b), CEQA §15144, CEQA §21100(b)(5), CEQA §21156, CCR §15126.4(c), PRC §21081.6(b), FGC §5050 | N/A | https://planning.lacounty.gov/case/view/specific_plan_no_02_232_centennial_specific_plan | 34.79 | -118.72 | |
| 2018_Centennial_FEIR_LACRPCHearings | Centennial Project | 2018 | 2004031072 | CEQA | EIR | N/A | Final | County | Los Angeles County | Los Angeles, Kern | San Gabriel Mountains Chapter, Kern Chapter | State Office | N/A | Commercial/Educational/Industrial, Energy, Local Planning Action, Recreational, Residential, Transportation, Waste Treatment, Water Facilities | Ongoing. Intitially approved but was halted by the courts. It remains an ongoing project. | August 17, 2018 Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission Department of Regional Planning 320 West Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213) 974-6411 Submitted via email to: rruiz@planning.lacounty.gov and sackett@planning.lacounty.gov Dear Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission, Thank you for the continued opportunity to engage in the very important dialogue related to the proposed Centennial Specific Plan. The scale of this project and the habitats that are threatened make this a project of utmost importance to the California Native Plant Society. The California Native Plant Society (“CNPS”) is a non-profit environmental organization with nearly 10,000 members in 35 local chapters. CNPS’ mission is to protect California's native plant heritage and preserve it for future generations through application of science, research, education, and conservation. CNPS works closely with decision-makers, scientists, and local planners to advocate for well-informed and environmentally friendly policies, regulations, and land management practices. During our review of testimony presented at past Regional Planning Commission hearings on Centennial and continued analysis of the Centennial Specific Plan FEIR we have uncovered some issues that need to be addressed ahead of the August 29 hearing. Issue 1: Misrepresentation of the Tejon Ranchwide Agreement In 2008, Tejon Ranch Company (TRC) entered into an agreement with five environmental organizations, the Sierra Club, Endangered Habitats League, Audubon of California, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Planning and Conservation League. The complete text of the Ranchwide Agreement is available at: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/96869/000119312508138009/dex1028.htm In testimony at public hearings of the Regional Planning Commission, TRC has repeatedly misrepresented the nature of this agreement by implying that the five environmental organizations party to the 2008 Ranchwide Agreement support TRC’s proposed development actions. For example, on June 6, at the Regional Planning Commission hearing, Greg Medeiros, TRC Vice President Community Development, stated that Centennial “complies and conforms and is consistent with all of the scientific work done by the Sierra Club, NRDC, and other signatories of the Ranchwide Agreement. Boundaries were drawn. This site fits inside of the place where people think, okay. This is where development should go. To meet our needs, this is where development should go. What is around it should be preserved.” This statement is simply not accurate. The primary product of TRC’s Ranchwide Agreement with the five environmental organizations was for these groups to “not oppose the development of the Projects, or any of the Project Approvals, consistent with the terms of the Agreement.” See Ranchwide Agreement Exhibit S pages 1-4. It is important for the Regional Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to recognize that an agreement to “not oppose” is not equivalent to support. The Centennial Specific Plan does not have broad support of the environmental community or any other community for that matter. Issue 2: The Mitigation Preserve Design in the FEIR is Inadequate For the latest version of the mitigation preserve design proposed by TRC for the Centennial Specific Plan please see PDF pages 1455-1457 in FEIR Volume 2: http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/case/sp_02-232_pm060022-feir-2.pdf. Please see the map labeled Exhibit 5.7-10 on pdf page 1455. This version of the mitigation preserve supersedes the previous version presented in DEIR Appendix 5.7 pages 136-138 and Exhibit 5.7-10. A notable difference between the DEIR and FEIR is the addition of a large area of proposed mitigation land to the east of the project site in Area 7 (FEIR pdf page 1455). In order to evaluate the adequacy of the mitigation preserve design CNPS conducted a GIS exercise that involved manually digitizing FEIR Exhibit 5.7-10 and analyzing proposed mitigation areas in relation to existing conservation easements. A GIS map of conservation easements on Tejon Ranch was obtained from the National Conservation Easement Database: https://www.conservationeasement.us/. The following maps and table show quite clearly that TRC is relying heavily on lands already preserved with conservation easements for its mitigation preserve design. A brief description of each map follows: Map 1: Shows areas proposed as mitigation by TRC in green with area numbers corresponding to those in FEIR Exhibit 5.7-10. Areas covered by existing conservation easements appear as black-hashed lines. Map 2: Shows the current land use designation for each of the areas in the mitigation preserve. Areas in yellow are “Onsite mitigation”, those in red are offsite mitigation areas that occur within conservation easements, and those that are in green are offsite mitigation areas that are outside of the areas covered by conservation easements. Map 3: Maps the grassland habitat in the proposed mitigation preserve. These areas were digitized to the best of our ability, but the complex nature of the polygons in FEIR Exhibit 5.7-10 mean that there may be some small differences between Map 3 and the grassland map in the FEIR. The table below and Map 1 summarize the acreage and land use designation in the Centennial Mitigation Preserve: Mitigation Areas Grassland Acreage Total Acreage Acreage in Easements Grassland Acreage in Easements On-site North 1899 2898 0 0 South 90 968 0 0 Sub-total 1989 3866 0 0 Off-site Area 1 1734 6497 1340 90 Area 2 1597 2556 0 0 Area 3 3059 4183 4183 3059 Area 4 4494 7319 6480 3865 Area 5 643 643 643 643 Area 6 1005 2429 0 0 Area 7 7877 15668 3126 1440 Sub-total 20409 39295 15772 9097 Total 22398 43161 15772 9097 Percentage of Total in Easements 36.5 Percentage of Grassland in Easements 40.6 A total of 36.5 percent of all land in the mitigation preserve is already covered by conservation easements. The Ranchwide Agreement provided “an option to purchase conservation easements over an additional 62,000 acres of Tejon Ranch” (see Ranchwide Agreement, page 1). These 62,000 acres, in addition to the 178,000 acres conserved as part of the Ranchwide Agreement sum to 240,000 acres, or 88.9% of the land owned by TRC. In 2010, the state’s Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB) agreed to purchase 62,000 acres of TRC land using 15.8 million taxpayer dollars (see WCB minutes from November 2010, see Attachment 1_WCBminutes.pdf). Areas in the Centennial mitigation preserve include portions of the Bi-Centennial and Tri-Centennial Easements and correspond to mitigation Areas 3, 4, and 5 in the mitigation preserve (see 5.7-10 and Map 1). The land within the mitigation preserve that was purchased by WCB amounts to 11,306 acres or 29% of the total offsite mitigation acreage. An additional, 10,000 acres of easements were acquired in 2014 to accommodate the re- routing of the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT) on Tejon Ranch (see http://www.latimes.com/travel/deals/la-trb-tejon-ranch-pacific-crest-trail-20140506- story.html). Areas proposed for offsite mitigation within the PCT easement total 4,466 acres. Combined, areas covered by existing easements total 15,772 acres, or 36.5% of the mitigation preserve. FEIR Volume 2 (pdf page 1456), states that areas covered by existing easements are “available for mitigation activities that include enhancement, restoration, or creation, are not available for preserved mitigation acreage since the existing Conservation Easement already requires preservation.” To our knowledge, TRC has yet to detail the enhancement, restoration, or creation that it intends to complete on these lands. Furthermore, has TRC detailed which, if any, of the areas within the WCB easements needs these actions? This leads us to question why these areas are even being considered as part of the mitigation preserve? Has the WCB, which provided the taxpayer funds to purchase these easements, been contacted about the use of these lands as part of TRC’s Centennial mitigation preserve? Are these areas simply being included to augment the number of acres used for mitigation, possibly to increase, on paper, the mitigation to disturbed area ratio? Are these lands included to simply make the lands available for mitigation look more robust than they actually are? For a picture of what the mitigation preserve actually looks like if more accurately depicted please refer to Map 2, in which areas already covered by conservation easements are depicted in red. Furthermore, we continue to have serious concerns about the ability of TRC to mitigate for the loss of grassland habitats on Centennial. The rich nature of the grassland habitats on Centennial have been detailed in the study by Vollmar Consulting from 2003-2004 (See Attachment2_VollmarReport.pdf). In this report, Vollmar details the native grassland and wildflower habitats as the product of a variety of environmental factors endemic to Centennial. These factors include geologic origin, soil texture, topographic position in the landscape and climate. Map 3 details the distribution of grassland habitats in the mitigation preserve. This map makes it entirely clear that a large proportion of the grassland habitats proposed as mitigation, approximately 9,000 acres (40% of the grassland total), is located within land covered by existing easements. The addition of the eastern portion of Area 7 in the FEIR increases the amount of grassland mitigation acreage by 7,877 acres. Given that the quality of grassland habitats within Centennial is related to a combination of environmental factors, we question the comparability of these habitats with those to the Ares 6 and the eastern portion of Area 7. Has TRC provided a scientifically-defensible analysis of grassland habitats in Area 6 and the eastern area of 7 with those on Centennial? From my own observations, having done botanical research on Tejon Ranch for more than four years as part of my dissertation, I can conclusively say that environmental factors and habitats change quite dramatically as one travels east along the foothills of the Tehachapi Mountains. Habitats become drier and more influenced by Mojave Desert vegetation as one travels east from Centennial. A striking example of this is the absence of Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia) on Centennial and its prevalence farther to the east. The composition of perennial grasslands also changes as one travels from west to east. For example, grassland habitats dominated by nodding needlegrass (Stipa cernua) in the foothills of the western Tehachapi Mountains give rise to grasslands dominated by desert needle grass (Stipa speciosa) to the east. How can the grassland habitats in the eastern part of Mitigation Area 7 and Area 6 serve adequately as mitigation for the loss of grassland habitats on Centennial? Empirically, there are also numerous examples of plant species that are not known from east of Big Sycamore Canyon, which is roughly in line with the eastern edge of Centennial. I have hypothesized that this is related to microclimatic patterns, which result in higher annual precipitation rates to the west of this “divide.” If TRC wants to use land in the eastern portion of Tejon Ranch to mitigate for the loss of habitat on Centennial they should be required to prove that these lands are equivalent using reproducible methods with the results published in peer-reviewed journals. In summary, TRC has presented a mitigation proposal that includes more than 15,000 acres of land that have already been spoken for, in that they are already covered by existing conservation easements. Additionally, the use of the eastern portion of Area 7 and Area 6 to mitigate for habitat losses on Centennial is dubious and merits further study. When these eastern habitats are taken away from mitigation preserve along with the 15,772 acres of lands already covered by conservation easements does TRC have a viable mitigation preserve? Numerous scientists have detailed the unique and special nature of the habitats on Tejon Ranch. Among these special habitats, the grasslands on Centennial are exemplary, unique, and irreplaceable. Given the value of these habitats, a more creative and comprehensive mitigation preserve design is warranted. Until this is prepared by TRC, the design presented in the FEIR should be deemed inadequate. Sincerely, Nicholas Jensen, PhD Southern California Conservation Analyst California Native Plant Society 1500 North College Ave Claremont, CA 91711 (530) 368-7839 njensen@cnps.org | misrepresentation, mitigation, grasslands, habitat, conservation easement | N/A | N/A | N/A | https://planning.lacounty.gov/case/view/specific_plan_no_02_232_centennial_specific_plan | 34.79 | -118.72 | |
| 2018_Centennial_FEIR_AttachmentH | Centennial Project | 2018 | 2004031072 | CEQA | EIR | N/A | Final | County | Los Angeles County | Los Angeles, Kern | San Gabriel Mountains Chapter, Kern Chapter | State Office | Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Idle No More Southern California, SoCal 350 Climate Action, Wild Heritage Planners | Commercial/Educational/Industrial, Energy, Local Planning Action, Recreational, Residential, Transportation, Waste Treatment, Water Facilities | Ongoing. Intitially approved but was halted by the courts. It remains an ongoing project. | November 16, 2018 Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors 856 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 W. Temple Street Los Angeles CA, 90012 Submitted electronically to: firstdistrict@bos.lacounty.gov, SecondDistrict@bos.lacounty.gov, sheila@bos.lacounty.gov, fourthdistrict@bos.lacounty.gov, Kathryn@bos.lacounty.gov CC: rruiz@planning.lacounty.gov, sackett@planning.lacounty.gov Re: Centennial Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report and Attachment H-Updated Greenhouse Gas Calculations Dear Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, These comments are submitted on behalf of the California Native Plant Society, Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Idle No More Southern California, SoCal 350 Climate Action, and Wild Heritage Planners regarding the Updated Greenhouse Gas Calculations (“Attachment H”, dated August 13, 2018) and the Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) for the Centennial Specific Plan. Importantly, Attachment H includes a revised accounting of greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions that result from the construction and long-term operation of the project. Attachment H, also asserts that the state’s Cap-and-Trade Program covers 96% of Centennial’s GHG emissions. We disagree with the claim that Cap-and-Trade would mitigate nearly all of the Centennial’s GHG emissions. The FEIR does not provide an adequate analysis of GHG emissions and does not provide mitigation for them, as is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). As presented in Attachment H, the project’s proposed reliance on the Cap and Trade program is improper. Recently, World Logistics Center (“WLC”), a large warehouse and distribution project in the City of Moreno Valley, proposed to similarly use Cap-and-Trade to offset their GHG emissions. In September 2018, the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) submitted a comment letter on WLC (“CARB WLC”, available online1 , and attached here for reference), which details why Cap-and-Trade does not mitigate GHG emissions from land use projects and cannot be used for that purpose. CARB’s conclusions regarding the insufficiencies of WLC’s Cap-and-Trade-centered CEQA analysis are directly applicable to the Centennial FEIR’s GHG analysis as well. We hereby incorporate CARB’s conclusions about the intersection of Cap-and-Trade and land use projects as our own (see Attachment 1). Consequently, a supplemental FEIR must be prepared to address Centennial’s current GHG analysis deficiencies, which we describe below. I. Centennial cannot rely upon the statewide Cap-and-Trade Program for mitigating its GHG emissions Centennial justifies their use of Cap-and-Trade based on the CEQA appellate court case, Association of Irritated Residents v. Kern County Board of Supervisors, et al. (Alon USA Energy, Inc., et al., Real Parties in Interest) (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 708 (“AIR v. Kern County2 ”). Cap-and-Trade covers GHG emissions associated with large stationary sources, such as electricity production, oil refineries, transportation fuel suppliers, etc. (for a complete list of Covered Entities see CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 17, § 958113 ). The relevance of AIR v. Kern County to Centennial, a mixed residential and commercial development project, is dubious. Importantly, the project in AIR v. Kern County, Alon Energy, is an oil refinery, and is thus a covered entity under Cap-and-Trade. Centennial is not a Cap-and-Trade covered entity. Centennial claims that emissions from a variety of sources (Attachment H, Table 3) totaling 150,808 MTCO2e/yr, 96% of all emissions, are covered by Cap-and-Trade. Centennial’s assertion is that if their GHG emissions are covered by Cap-and-Trade somewhere upstream, then they don’t need to mitigate for or otherwise reduce these emissions. This is a misinterpretation of the scope of the Cap-and-Trade Program and presents an erroneous analysis of the proposed project’s GHG emissions and mitigations. Quite clearly, the Cap-and-Trade Program was never intended to achieve greenhouse gas reductions associated with mixed-use development projects like Centennial.4 Simply put, it is not safe to assume that emissions from any given project have been mitigated for just because they are covered by the statewide cap. In their assessment of GHGs, Centennial makes errors at several levels, from the use of Cap-and-Trade altogether to assumptions about how this relates to GHG reductions required by state law. CARB WLC emphasizes that the misapplication of Cap-and-Trade to non-covered entities has, “Enormous implications for other projects across the state: it would amount to a determination that massive logistic centers, sprawling far-flung residential developments, and other types of remote greenfield development need not do anything to address and mitigate their GHG emissions because those emissions are already “taken care of” by the Cap-and-Trade Program. This is simply not true.” 1 CARB WLC 2 AIR v. Kern County 3 § 95811 4 CARB WLC contends that, “just because emissions are ‘covered’ by Cap-and-Trade doesn’t mean all of those emissions from any particular covered entity are mitigated or reduced. It simply means they are included in the cap.” See attached letter from CARB to WLC at [page #]. II. The project’s reliance on Cap-and-Trade is inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines According to CEQA § 15064.4 a lead agency should consider the following factors, among others, when assessing the significance of impacts from greenhouse gas emissions on the environment: (1) The extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting; (2) Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project. (3) The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Such requirements must be adopted by the relevant public agency through a public review process and must reduce or mitigate the project’s incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emissions. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the project. As is emphasized in § 15064.4 (3) a primary provision of the CEQA guidelines is for projects to reduce or mitigate GHG emissions in line with existing local, regional, and state plans (e.g. AB 32, SB 375). Also, quite clearly, the CEQA Guidelines highlight the importance of assessing GHG emissions at the project level. Along those lines, mitigation for GHG emissions must also be demonstrated at the project level. The assumption that 96% of Centennial’s emissions have already been “taken care of” by Cap-and- Trade, and that Centennial only needs to account for a very small amount of their GHG emissions is flawed and must be addressed through a supplemental FEIR analysis. In Attachment H, Centennial contends that based on AIR v. Kern County, “compliance with the Cap and Trade program was upheld as a lawful CEQA mitigation measure to reduce GHG emissions to a less-than-significant-level.” This assumption is simply not true for projects like Centennial that are not Cap-and-Trade covered entities. III. Centennial inappropriately proposes to use Cap-and-Trade to reduce GHG emissions in line with legal mandates The FEIR (Vol. 1, 2-338) states that “the Project takes a very aggressive approach to reducing GHG emissions arising from the Project.” In the section titled “Compliance with GHG Reduction Laws and Regulations Threshold” the FEIR notes that components of the project are “required to reduce GHG emissions based on adopted laws and regulations designed to achieve emissions reductions required under AB 32 and under other greenhouse gas reduction laws and regulations.” The FEIR (Vo. 1, 2-342) cites the ruling from Newhall that states that “to the extent a project’s design features comply with or exceed the regulations outlined in the Scoping Plan and adopted by the Air Board or other state agencies, a lead agency could appropriately rely on their use as showing compliance with ‘performance based standards’ adopted to fulfill ‘a statewide...plan for reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions.’” Likewise, the FEIR (Vol 1, 3-341) extrapolates that, for example, “legal mandates to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the energy production sector that will serve the project likewise reduce project- related GHG emissions from electricity consumption.” The legal mandates being relied upon here to reduce GHG emissions do not apply directly to Centennial. The table beginning on 2-342 of the FEIR details the applicable laws that apply to the project’s GHG emissions. The emission sources that are supposedly offset by Cap-and-Trade parallel those that are presented in Table 3 in Attachment H, and cover approximately 96% of the total emissions. The recognition that Cap-and-Trade cannot be used to reduce GHG emissions to comply with state laws, including AB 32, renders the mitigation measures detailed in the FEIR inadequate. These inadequacies must be addressed through a supplemental analysis and provided to the public for review and comment. Conclusion None of the Project’s GHG emissions are subject to regulation under the state’s Cap-and-Trade Program. As a result, Centennial has failed to adequately analyze, reduce, and mitigate for GHG emissions in compliance with state laws and regional initiatives. This represents a fatal flaw in the FEIR that must be corrected. We strongly urge the Board of Supervisors to delay making a decision on the Centennial Specific Plan until this inadequacy is fully corrected. At a minimum, this should precipitate the need for a revised, supplemental FEIR with a public comment period in compliance with CEQA Guidelines. Thank you once again for the opportunity to provide comments on this very important component of the Centennial Specific Plan FEIR. Please feel free to contact us with any questions. Sincerely, Nicholas Jensen, PhD Southern California Conservation Analyst California Native Plant Society Kim Delfino California Program Director Defenders of Wildlife J.P. Rose Staff Attorney Center for Biological Diversity Lydia Ponce Co-Director Idle No More Southern California Member, American Indian Movement Jack Eidt Director Wild Heritage Planners Adrian Martinez Staff Attorney Earthjustice Sabina Virgo Steering Committee SoCal 350 Climate Action | greenhouse gas calculations, greenhouse gases, cap and trade, mitigation | N/A | CEQA §15064.4 | N/A | https://planning.lacounty.gov/case/view/specific_plan_no_02_232_centennial_specific_plan | 34.79 | -118.72 | |
| 2018_Centennial_FEIR_BoardOpposition | Centennial Project | 2018 | 2004031072 | CEQA | EIR | N/A | Final | County | Los Angeles County | Los Angeles, Kern | San Gabriel Mountains Chapter, Kern Chapter | State Office | Great Old Broads for Wilderness, Center for Biological Diversity, Tri-County Watchdogs, Wild Heritage Planners, Idle No More SoCal, Defenders of Wildlife, Los Angeles Audubon Society, Investing in Place, SoCal 350 Climate Action, Center on Race Poverty & the Environment, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, Los Angeles Walks | Commercial/Educational/Industrial, Energy, Local Planning Action, Recreational, Residential, Transportation, Waste Treatment, Water Facilities | Ongoing. Intitially approved but was halted by the courts. It remains an ongoing project. | November 26, 2018 Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 West Temple St. Ste 383 Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213) 974-1411 Submitted via email to: executiveoffice@bos.lacounty.gov, firstdistrict@bos.lacounty.gov, seconddistrict@bos.lacounty.gov, sheila@bos.lacounty.gov, fourthdistrict@bos.lacounty.gov, kathryn@bos.lacounty.gov CC: rruiz@planning.lacounty.gov, jsackett@planning.lacounty.gov RE: Oppose the City-sized “Centennial” Sprawl Development in L.A. County Dear Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Centennial Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 02-232). The Tejon Ranch Corporation proposes to construct a new city, Centennial, at the western end of the Antelope Valley, adjacent to the Angeles National Forest. If completed, the project would result in the construction of 19,333 housing units, and more than 8 million square feet of infrastructure, commercial, and other forms of non-residential development. Centennial exemplifies the worst aspects of 20th century sprawl: it would disproportionately increase air pollution, traffic and greenhouse gas emissions while destroying thousands of acres of irreplaceable natural resources. As explained in more detail below, we ask the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to deny the issuance of project-level entitlements. The undersigned organizations support the development of affordable housing in Los Angeles County that is consistent with smart growth principles and thoughtful urban planning. Specifically, we favor development on previously disturbed land within the current boundaries of urban areas. Sites that are suitable for development result in the densification of the County’s urban areas, and should be located close to existing mass transportation infrastructure. Los Angeles County development should also focus on ensuring the availability of affordable housing that is close to existing jobs. Lastly, the construction of new housing should not result in the destruction of diverse, irreplaceable habitats that the residents of Los Angeles County continue to value and cherish. The Centennial Project fails at nearly every measure of smart urban development. The Centennial Project Represents 20th Century-Style Sprawl Development The residents of Centennial would have to endure exorbitantly long commutes to the nearest urban centers, located 35 to 65 miles one-way from the project, mostly on Interstate 5. The draft environmental impact report (DEIR) for the project indicates the average one-way vehicle trip length from the project would be 45 miles, resulting in an increase of more than 600 million vehicle miles traveled per year on already congested freeways – or over 2,400 trips around the earth’s equator every year. This amounts to the addition of more than 75,000 vehicle trips per day to area roadways. The residents of Los Angeles County already endure some of the longest commutes in the nation, and Centennial would make this situation even worse. The project is located less than 10 miles from the junction of the state’s two largest earthquake faults, the Garlock and San Andreas. Simulations indicate this area would be severely affected by major earthquakes on the San Andreas Fault. The project site is also notoriously windy and would suffer from a high threat of wind-driven wildfires. The project’s remote location means that Los Angeles County would bear the responsibility of providing emergency services to this remote area when catastrophic events occur. The taxpayers of Los Angeles County will be on the hook to pay for the cost of providing the public services that this far-flung development will require. Simply put, the Centennial Development is poorly sited, in a remote and dangerous location. The Centennial Project Negates Efforts to Reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions The construction of the project, daily vehicle trips by residents, and the loss of carbon sequestration in currently-intact habitats would all adversely impact California’s ambitious and much needed goals of reducing GHG emissions. The EIR does not adequately analyze, disclose, and mitigate for the emission of GHGs. At a minimum, Centennial’s developers should adopt zero-net GHG emissions as have other projects in the County. Approval of the Project would be a huge step backward in the County and state’s efforts to combat the climate crisis. The Centennial Project Negates Efforts to Reduce Air Pollution in Southern California Air pollution, particularly in the form of Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 and 10, is already consistently above acceptable state and federal thresholds in the Antelope Valley. Future residents of Centennial would have to endure the immediate and long-term health effects of living in an area with poor air quality. Given that much air pollution is associated with vehicle emissions, the increase in vehicle miles traveled will result in a significant decrease in regional air quality. The Centennial Project Will Destroy Irreplaceable Habitat for Plants and Animals The area that would be developed to build Centennial is among the last places in the Antelope Valley where pronghorn “antelope” roam. The endangered California condor routinely soars above the project site. The Centennial site is currently home to breeding colonies of the tricolored blackbird. It is a species that has already lost more than 90% of its habitat, and was just designated as a Threatened Species by the State of California on April 19, 2018. Additional rare and threatened wildlife present on the project site include the American badger, burrowing owls, northern harriers, loggerhead shrikes, California legless lizards, and countless species of migratory birds. The Centennial Project represents a major threat to wildlife species that have been adversely affected by development in other parts of Los Angeles County. Californians flock to the Antelope Valley Poppy Preserve to marvel at the displays of spring wildflowers. The area slated for development on Centennial has displays of wildflowers that easily rival the Poppy Preserve. Even more precious is the extensive native, perennial grassland that exists on the project site. This iconic California grassland, which has already been eliminated across much of California, is present on thousands of acres of the Centennial. The site is also home to at least ten species of oaks, and numerous species of rare plants. The intact habitats of Centennial are a living laboratory of evolution that cannot be replaced if lost. The western Antelope Valley is also well known as a place of ecological transitions. As the junction between the Mojave Desert, Transverse Ranges, and the Tehachapi Mountains, Centennial features prominently in the future of the region’s biodiversity. In this era of climate change, transitional areas such as this play an important role as biological corridors, ensuring that plants and animals have a place to go as environmental conditions change. These biological resources serve to emphasize that this is an intact ecosystem that fosters relationships between plants, animals, and their environment. These habitats also provide valuable ecosystem services, such as the recharge of groundwater resources and the sequestration of greenhouse gases. Now more than ever, Los Angeles County should serve as a leader in the conservation of intact, functioning ecosystems. We encourage the residents of Los Angeles County and Board of Supervisors to take a stand against Centennial — an antiquated, sprawl-style development that places the profits of a corporation ahead of the needs of the people of Los Angeles County. We support appropriate development in Los Angeles County that is consistent with modern urban planning principles. A vote in favor of the Centennial Specific Plan is a vote against logic and counter to the needs of the County’s residents. A vote against Centennial is a vote for sound planning decisions and for the conservation, in perpetuity, of irreplaceable habitats. We strongly recommend the Board of Supervisors to reject the Centennial Specific Plan. Once again, thank you very much for the opportunity to provide comments on this project. Sincerely, Nicholas Jensen, PhD Southern California Conservation Analyst California Native Plant Society Claremont, California (530) 368-7839 njensen@cnps.org Aruna Prabhala Urban Wildlands Director Center for Biological Diversity Oakland, California (510) 844-7100 aprabhala@biologicaldiversity.org Maureen Forney Chapter Leader Great Old Broads for Wilderness, Middle California San Leandro, California (510) 999-1023 middlecaliforniabroadband@gmail.com Katherine King Secretary Tri-County Watchdogs Frazier Park, California (310) 663-6294 katcking@gmail.com Jack Eidt Founder Wild Heritage Planners Los Angeles, California (323) 362-6737 jack.eidt@wilderutopia.com Thomas Egan California Desert Representative Defenders of Wildlife Helendale, California (760) 221-7531 tegan@defenders.org Jessica Meaney Executive Director Investing in Place Los Angeles, California (510) 414-0894 Jessica@investinginplace.org Chelsea Tu Senior Attorney Center on Race Poverty & the Environment Delano, California (415) 346-4179 x304 ctu@crpe-ej.org Allen Hernandez Executive Director Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice Jurupa Valley, California (909) 570-7384 Allen.h@ccaej.org Emilia Crotty Executive Director Los Angeles Walks Los Angeles, California (508) 916-7863 emilia@losangeleswalks.org Lydia Ponce Co-Director Idle No More SoCal Member American Indian Movement Venice, California (310) 488-0850 venicelydia@gmail.com Travis Longcore, PhD Conservation Chair Los Angeles Audubon Society travislongcore@laaudubon.org Sabina Virgo Steering Committee SoCal 350 Climate Action socalclimateaction@gmail.com | sprawl, air pollution, traffic, greenhouse gases, habitat, seismic risk, wildlife, threatened species, migratory birds, grasslands, rare plants, transitional habitat | N/A | N/A | N/A | https://planning.lacounty.gov/case/view/specific_plan_no_02_232_centennial_specific_plan | 34.79 | -118.72 | |
| 2018_Centennial_FEIR_FireRisk | Centennial Project | 2018 | 2004031072 | CEQA | EIR | N/A | Final | County | Los Angeles County | Los Angeles, Kern | San Gabriel Mountains Chapter, Kern Chapter | State Office | N/A | Commercial/Educational/Industrial, Energy, Local Planning Action, Recreational, Residential, Transportation, Waste Treatment, Water Facilities | Ongoing. Intitially approved but was halted by the courts. It remains an ongoing project. | December 6, 2018 Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors 856 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 W. Temple Street Los Angeles CA, 90012 Submitted electronically to: executiveoffice@bos.lacounty.gov, firstdistrict@bos.lacounty.gov, SecondDistrict@bos.lacounty.gov, sheila@bos.lacounty.gov, fourthdistrict@bos.lacounty.gov, Kathryn@bos.lacounty.gov CC: rruiz@planning.lacounty.gov, jsackett@planning.lacounty.gov Clarification of Fire Risk on the Centennial Specific Plan Project Site Dear Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, Thank you very much for the continued opportunity to provide input on the Centennial Specific Plan (“Centennial”). As an organization, the California Native Plant Society (“CNPS”) is very concerned with the potential impacts of Centennial. CNPS has detailed the reasons why we oppose Centennial in numerous comment letters that focus on the project’s unacceptable impacts to irreplaceable grassland habitats, lack of appropriate mitigation, inappropriate use of Cap-and-Trade, and other issues. One issue that continues to be a major concern to CNPS members and the general public is that the Centennial project site is a dangerous place to build a new city for nearly 60,000 people. Chief among our concerns are the facts that project site is designated by CalFire as a High or Very High Fire Severity Zone (see Attachment 1), and that Centennial would be built on/adjacent to California’s two largest earthquake faults, the Garlock and San Andreas (see Attachment 2). The issue of greenlighting large development projects in areas with high fire danger should be a primary concern to decision-makers. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors should regard wildfire as a major liability in their pending decision on Centennial. As we have seen over and over again, wildfires, specifically those that are wind-driven in habitats prone to fire, can devastate entire communities in the wildland urban interface. The recent destruction witnessed in the Carr, Camp, Thomas, Tubbs, and Woolsey Fires, is evidence that sprawl developments that extend into high fire- prone areas will continue to experience wildfires with dire consequences. An unfortunate truth is that elected officials like yourselves must face the challenge of making decisions where and where not to permit communities. Even when faced with facts as you are today, past decisions by others have permitted communities later devastated by wildfires. With knowledge of the facts, we can and must prevent such devastation in the future. Areas where fires have historically burned will likely burn again. To help you visualize the gravity of the decision on Centennial, we have prepared Attachment 3, which shows before and after photos of recent California wildfires. These photos speak to the fact that communities do not need to be built on steep ground or within dense brush to be consumed by a wildfire. This fact is germane, given Tejon Ranch Company’s propaganda about the current and future risk of wildfire on Centennial. Below, we detail misleading statements made by Tejon Ranch in the EIR, in public testimony, and in the media. 1. Inaccuracies in the EIR The project’s FEIR1 (2-19 to 2-20) notes that “CAL FIRE classifies a zone as having a moderate, high, or very high fire hazard based on a combination of how a fire will behave and the probability of flames and embers threatening buildings. As explained in the Draft EIR, current characteristics of the Project site that contribute to its hazard designation include (1) limited access, (2) lack of existing adequate fire flows, (3) topography, and (4) types of vegetative cover. These characteristics would be addressed as the Project site is developed, as discussed below.” The four factors stated in the FEIR as contributing to CalFire’s severity zoning are not wholly correct. “Limited access” and “lack of existing adequate fire flows” are not included in CalFire’s models. For clarity, here are the factors that CalFire considers when designating Fire Hazard Severity Zones2 : Vegetation - Vegetation is "fuel" to a wildfire and it changes over time. Fire hazard considers the potential vegetation over a 50 year time horizon. Topography - Fire burns faster on steep slopes. Weather - Fire burns faster and with more intensity when air temperature is high, relative humidity is low, and winds are strong. Crown fire potential - Under extreme conditions, fires burn the up into trees and tall brush. Ember production and movement - Fire brands are blown ahead of the main fire spreading the fire and getting into buildings and igniting. Likelihood of an area burning over a 30 - 50 year time period. These six factors are of central concern in evaluating the future risk of fire on Centennial. The FEIR points out various measures, including increasing firefighter access to the site, installing fire hydrants, etc., which are intended to reduce the project’s fire risk. While it is true that these measures are necessary and must be undertaken to help mitigate the fire risk on the project site, they will not alter the fact that Centennial is now and will in the future be located in a High or Very High Fire Severity Zone. In addition to downplaying the risk of fire, they have indicated that fire severity zoning will be downgraded if the development is built. This is simply not true given the parameters included in CalFire’s models. 2. Prevarication in Public Testimony At the Regional Planning Commission hearing on August 29, 2018 starting at 1:40:003 in the video, Jennifer Hernandez, speaking on behalf of Tejon Ranch Company stated: “This is in fact a severe fire risk area. The way the state ranking system works for ranking areas based on fire risk includes the access of that location to current fire services and the adequacy of access roads to that location, so a rural location without proximate fire services with inadequate as you think of it network of roads is a 1 http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/case/sp_02-232_pm060022-20181211-attM1.pdf 2 http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fire_prevention_wildland_zones_development 3 http://lacdrp.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=812&meta_id=30170 high fire risk area that’s the way the state fire criteria works...We will come to a site build the roads and the fire stations and will make this site no longer a high risk fire area.” As explained above in the discussion about fire hazard severity zones, Ms. Hernandez’s statement in inaccurate. Building roads and fire stations will not lessen the fire risk on Centennial. To fully illustrate this point we have prepared Attachment 4, which shows the fire stations in Los Angeles County that are currently located within CalFire Hazard Severity Zones. A total of 35 fire stations occur within or immediately adjacent to areas zoned by CalFire as either High or Very High Fire Severity Zones. Simply put, building fire stations on Tejon will not eliminate wildfire risk. 3. Misdirection in the Media On KPCC’s AirTalk4 on December 4, 2018, Barry Zoeller, Tejon Ranch Vice President of Corporate Communications & Investor Relations, said Centennial “it is currently listed as a high fire hazard area but this primarily due to the fact that there is some great distance between the nearest fire station and where Centennial is located. Of course, that will be mitigated by the fact that Centennial will have four fire stations within the community...” As detailed above, fire risk zoning is not dependent on the distance to the nearest fire station (once again, see attachment 4). Conclusion We strongly urge the Board of Supervisors to base their upcoming decision on Centennial on facts. For the details on how Fire Hazard Severity Zones are determined we urge the County to consult CalFire. Also, California has an impressive cadre of fire science experts in academia and working for public agencies that are available to provide guidance on the threat of wildfire to Centennial. We urge the County to consult these experts to clarify the risk of allowing future development in areas with high wildfire risk. As stated previously, wildfire risk is just one of many reasons the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors should reject the Centennial Specific Plan. Please feel free to contact me with any questions and thank you very much for your time. Sincerely, Nicholas Jensen, PhD Southern California Conservation Analyst California Native Plant Society 1500 North College Ave Claremont, CA 91711 (530) 368-7839 njensen@cnps.org 4 https://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2018/12/04/63950/given-threat-of-wildfires-should-the-tejon-ranch-p/ | fire risk, High Fire Severity Zone, seismic risk, wildfire, misrepresentation, prevarication | N/A | N/A | N/A | https://planning.lacounty.gov/case/view/specific_plan_no_02_232_centennial_specific_plan | 34.79 | -118.72 | |
| 2018_Centennial_FEIR | Centennial Project | 2018 | 2004031072 | CEQA | EIR | N/A | Final | County | Los Angeles County | Los Angeles, Kern | San Gabriel Mountains Chapter, Kern Chapter | State Office | Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety | Commercial/Educational/Industrial, Energy, Local Planning Action, Recreational, Residential, Transportation, Waste Treatment, Water Facilities | Ongoing. Intitially approved but was halted by the courts. It remains an ongoing project. | December 6, 2018 Mr. Jodie Sackett Department of Regional Planning 320 W. Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 jsackett@planning.lacounty.gov Re: Final Environmental Impact Report for the Centennial Specific Plan (SCH No. 2004031072) Dear Mr. Sackett: These comments are submitted on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity, the Center for Food Safety and the California Native Plant Society (collectively “Conservation Groups”) regarding the Centennial Specific Plan (No. 02-232). The Center has reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for Centennial closely and is concerned about the Project’s significant environmental impacts on a host of issues, including biological resources, wildfire, greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), air quality and traffic as well as the FEIR substantial short-comings. The Center urges the Board of Supervisors to deny approval for Centennial or at a minimum delay approval for the Project until the Final EIR fully complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Center is a non-profit, public interest environmental organization dedicated to the protection of native species and their habitats through science, policy, and environmental law. The Center has over 68,000 members and online activists throughout California and the United States. The Center has worked for many years to protect imperiled plants and wildlife, open space, air and water quality, and overall quality of life for people in Los Angeles. The Center for Food Safety (“CFS”) is a nonprofit, public interest advocacy organization dedicated to protecting human health and the environment by curbing the proliferation of harmful food production technologies and promoting sustainable agriculture, including impacts to water resources. In furtherance of this mission, CFS uses legal actions, groundbreaking scientific and policy reports, books and other educational materials, and grassroots campaigns on behalf of its 850,000 farmers and consumer members across the country. The California Native Plant Society (“CNPS”) is a non-profit environmental organization with 10,000 members in 35 Chapters across California and Baja California, Mexico. CNPS’ December 6, 2018 Page 2 mission is to protect California’s native plant heritage and preserve it for future generations through application of science, research, education, and conservation. CNPS works closely with decision-makers, scientists, and local planners to advocate for well-informed policies, regulations, and land management practices. I. THERE IS A MISMATCH BETWEEN THE PROJECT AS DESCRIBED IN THE FEIR AND THE PROJECT AS SET FORTH IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. The project description is unstable because it fails to contain a firm plan for when the phasing for residential and commercial development will occur. While CEQA may allow some flexibility in the description and implementation of a project, the EIR must account for that flexibility in disclosing, analyzing, and mitigating project impacts. Here, the EIR fails in this regard because it does not contain specific triggers or standards for CEQA review if or when development of the residential and commercial sections of the Project do not occur as proposed in the Specific Plan and EIR. This is a serious issue because the Development Agreement gives Tejon or future entitlement holders unbridled discretion in what to build, and when to build it. The Development Agreement states in section 2.3 that “it is the intent of Property Owners and the County to hereby acknowledge and provide for the right of Property Owners to develop the Property in such order and at such rate and times as Property Owners deem appropriate within the exercise of their respective sole and subjective business judgment.” Section 2.2 contains similar language: “nothing in this Agreement requires a Property Owner to proceed with the construction of or any other implementation of the Project or any portion thereof.” While the Conservation Groups are not disputing the legality of these specific provisions in a Development Agreement, the EIR must analyze the project as outlined in the Development Agreement—specifically that the Project could be built (or not built) in a very different manner that what is proposed in the EIR or Specific Plan. The phasing and order of development may significantly change the impacts of the Project—particularly regarding traffic, air quality, public health, growth-inducing impacts and GHGs. In short, there appears to be a “mismatch” between the project phasing as outlined in the EIR and the project phasing as allowed for by the Development Agreement. This “mismatch” frustrates informed decision making and public participation. The Conservation Groups raised a similar concern regarding Tejon’s Grapevine development in Kern County both in the administrative proceedings and before the trial court (the “Grapevine Litigation”). The briefing on these issues are enclosed as references and the arguments therein apply with equal force here and are incorporated herein. The trial court in the Grapevine Litigation held that the project description was unstable and failed to account for the reasonably foreseeable impacts of the project, specifically in the potential event where the phasing for the project was different from what was specified in the EIR. The trial court’s ruling is included herein as a reference. Here, the EIR includes a nearly identical error because the project description is not consistent with the project outlined in the Development Agreement. (See Laurel Heights Imp Ass’n v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, December 6, 2018 Page 3 420 [“a project proponent’s prior environmental record is properly a subject of close consideration in determining the sufficiency of the proponent’s promises in an EIR”].) Likewise, the EIR needs to disclose, analyze, and mitigate the impacts of the Project if the phasing of the project does not occur as set forth in the EIR and Specific Plan. Such changes are reasonably foreseeable given that the Development Agreement reveals that Tejon expressly contracted for— and the County agreed—to such changes. As it stands, the Project could be built solely as residential and the purported traffic (and air quality and GHG) reductions from persons working onsite would never materialize. The FEIR claims that the “tentative tract map” approval process will ensure that if project development does not occur as projected, then “future feasible mitigation” will be required. (FEIR at 2-488 – 2-489.) The FEIR likewise cites various cases purportedly supporting its analysis and project description. These arguments and the FEIR’s application of them was rejected by the trial court in the Grapevine Litigation. In addition, CEQA does not permit the County to avoid disclosure and analysis of foreseeable impacts simply because “future mitigation” may occur—CEQA’s purpose is “to inform the public and responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made.” (Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project v. County of Stanislaus (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 182, 195, emphasis added.) Likewise, the FEIR claims that compliance with the Specific Plan will ensure balanced development. (FEIR at 2-567.) But this ignores that portions of the Specific Plan (e.g., residential portions) may be built and still comply with the Plan, even while commercial portions are not built or a delayed for many years. Similarly, the “Discretionary Conformance Review” of the Specific Plan is irrelevant to whether the Specific Plan is implemented in a piecemeal fashion, or if portions are never built. (FEIR at 2-567.) Moreover, Tejon or future entitlement holders would likely argue that the Development Agreement controls over the Specific Plan to the extent there is any inconsistency. The Conservation Groups explained in previous letters how the unstable project description and uncertain project phasing could lead to more severe GHG and air pollution impacts. Nonetheless, the FEIR claims “the Project cannot result in excess GHG or air quality emissions or cause a ‘carbon debt’ due to significantly unbalanced development as suggested in the comment without triggering additional review.” (FEIR at 4-499.) However, the “trigger” for such additional review is not clearly set forth. Indeed, the Conservation Groups’ June 2018 Letter noted that the EIR has drastically narrowed the amount of project-related actions that could be considered “discretionary” and thus subject to CEQA review. In any event, future additional review is irrelevant to whether the EIR for the project proposed as outlined in the Development Agreement complies with CEQA. The EIR cannot ignore potential impacts simply because of the prospect of additional review. (See Stanislaus, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at 195.) The Conservation Groups also noted in previous correspondence that the Assessor Dwelling Units (“ADUs”) were not properly accounted for in the project description. The FEIR fails to meaningfully respond to this issue and instead claims that “[u]nder the Specific Plan, ADUs are not an additional unit, but rather are a reconfiguration of a single-family home.” (FEIR at 2-481.) This is incorrect – an ADU by definition adds additional capacity (and therefore people) to the parcel. This means additional impacts – for instance, more traffic, air quality, and GHG impacts. Accordingly, the EIR needs to consider whether ADUs are December 6, 2018 Page 4 reasonably foreseeable and account for and mitigate the potential impacts of ADUs and additional residents at the Project site (for example, additional vehicle trips). Instead of addressing this issue, the FEIR confusingly claims that the “maximum” number of units is 19,333. Obviously if ADUs are built on the parcels of existing units, that number will exceed 19,333. The FEIR needs to clarify what the “trigger” is to require additional CEQA review—for instance, what if 500 single family homes add an ADU? Will that require additional CEQA review or any type of discretionary permitting? II. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION While some improvements have been made in addressing impacts to and mitigations for important biological and ecological resources and processes, the FEIR still fails to address significant issues and impacts from creating a new city in the most remote and wild open space remaining in Los Angeles County. Developing this area into a new urban center will permanently disrupt the unique junction of three of California’s ecoregions (Mojave desert, Transverse Ranges and the Sierra Nevada/Tehachapi Mountains) that connect southern California to the rest of the state. A. General Comments on the Biological Issues in the FEIR The Antelope Valley Area Plan (AVAP) is a planning overlay but does not alleviate the County’s responsibility to evaluate the irreplaceable resources within the Economic Opportunity Areas (EOAs) designated in the plan. The fact that the AVAP adopted the EOA intended to facilitate Centennial and anticipated the future land use designations of the project prior to any publicly available environmental review for Centennial, foreclosed a neutral environmental review and impact analysis of the proposed project. While the County attempts to provide safeguards to wildlife from rodenticides by prohibiting use on the project site, the updated MM 4-2 in Section 5.4, Water Quality is still deficient as written: “All rodenticides containing anticoagulants shall be prohibited from use on the Project site or Mitigation Preserve lands. The probation shall be clearly described and distributed to home buyers through their home purchase contract and CC&Rs.” First, “probation” needs to be “prohibition” to accurately reflect the intent of the updated mitigation measure. Secondly, simply describing and distributing the prohibition to home buyers and including it in the contract and CC&Rs fails to ensure that it will be enforced. Prohibitions are effectively meaningless if they are not enforced. The County must require continual monitoring and enforcement of the prohibition throughout the life of the project. Thirdly, this mitigation measure is inconsistent with MM 7-16 which prohibits the use of all rodenticides. These inconsistencies reflect a Final EIR that has not been carefully reviewed and set up implementation issues if the project was to move forward based on this CEQA document. Therefore, at a minimum, the County should withdraw the FEIR, fix the inconsistencies and other CEQA violations, and recirculate a supplemental DEIR for public review. December 6, 2018 Page 5 Regarding non-native invasive species, we support the “preparation and update of a list of invasive plants species to be prohibited from use within the Project site”. However, many non- native invasive plants are brought into development sites, not purposefully but through inadvertent transport on motorized and non-motorized vehicles, cartage and other means and exploit disturbance and fragmentation of habitat that would occur in the proposed project area. The EIR fails to address these inadvertent introductions which will result in the same impact to the conserved areas. No mechanisms are provided in the EIR that would address this impact. Secondly, this measure only addresses plants but invasive species include many non-native animals, such as various roaches, ants, house mice, rats, and other human-affiliated species. The EIR is mute on these species that have the potential to impact local existing wildlife. The FEIR (at p. 2-738) states “The IPM program must prevent or suppress pest problems (i.e., insects and diseases) through a combination of techniques including using pest-resistant plants; biological controls; cultural practices; habitat modification; and judicious use of pesticide”. While we support preventing diseases, the area is known as a hot spot for bubonic plague, which is often carried by local small mammals and was discussed in our comments on the Draft EIR. In addition to the concerns addressed above about the feasible implementation of MM 4-2, we see the potential for the techniques to be included in the IPM to harm and displace resident small mammals through “habitat modification; and the judicious use of pesticide.” Reducing the small mammal populations will decrease the carrying capacity of the area for secondary consumers (i.e. predators) that rely on small mammals as a prey base. In addition to the issue of enforcement of not using anti-coagulants, the mitigation measure still allows other types of pesticide poisons to be used, which will still cause impacts to predators over the long- term, reducing populations numbers. The FEIR admits that the internal “open space” areas are not expected to support the existing wildlife that inhabits the site, but instead the “urban and suburban adapted species”. These human-subsidized species would also exploit conservation areas that are in proximity to the development and potentially outcompete existing wildlife. Therefore, these areas should not be considered as mitigation areas associated the project development and mitigation strategies need to be included to minimize impacts to existing wildlife. The FEIR states “[t]he Project only fragments the natural open space areas within the development footprint, and these remaining pockets of open space/parkland within the footprint are not essential for the persistence of regional native wildlife populations.” (FEIR at 2-735). The EIR present no evidence that the all regional native wildlife populations would persist once the existing habitat is eliminated. In fact, regional wildlife such as burrowing owls, kit fox and other less vagile wildlife will be displaced and habitat eliminated from natural open space areas within the development footprint, resulting in regional population declines. The amount of declines that the elimination of these populations would cause remains unanalyzed in the EIR. In addition, the internal “open space” is proposed to provide wildlife connectivity across the site, but the internal open space runs primarily east-west through the project. The EIR notes that “the Aqueduct effectively serves to block east-west movement on the site for most ground-dwelling wildlife.” (at pg. 2-736) so that wildlife connectivity is already significantly compromised. Key wildlife connectivity currently exists primarily on a north-south axis, December 6, 2018 Page 6 particularly between the Liebre Mountains to the south and the Tehachapi Mountains to the north. From a wildlife connectivity perspective, the proposed project severs this remaining north-south wildlife connectivity particularly for species that move between more mountainous habitats. The contention that “[t]he dedication of thousands of acres of open space to be preserved and managed in perpetuity, are included in Section 5.7.7, Mitigation Measures, in the Draft EIR1747 to reduce impacts to biological resources to a less than significant level” (FEIR at 2- 735) simply is not supported in the EIR. Quantity of habitat alone is not an assurance that key connectivity and movement corridors would be effectively mitigated. Different wildlife species access and use movement corridors differently based on their preferences (for example, mountain lions use habitat much differently than kangaroo mice). The FEIR fails to address these differences in species needs in how they use the landscape. The contention that “Because individuals of many of the larger wildlife species in the region tend not to cross large expanses with sparse shrub cover (typical of the majority of the Project site), the central and eastern portions of the Project site are not likely to be used by the larger species to disperse between and within the regional open space areas in the site vicinity.” (FEIR at 2-736) is not supported in the EIR through annual studies of wildlife movement. For many of the “larger wildlife species” long distance movement only occurs sporadically, when young disperse or when large perturbations of the habitat (e.g., fires) occur and animals are forced to seek resources elsewhere in order to survive. Again the FEIR relies on these generalizations for wildlife species absent any supporting documentation. While we appreciate that the “Draft EIR requires the applicant to explore locating a wildlife-friendly crossing across the Aqueduct with the California Department of Water Resources.” (FEIR at 2-736), there is no assurance that such a wildlife crossing would ever be implemented, and therefore does nothing to remedy the aqueduct as a barrier to wildlife movement. The FEIR does require “MM-14, described on page 5.7-190 and 5.7-191, [which] sets forth the specific requirements for the undercrossing located where the SR-138 crosses the Project’s western border near the current intersection with Cement Plant and requires an open space buffer near the bridge of the aqueduct for the Cement Plant Road and other areas to allow for greater wildlife mobility” (at p. 2-736) but it fails to analyze the benefit of a wildlife undercrossing that leads to the Cement Plant. The reference to TUMSHCP, while informative, does not affect the Centennial project nor will it “sustain crucial landscape linkages across cismontane Southern California.” (FEIR at 2-737). TUMSHCP is the mechanism to obtain “take” permits from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife primarily for California condors for the Kern County Tejon Mountain Village project and was not crafted to maintain landscape linkages. In addition, it does not provide any coverage for the impacts of the Centennial project. We read and commented on the wildlife studies and agree with the FEIR’s determination regarding the existing constraints on wildlife movement, although “sparse vegetation” is neither accurate nor a significant constraint: December 6, 2018 Page 7 The conclusion of these studies has been that the sparse vegetation occurring on the Project site, coupled with the existing barriers of the California Aqueduct (both West Branch and East Branch) and Interstate 5, is not favorable for wildlife movement across the site as part of regional migration and local movement. (at pg. 2-739) This determination then makes the proposed project site even more important for wildlife connectivity because wildlife are currently highly limited in moving farther west (or east due to existing rural residential and agricultural development). As identified in the Antelope Valley Resource Conservation Investment Strategy (RCIS), the proposed project area has high biological resource values, in part for connectivity, yet the proposed project would develop in one of the last remaining north-south connections between the Liebre and Tehachapi Mountains, effectively isolating many southern California species from the rest of the state. The FEIR relies on unsubstantiated statements that downplay the vegetation resources on the proposed project site including: • “the majority of the site has been heavily grazed by cattle for many years, which has led to a relatively pervasive invasion of non-native, noxious weeds such as shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana).” (at p. 2-739) • “much of the site has been impacted by non-native, noxious weeds such as shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana)” (at p. 2-740) The vegetation surveys (Vollmar 2004 and NRC 2006) indicate the opposite—specifically, that the project site contains native grasslands of statewide significance. As detailed in our DEIR comments based on the original Vollmar (2004) study, the site is the last best native contiguous grassland and wildflower fields remaining in California. The County itself has also previously taken the position that the site’s native grasslands are highly significant, consistent with the earlier Vollmar study. In connection with its update of Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs), the County had proposed to include the Centennial native grasslands as part of the “San Andreas SEA.” The purpose of the County’s SEA program is to “preserve the genetic and physical diversity of the County by designing biological resource areas capable of sustaining themselves into the future.” (Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, Antelope Valley Area Plan DEIR, August 2014, p. 3-22) The San Andreas SEA, including the grasslands, was eventually incorporated in the County’s Antelope Valley Area Plan update. In the County’s words, this area was identified as an SEA “based on the best available science” (id., p. 5.4-85) because it was one of the “most sensitive biological resources” in the Antelope Valley (id., p. 5.4-80). In the draft AVAP, the County noted that the proposed SEA includes “[t]he largest extent of native perennial grasslands and diverse wildflower fields ... in this area of the County” and “some of the few remaining examples of native perennial bunchgrass communities in California.” When the applicant’s consultant challenged the inclusion of the native grasslands in the proposed SEA on the ground that they include agricultural lands used for cattle grazing December 6, 2018 Page 8 (Josselyn, July 2012), County Regional Planning Department staff reiterated that the grasslands were properly included in the SEA: No adjustment recommended. Our department does not come to the same conclusion regarding the value of the site. Although grasslands are not rare in CA, SEAs assess resources of relevance to LA County. Additionally, we do not consider the presence of grazing a reason to find a site lacks biological value- some degradation of the resource does not negate the resource. (Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, SEA Boundary Comments and Recommendation Spreadsheet, July 2014, p. 6). The County also expressly rejected Tejon’s consultant’s argument that the conservation potential of the grasslands had already been adequately considered as part of the Tejon Ranch Conservation and Land Use Agreement: Lastly, conservation agreements made with other groups may prioritize separate resources from those our department assesses. Conservation agreements with independent private groups or stakeholders are helpful context, in determining resource locations, but ultimately remain separate from the Department’s mission and context. (Id.) Ultimately, the County caved in to the applicant’s pressure and removed the grasslands from the proposed SEA, but gave no reason for the changed position other than that their inclusion would “discourage development.” Meanwhile, nothing else has changed; the native grasslands themselves did not vanish or significantly degrade, and the “best available science” still supports their designation as part of an SEA. The County has failed to provide any independent scientific basis or explanation for its changed position on the significance of the project’s native grasslands; instead, it merely regurgitates the same arguments that the applicant had previously advanced to oppose designation of the grasslands as part of the San Andreas SEA, and that the County had previously rejected. The EIR thus fails to reflect the County’s independent judgment on the significance of the native grasslands as CEQA requires. The science on grazing and native grasslands is clear: while judicious grazing may have benefits to native grasslands in areas of California that receive adequate precipitation, grazing is detrimental to native desert grassland (Lovich and Bainbridge 1999). The FEIR states “native grasslands occur in a patchy distribution throughout large portions of the site which may be attributed to the grazing, which has potentially minimized non-native growth to a level sufficient to allow persistence of native perennial bunch grasses, as described on pages 5.7-42 through 5.7- 47 of the Draft EIR.” (at p. 2-740). This position is in direct conflict with the science on desert grazing, which documents grazing degrades and eliminate native desert grasslands. Indeed, the patchy distribution of the native grasslands is supported by the past heavy grazing that the FEIR notes “the majority of the site has been heavily grazed by cattle for many years” (at p. 2-739). MM 17-10 contemplates setting aside an area for a material recovery facility/transfer facility. These facilities are often extremely dirty operations that generate lots of loose December 6, 2018 Page 9 trash. The best management practices (BMPs) should require that the facility operations be entirely enclosed and covered in order to limit air pollution and odors. Other important measures need to require state-of-the-art air pollution and particulate filters on the transfer/recovery facility buildings to limit emissions and pollution. Here, having the facility enclosed would be particularly important because of the ongoing concerns about microtrash, which could be blown away from the facility or debris piles into the surrounding area, where condors could access it (see discussion below re: microtrash and condors). Given that the trash will need to be transferred probably many miles to a dump site, electric trucks (that are properly sealed to prevent micro-trash drifting out) need to be required for transfer station operations. B. Responses to Responses to Comments in the FEIR While the FEIR provided some clarification and improvements to the issues addressed in our comments on the DEIR, many of the responses are still confusing and inadequate in providing appropriate information to decision makers and the public as to the actual impacts of creating a new urban center in remote area of the County which is predominantly open space and home to a variety of iconic California plants and animals. In addition, the responses fail to justify the lack of implementation of avoidance and minimization before turning to mitigation. Avoiding and minimizing impacts is always the best way of implementing a project. The following is a non-exhaustive list of some of the inadequate responses. Response to F.8-108 is not substantiated by evidence in the DEIR or FEIR. Just because six environmental groups signed the Ranch Wide agreement does not prove that habitat loss is not an adverse impact on wildlife resources at a project or cumulative level. In fact, the destruction of the last best remaining native grassland/wildflower fields in California as well as Los Angeles County alone remains a significant adverse impact for wildlife resources. As noted above, the County’s Regional Planning Department itself stated that conservation agreements with private groups are “helpful context ... but ultimately remain separate from the Department’s mission and context. Response to Comment F.8-112A, the landscape level goals for the proposed project area in the Proposed Reserve Design for Tejon Ranch – A Threatened California Legacy remains valid. It includes: a. Conserve the large, intact native grasslands on the Mojave Desert floor. b. Maintain the regional Tehachapi linkage in this unit to offsite protected areas along the Mojave Desert floor (the Tehachapi connection, Penrod et al. 2003). c. Conserve diverse, transitional habitats, such as those that support the Tehachapi pocket mouse. The FEIR tries to obfuscate the resources conflicts by relying on studies paid for and controlled by the project proponent who requires confidentiality agreements of the consultants performing the studies and reserves the right to review and edit the studies results. This approach often facilitates a biased presentation of the on-the-ground situation. For example, we submitted to the County as part of our DEIR comments, the 2003/2004 Botanical Report prepared by Vollmar and Associates which we acquired from the County of Los Angeles after a County December 6, 2018 Page 10 convened public field trip to the proposed project site. The Vollmar and Associates 2003/2004 Botanical Report provided in the DEIR came to different conclusions that downplayed the values of the native grasslands when compared to the report that the County initially shared. Clearly the report had been changed between the initial report to the County and the DEIR and the changes benefitted the development potential by discounting and downplaying the existing biological values on site. Response to Comment F.8-116 fails to explain how the mitigation ratios were determined and does not identify any evidence substantiating these ratios in the EIR or elsewhere. The EIR does not analyze if the mitigation areas meet the requirement in the FEIR which states “Preserved habitat shall be of equal or greater biological value and function.” (at p. 2-743) Response to Comment F.8-116A misinterprets the content of Moilanen et al., which indicates that mitigation is generally always underestimated to maintain ecological processes. The FEIR incorrectly concludes that “uncertainty of mitigation for projects such as Centennial is much lower due to the existing values on the preserved lands and the lack of reliance on future unknown values of these lands.” Actually, there is great uncertainty regarding the “preserved lands” for several reasons. First the “preserved lands” management is based on the Ranch-wide Management Plan, which is first and foremost a grazing plan that is currently in place and has resulted in, as the FEIR states “an extensively grazed landscape (compacted soil, invasive species) with relatively low vegetative cover over the majority of the Project site” (at p. 2-745). The current plan does not manage for conservation as the primary goal, which is required for mitigation lands that offset destruction of habitat elsewhere. Secondly, the Ranch-wide Agreement does not assure that Tejon Conservancy will be funded in perpetuity and therefore any conservation management of the mitigation lands is not assured, even if a management plan that manages for conservation as the primary goal was in place. Indeed, the EIR should require funding management for the mitigation lands to go to a non-Tejon-controlled conservation agency in order to assure that the mitigation lands management will be funded and managed in perpetuity for conservation purposes. This requirement is the only way that the County can try to assure that mitigation goals are actually achieved. In fact, a majority of the County’s own Planning Commission recommended that the open space areas be managed by an entity other than Tejon Ranch Conservancy (see p. 13 of Planning Director Bodek’s 12/11/18 letter to the Board of Supervisors). The letter states that Tejon considers this a violation of the Ranch-wide Agreement. However, that is not true: Section 8.4 of the Ranch-wide Agreement provides that subject to certain exceptions, “there shall be no restriction on the right of TRC to subdivide or sell the fee interest, or any portion thereof, in all or any part of the Conservation Easement Area.” In addition, section 3.10(b) envisions that the Resource Agencies could require a different easement holder than the Conservancy for conservation lands, and that the easement(s) must be accordingly modified as required by the Resource Agencies. Moreover, even if transferring the conservation lands to a public entity was inconsistent with the Ranchwide Agreement, the Ranch-wide Agreement can be modified by the parties—Tejon cannot refuse to comply with the County’s requests merely because it voluntarily entered into a private agreement with nongovernmental organizations ten December 6, 2018 Page 11 years ago. The FEIR must include an alternative where mitigation lands are managed by a non- Tejon-controlled conservation agency, and not the Tejon Conservancy. Response to Comment F.8-117 misrepresents the survey efforts for biological resources by asserting that “numerous studies conducted over a 16-year period” were completed on the project site. (at p. 2-744) In fact, different types of surveys with different levels of effort and different species were performed over those 16 years, but certainly not every year within that period. It also states “Draft EIR is consistent with standard practice and is not intended to underplay “landscape scale uniqueness” but rather to portray the site’s biological resources with industry standard methods.” (at p. 2-744.) It is unclear what “standard practice” is and “industry standard methods” actually are and how the survey efforts meet those standards, but the response fails to explain these terms. Response to Comments F.8-119 states that “MM 7-10, mitigation for loss of those areas modeled as native perennial grassland will provide similar habitat quality as that which was lost. The result shall be native perennial grassland and wildflower field values that are equal to or greater than the overall ecological functions and values of those lost as a result of Project implementation.” (at p. 2-746) The EIR, however, fails to describe the criteria to assess “overall ecological functions” that will be used to evaluate the areas that will be destroyed or the areas that would be proposed as mitigation, and does not provide an analysis based on those criteria. Despite the absence of clear criteria or subsequent analysis of the proposed project impact area and the proposed mitigation sites, the FEIR asserts (at p. 2-746) that “[t]he highest quality grassland and native forb communities were found in the southern slopes area north of the Project site, and where Mitigation Preserve Areas 2, 3, 4, and 6 are currently located.” This statement lacks support. On the contrary, there will be a net loss of native perennial grassland and wildflower field values as a result of project implementation even with these preserve areas, and MM 7-10 fails to ensure that mitigation will provide similar habitat quality to compensate for this loss. Response to Comment F.8-120 - While we appreciate the clarifications about the variables used in the NRC analysis and value using them as part of the modeling effort (at p. 2- 727), the soil type is still a key component in determining the species, abundance and often cover of plants as well as the soil biota that the soil type supports. Soil types (based on parent materials) are the basis for determining plant distribution, and soil types are used to delineate the vegetation types on the landscape. Inclusion of an analysis of the soil type in addition to the other components in the NRC modeling would have yielded a more comprehensive data set to be used in the modeling effort, and likely increased the accuracy of the modeling results. More accurate modeling and subsequent field truthing would have informed a more robust avoidance, minimization and if necessary mitigation strategy if the proposed project was to move forward. The response to our original comment still does not provide a reason as to why soil types were not included in the modeling effort. Additionally, the modeling is only for native perennial bunch grass (NPBG) component of the native grasslands and does not include an evaluation of the native annual grasses. December 6, 2018 Page 12 Response to Comment F.8-123 discusses the proposed mitigation sites for annual forbs, including native wildflowers, and states that “the highest quality native forb cover was found in the southern slopes sampling area (generally north of the Project site) in 2007, while in 2008 the southern mitigation area had the highest cover of native forbs.” (pp. 2-748 to 749, referencing Appendix 5.7-B, Nos. Plant-5, Plant-6, and Plant-8) First, the “Southern Slopes” are not even located in Los Angeles County, so it is unclear how mitigation losses in Los Angeles County’s jurisdiction could be mitigated in Kern County. Secondly, only Plant-5 evaluates the community similarity index at Table V (at p. 7), which indicates that the Centennial site is most similar to the “Southern Slopes” but only shares a 52% similarity. The Northern and Southern mitigation areas share 40% and 37% similarity respectively. It is unclear how these two sites, which are both in Los Angeles County, are equal to or better than the community that would be impacted by the Centennial Specific Plan Area (SPA). Thirdly, the Plant-5 does not evaluate just the forb (wildflower field) component. Furthermore, neither Plant-6 nor Plant-8 include an analysis of the native forb (wildflower fields) component. Plant-6, Field Studies, Statistical Analyses and Modeling of Native Perennial Bunchgrass Distribution and Quality on the Approximately 11,680-Acre Centennial Specific Plan Site, Los Angeles Count, includes data on native forbs but no analysis of the proposed mitigation lands. Plant-8, 2008 Assessment of the Native Perennial Bunchgrass Model for the Centennial Specific Plan Area Site, Los Angeles County, California includes data on the native forbs on both the Specific Plan area as well as the proposed Southern Mitigation area but it appears that the Southern Mitigation area is too small of an area to mitigate for the impacts from the Specific Plan area at the required mitigation ratio of 2:1 (at p. 2-743) Centennial Site 2005 (R. Dickey) December 6, 2018 Page 13 Centennial Site 2005 (R. Dickey) Based on the data presented, it is unclear if adequate mitigation lands in Los Angeles County are available to mitigate the impact of the Centennial Specific Plan as proposed. Response to Comment F.8-124- See above comments regarding the lack of analyses of the wildflower fields. Response to Comment F.8-125 - The revised Exhibit 5.7-10, Mitigation Preserve improperly relies on Areas 3 through 7 as mitigation for impacts in Los Angeles County to be mitigated in Kern County. In addition, Conservation Easements have already been bought by the taxpayers of California, as discussed in our DEIR comments, for significant portions of those areas, resulting in California taxpayers subsidizing the proposed development’s mitigation. Response to Comment F.8-128 - As stated above, the Ranch-wide Management Plan is first and foremost a grazing plan and does not prioritize conservation of biological resources over grazing management. Therefore, implementation of the Ranch-wide Management Plan does not assure that mitigation lands on Tejon Ranch will be conserved to the degree needed to mitigate impacts from the proposed Centennial development. As stated previously, the proposed Centennial development is not part of TUMSHCP. Therefore, mitigation lands for TUMSHCP cannot be used as mitigation for the proposed Centennial development. The deletion of the last two sentences of Paragraph 2 of MM 7-1, as proposed, fails to cure the inadequacy of the mitigation measure. MM 7-1 requires that “[t]he Project Applicant shall prepare and implement a Special Status Plant Species Restoration Plan” and requires that the “County shall approve it prior to any vegetation clearing or grading on the site.” (DEIR at 5.7-174.) This measure improperly defers both mitigation and impact analysis, and leaves this key document, which needs to be available for public review and comment, to the applicant’s discretion. Response to Comment F.8-141 imprudently rolls back the biological monitoring requirements during construction, and instead only requires that an “Authorized Biologist” be December 6, 2018 Page 14 “on call”. (p. 2-758). The EIR needs to re-instate the requirement that a biologist be on-site and available at all times during construction, and that an “Authorized Biologist” be retained and “on call” during the life of the project in order to quickly and appropriately manage any natural resource conflict. Regarding Utility Hazards, if guy wires cannot be avoided, bird deflectors should be installed as supported by APLIC guidelines. Lattice towers create a perching/nesting opportunities for predatory birds, including ravens which will be attracted to the Centennial site (if built). Ravens are known predators of numerous rare and common small animals causing measurable and sometime catastrophic declines in populations. Monopole-type towers should only be constructed to reduce the impact. Regarding microtrash, we support the removal of microtrash, but the MM 7-6 does not define “regular efforts to eliminate microtrash on and near all work sites, recreational events, roads, and adjacent open space areas.” (p. 2-759). The EIR needs to include a timeline (biweekly or monthly) for these ongoing efforts to occur and a method to assure their implementation. Response to Comment F.8-144 does not provide or identify any evidence that supports the following statement about golden eagles: “Furthermore, the loss of foraging ground does not automatically equate to a reduction in the size of a population occurring in a region. Often, potentially suitable habitat is unoccupied.” (at p. 2-762) Therefore it is speculative that, with the loss of over 6,400 acres of foraging habitat and prey base associated with the development of Centennial, golden eagle territories in the western Antelope Valley would not be impacted. While we support the proposed ban on rodenticides – “Additionally, in order to minimize impacts on native wildlife, the use of rodenticides on the Project site shall be prohibited” (at pg. 2-763) as discussed above, the enforcement of this part of MM 7-16 is not assured in perpetuity if Centennial is built, rendering it well-intentioned but infeasible. Response to Comment F.8-154 states that microchips will be required on all dogs and cats and that “potential owners shall show evidence prior to entry into the Centennial Development, as required by Los Angeles County Code (Section 10.20.350).” (at p. 2-773). It is unclear who would be checking to confirm that all dogs and cats are microchipped when entering the Centennial Development (if built). While well intentioned, this is another example of a not- likely-to be enforced mitigation that will ultimately fail to reach the goals of protecting local wildlife populations. Response to Comment F.8-163 - MM 7-2 now requires “Excluded burrowing owls shall be monitored and documented using artificial or natural borrows on adjoining Mitigation Preserve lands or other open space.” (p. 2-781). “Sorrows” needs to be replaced by “burrows”. Response to Comment F.8-166 - Based on the Kohlmann and Yoakum report submitted as part of our comments on the DEIR, the pronghorn are relegated to a small area of the larger Tejon Ranch south of the Tehachapi Mountains including parts of the proposed Centennial project. The FEIR states that “The data shows that Pronghorn do not substantially use or rely on the Project site and preservation of the Mitigation Preserve and management of the grasslands in December 6, 2018 Page 15 perpetuity consistent with the Ranch-wide Management Plan will benefit the pronghorn,” but those data are not provided in the FEIR and are therefore unsubstantiated. A revised EIR must provide the data that justify those statements. Response to Comment F.8-170 – As discussed above, the proposed Centennial site had been identified by Los Angeles County as a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) in its Draft SEA update prior to the adoption of the AVAP, and nothing on the ground has changed. Only County politics has changed. Unless Centennial is built, the proposed project site still meets the criteria for designation as an SEA. While the FEIR leads the reader to believe that there is a hierarchy to the SEA criteria, that contention is simply untrue. In fact, based on the resources documented in the EIR, the County should exercise its discretion in designating SEAs and amend its General Plan to include the proposed area as an SEA because it still meets the SEA criteria. In the midst of the sixth global extinction crisis, and Los Angeles County purportedly being a leader in sustainability, it needs to lead and protect its ever diminishing natural resources, particularly in this remote region of the County. Response to Comment F.8-172 - The analysis in the Antelope Valley RCIS provides additional data on the biological and ecological importance of the proposed Centennial site to current and future conservation mitigation goals in northern Los Angeles County. Response to Comment F.9-2 – The response is a rambling and largely irrelevant airing of the County and Tejon’s grievances with the Antelope Valley RCIS process. Notably, however, the response asserts that the Center for Biological Diversity “took the express position in communications with Tejon Ranch on litigation pending in Kern County that it could not in any instance agree to the development of the proposed Centennial Project.” It is not clear how Los Angeles County purports to know the nature of confidential settlement communications to which it was not a party, but in any case, the response’s summary of those communications is inaccurate; the Center did not state “in any instance” that it could not agree to the development of the Centennial site. III. FIRE RISK ANALYSIS AND FIRE SAFETY MEASURES ARE INADEQUATE The proposed project would place over 19,000 homes for approximately 57,150 people (FEIR at 1-16) in areas identified as high and very high fire hazard zones by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire). Placing 57,150 potential residents in fire- prone natural areas that are anticipated to burn without thoroughly disclosing and analyzing the severe environmental, health, and social consequences or requiring appropriate, science-based analyses regarding wildfire risk is reckless and violates CEQA’s transparent regulatory process by impeding the ability of the public and decisionmakers to evaluate the significant adverse impacts the Project would have on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines § 15125(a); Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (2010) 48 Cal.App.4th 310, 315].) To comply with CEQA, the County must provide adequate information and analyses on existing conditions and the proposed avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures so that the public and decisionmakers are able to appropriately evaluate the Project and whether or not adverse impacts due to Project will truly be minimized. December 6, 2018 Page 16 The proposed Project would increase wildfire risks, threatening property and the lives of residents and first responders. The increased fire risk could also worsen public health, destroy native ecosystems, and reduce biodiversity. The FEIR fails to adequately reflect, assess, or mitigate these potential impacts. A. The FEIR Fails to Adequately Assess the Potential Impacts of Placing the Proposed Project in an Area That Has a History of Burning and Improperly Defers Mitigation The FEIR acknowledges that 31 fires of 100 acres or more have occurred within the five miles of the Project site between 1964 and 2015, four of which occurred within the Project footprint (FEIR at 5.3-34). The FEIR then lists five fires: “the Liebre fire, which burned approximately 48,565 acres in 1968 (approximately 0.2 acre on site); Cement Fire No. 1 and Cement Fire No. 2, which burned a combined total of approximately 747 acres in 1994 (approximately 601 acres on site); the Pine fire, which burned approximately 16,272 acres in 2004 (approximately 65 acres on site); and the Hwy 138 and 300 West fire, which burned approximately 193 acres in 2006 (approximately 135 acres on site)” (FEIR at 5.3-34). However, the FEIR fails to note that 11 fires of more than 100 acres occurred within that same time frame within one mile of the Project site: Los Alamos Fire 1986, an unnamed fire 1986, Gulch Fire 1970, Pine Canyon Fire 1987, Gorman Fire 1997, Aqueduct Fire 2003, Post Fire 2003, Quail Fire 2006, Gorman Fire 2007, Quail Fire 2010, and Pine Fire 2014. This is an important distinction because, during the Sonoma County Tubbs Fire in 2017, wind-driven embers were blown about a mile away, across Highway 101 and large open areas, community of Coffey Park | project description, development agreement, habitat, mitigation, invasive species, wildlife, open space, grasslands, vegetation, SEA, Significant Ecological Areas, responses, survey, forbs, monitoring, fire risk, significant impacts, climate change, health, air quality, Fire Protection Services, traffic, vehicle miles traveled, greenhouse gases, emissions, cap and trade, urban decay, housing, population, employment, growth inducing impacts, noise, visual resources | Laurel Heights Imp Ass’n v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 420; Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project v. County of Stanislaus (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 182, 195; Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (2010) 48 Cal.App.4th 310, 315; Sundstrom v. Co. of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296; POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Bd. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 681, 736-37; Sierra Club v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency (E.D.Cal. 2013) 916 F.Supp.2d 1098; California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173; Sierra Club, and Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation v. County of El Dorado (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1156; Center for Biological Diversity v. National Highway Traffic Safety Admin., (9th Cir. 2008) 538 F.3d 1172, 1217; Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish and Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 225; San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 653; Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 342, 360; Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1205; American Canyon Community United for Responsible Growth v. City of American Canyon (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1081-82; Eureka Citizens for Responsible Government v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357, 369; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 152, 157 | CEQA §15125(a), PRC §21000(b)(3), 21002.1(b), CEQA §15126, CEQA §15090(a)(3); | N/A | https://planning.lacounty.gov/case/view/specific_plan_no_02_232_centennial_specific_plan | 34.79 | -118.72 | |
| 2019_Centennial_FEIR_CPRA | Centennial Project | 2019 | 2004031072 | CEQA | EIR | N/A | Final | County | Los Angeles County | Los Angeles, Kern | San Gabriel Mountains Chapter, Kern Chapter | State Office | Center for Biological Diversity | Commercial/Educational/Industrial, Energy, Local Planning Action, Recreational, Residential, Transportation, Waste Treatment, Water Facilities | Ongoing. Intitially approved but was halted by the courts. It remains an ongoing project. | March 21, 2019 Sent via email and FedEx Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors c/o Ms. Celia Zavala Executive Officer 500 West Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 executiveoffice@bos.lacounty.gov Re: Tejon Ranch Company’s Representations To The Board Regarding Centennial Dear Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors: These comments are submitted on behalf of the California Native Plant Society (“CNPS”) and the Center for Biological Diversity (“Center”) regarding the Centennial Specific Plan (“Centennial”). More specifically, the purpose of this letter is to inform you that some of the key representations made by Tejon Ranch Company (“Tejon”) regarding Centennial are not consistent with representations made by Tejon staff and consultants outside of public view. The Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for Centennial needs to be recirculated and reconsidered in light of this information. CNPS is a non-profit environmental organization with 10,000 members in 35 Chapters across California and Baja California, Mexico. CNPS’s mission is to protect California’s native plant heritage and preserve it for future generations through the application of science, research, education, and conservation. CNPS works closely with decision-makers, scientists, and local planners to advocate for well-informed policies, regulations, and land management practices. The Center is a non-profit, public interest environmental organization dedicated to the protection of native species and their habitats through science, policy, and environmental law. The Center has over one million members and online activists throughout California and the Comment Letter Regarding Centennial Specific Plan Page 2 United States. The Center has worked for many years to protect imperiled plants and wildlife, open space, air and water quality, and overall quality of life for people in Los Angeles County. I. A “Market Study” Commissioned By Tejon Confirms That There Is Little Demand For Jobs In The Centennial Area, Such That The “Trip Capture” Rates Are Grossly Inflated. Tejon has maintained that Centennial will contain a balance of housing and jobs so that people can live and work at Centennial, such that Centennial will have a high “capture rate” of 65 percent of daily trip generation and 48 percent of the total project trips. (FEIR at 2-1480.) The EIR then estimates the traffic (and attendant greenhouse gas and air pollution emissions) of the project based upon this trip capture rate. Through a records request to County Planning Staff, the Conservation Groups recently obtained a copy of a “Market Study” commissioned by Tejon on Centennial that purported to analyze the residential demand, commercial demand, and amenity recommendations and pricing. A copy of the market study is attached hereto as attachment 1. The Market Study shows that even at full buildout of 19,400 residential units, there will only be demand for 2,932,000 million square feet of office space. (Market Study at 122.) This is less than half of the 8,398,368 square feet of commercial and business park uses proposed by the Centennial Specific Plan. (See EIR at 1-4.) Elsewhere the Market Study concludes: “Without additional households at Tejon Ranch, our demand analysis indicates that there is potential demand for approximately 1.03M square feet of office space at the Subject. This is approximately 1/7 of the total planned office inventory.” (Market Study at 125.) The Market Study explains that “[t]he property is on the very north county border in a sparsely populated area, and is not in the ‘path for growth’ of the office market. The property is in a rural location, approximately 33 miles north of Santa Clarita.” (Id.) The Market Study further anticipates a “capture rate” for Tejon Ranch of only 10 percent. (Id.) Moreover, the Market Study states “Employment Centers in Santa Clarita, the San Fernando Valley, and Bakersfield can be reached within a 45-minute commute of the Subject. However, this map does not account for traffic, which can be significant on the 5 freeway. Drive times to employment centers will be a challenge for the Subject.” (Id. at 41, emphasis added.) In short, the Market Study shows that the jobs/housing balance and trip capture rates promised by Tejon and the EIR are simply unsupportable. Instead, the Market Study confirms what the Conservation Groups, independent experts, and Supervisor Sheila Kuehl have already concluded—the idea that Centennial will achieve a jobs/housing balance is “pie in the sky.” The California Environmental Quality Act requires that the EIR be based upon sound analysis and science, not speculation. As such, the EIR needs to be revised and recirculated for public comment. Comment Letter Regarding Centennial Specific Plan Page 3 II. Tejon’s Market Study States That Tejon’s “Buyer Profile” For Centennial Is “Affluent” and “Caucasian.” Tejon has represented to the Board that Centennial would be designed to serve the “missing middle,” including schoolteachers, firefighters, and police. However, the Market Study suggests that Tejon is seeking to attract affluent Caucasian buyers to Centennial: “Over 50% of the population in Santa Clarita City are Caucasian which aligns with the Subject’s targeted buyer profile. The Subject should focus its marketing efforts in the city of Santa Clarita to try to attract this targeted buyer profile.” (Market Study at 48, emphasis added.) A few pages earlier, the Market Study states: “[Tejon] should focus its marketing efforts in Santa Clarita to try to attract a more affluent buyer.” (Id. at 45.) The Market Study also anticipates that Centennial will draw demand away from existing areas. For instance, the Market Study concludes: “The highest priced transactions in the Tejon Ranch Submarket is in the Santa Clarita and San Fernando Valley areas of the Submarket and the lower prices are in the Lancaster/Palmdale areas. We also show Bakersfield transaction activity, as the Subject is likely to draw demand from the Bakersfield area. Bakersfield prices generally align with the more affordable prices in Lancaster/Palmdale.” (Id. at 72. The Market Study elsewhere states “We project most of the migration from Santa Clarita and less from Bakersfield” and “[w]e anticipate the Subject to attract families from Santa Clarita, Lancaster, and Bakersfield.” (Id. at 18 & 44.) As the Conservation Group’s explained in their December 6, 2018 Letter, the EIR fails to disclose or analyze the potential cumulative, direct, and indirect effects on urban decay in the region. The Market Study confirms that Centennial will draw demand away from existing urban areas, thus confirming that it could lead to economic decline in these areas. Even the Market Study (conducted in 2015) concedes that Bakersfield is experiencing an economic slowdown, and that new home demand will soften. (Id. at 56.) III. The Centennial Site’s Removal From The “Significant Ecological Areas” Designation Was A Political Decision Done At Tejon’s Request. Tejon and the EIR maintain that the native grasslands and wildflower fields that will be destroyed by Centennial are of limited ecological value. However, emails confirm that the majority of the Centennial site was designated as a “significant ecological area” or “SEA,” but that designation was omitted from the final Antelope Valley Area Plan not because it lacked a scientific basis, but because of influence from Tejon. As early as March 2014, Planning Director Richard Bruckner wrote in an email to Tejon CEO Greg Bielli that County staff is “ready to work with your staff on the entitlement details and a careful review of the SEA draft ordinance. We are prepared to establish biweekly meetings to develop a path forward. The draft SEA ordinance was written to foster well designed projects that respect the environment and provide for development. Your comments on the document are welcome.” (Attachment 4.) Mr. Comment Letter Regarding Centennial Specific Plan Page 4 Bielli responded that Tejon staff had already reached out to County staff to “schedule the meeting we discussed on reviewing the SEA draft ordinance and it’s application on our land plan.” (Id.) A few months later in September 2014, Mr. Bielli emailed Mr. Bruckner specifically asking that the SEA designation be removed from Centennial: “Thank you again Richard for reaching out and getting our input on the Draft AVAP and specifically impacts on Centennial. After following up, here is how I believe we can accommodate both of our organizations concerns: 1. The removal of a community plan requirement from the Western EOA. 2. The removal of the SEA designations over the Western EOA (including the land use map designations we have agreed to on the Centennial map). Obviously, these are the two larger policy issues and there are other detail issues (i.e. future conformance with the General Plan to this eventually adopted AVAP, necessary adjustment to the DEIR/FEIR for eventually adopted AVAP, etc.) that still need to be addressed.” (Attachment 5.) A few weeks later on October 16, 2014, County staff wrote to Mr. Bielli regarding revisions to the AVAP and that “we will be in touch soon regarding the SEA issue.” (Attachment 6.) Mr. Bielli responded that certain proposed changes to the AVAP were “unacceptable.” (Id. at 1.) A few weeks later on November 12, 2014, the Board of Supervisors approved the AVAP update, including scaled back SEA designations from the Centennial site. IV. Emails Between Tejon and Caltrans Show That Building A Six-Lane Freeway Would Be Part Of The “Mitigation” For Centennial. Tejon (along with the EIR) asserts that an expansion of Highway 138 would occur with or without Centennial. However, internal communications between Tejon, Caltrans, and County staff show that expanding Highway 138 into a six-lane expressway would be necessary as “mitigation” for the massive increase in traffic generated by the development. In particular, an email from Caltrans staff to Tejon staff states: “Based on the build traffic volumes of Centennial which is projected to be 86,000 ADT, there is significant impact. The improvements needed to mitigate Centennial's project impacts are as follows: Along SR-138: a) Construct a 6-lane Expressway from 1-5 Interchange to County Road 300th Street West. This includes any realignment needed to match the new N/W 138 Corridor alignment per the publicly released EIR. b) Construct three new interchanges between 1-5 Interchange and County Road 300th Street West as described in the preferred alternative of the N/W 138 Corridor Improvement Project; however, if the Centennial Project intends to add one more Comment Letter Regarding Centennial Specific Plan Page 5 interchange near 290th Street West, it can do so with Caltrans approval. Comply with Caltrans Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) policy. c) Construct a 4-lane Expressway from 300th Street West to County Road 240th Street West. d) Construct a 4-lane limited access Conventional Highway from County Road 240th Street West to SR-14 interchange. e) Modify, widen, and improve numerous intersections along SR-138. The list of the intersections should be the same as the N/W 138 Corridor Improvement Project. Comply with Caltrans Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) policy. f) Modify, widen, and improve the SR-138/SR-14 Interchange as proposed in the preferred alternative of the N/W 138 Corridor Improvement Project. Comply with Caltrans Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) policy.” Centennial should provide a clear Project schedule showing when the above improvements will be constructed which should match or precede the project phasing schemes.” (Attachment 3 at 1-2.) As noted in the Conservation Group’s June 5, 2018 letter, LA Metro has confirmed that the Highway 138 expansion will only “be built in phases as need or as demand require.”1 The Conservation Groups reiterate that there would be no need to build an $830 million freeway expansion unless Centennial is constructed, and questions whether another freeway is a good use of state and local resources. Moreover, the profound impacts of this freeway expansion on wildlife movement was not adequately analyzed in Caltrans’ CEQA review. Caltrans has noted that “[d]evelopment in this area may affect the wildlife corridor crossing of SR-138 and mitigation measures should be planned for.” (Attachment 2 at 3.) To the extent this freeway expansion does move forward to accommodate Centennial, Tejon should pay all maintenance and capital costs for this freeway expansion. Instead, Caltrans has indicated that Tejon’s mitigation obligations will be based upon the trip capture rate and VMT of Centennial; an email from Caltrans states: “To the extent that vehicle trips are reduced and captured within the project site, less mitigation will be required off-site on State highway facilities.” (See Attachment 2 at 2.) In other words, it is likely that if Tejon’s mitigation obligations are based upon the inaccurate trip projection claims in the EIR, then Tejon will escape paying for much of the actual costs of expanding highways to accommodate Centennial and instead the taxpayers of Los Angeles County and the State of California will end up subsidizing expanded access to Centennial. 1 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Northwest 138 Corridor, https://media.metro.net/projects_studies/nw138/images/nw138_overview_fact_sheet.pdf Comment Letter Regarding Centennial Specific Plan Page 6 V. The Former County Planning Director Signaled His Support For Centennial In 2011, Thereby Undermining The County’s Obligation To Produce An Unbiased and Independent EIR. As early as 2011, Planning Director Richard Bruckner was a panelist on a confidential “community development council” entitled “Centennial – A 21st Century Conservation- Orientated New Town In Los Angeles County.” (Attachment 7.) The panel description states, “With the pending release and public review of the community’s specific plan and environmental documents, CDC Blue member Bob Stine and key members of the Centennial entitlement team—as well as the LA County Planning Director—will reflect on the planning process and share their vision for creating a new standard for sustainable, new town development.” Attachment 7 at 1, emphasis added.) Other panel participants were Tejon staff including Greg Medeiros, Carlene Matchniff, Robert Stine, and Kathleen Perkinson. (Id. at 1-2.) In proposing the panel to Mr. Bruckner, a Tejon executive informed Mr. Bruckner: I have handled several panels like this where planning departments have participated in discussions of pending projects. I appreciate the fine line we’ll need to walk to make this session candid and interesting for the audience without delivering any death blows to each other. Also, the CDCs adhere strictly to the “what's said here, stays here” council day confidentiality policy to encourage meaningful discussions. California law is clear that County staff is prohibited from having an interest “in producing a[n] EIR [] that supports the applicant’s proposal” while Tejon has a conflicting interest “in having the agency produce a favorable EIR that will pass legal muster.” (See Citizens for Ceres v. Superior Court (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 889, 918.) The fact that the Planning Director appears to have been participating in at least one panel regarding his “shared vision” with Tejon to build Centennial suggests that the Planning Director did have an interest in producing an EIR that supports Tejon’s proposal, in violation of California law. As the Conservation Groups have noted in other letters, the EIR does not appear to reflect the independent judgment of the County and contains numerous legal and factual errors and omits required analysis, such as a review of range of alternatives to Tejon’s proposal. It appears that the County’s ability to produce an unbiased EIR was undermined by the Planning Director’s overt support for Tejon’s proposal. Comment Letter Regarding Centennial Specific Plan Page 7 Thank you once again for the opportunity to comment on the Centennial Specific Plan. Please feel free to contact us with any questions. Sincerely, J.P. Rose Staff Attorney Center for Biological Diversity 660 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, California, 90017 jrose@biologicaldiversity.org Nicholas Jensen, PhD Southern California Conservation Analyst California Native Plant Society 2707 K Street, Suite 1 Sacramento, California 95816 njensen@cnps.org Comment Letter Regarding Centennial Specific Plan Page 8 Cc (email only): Mr. Jodie Sackett Department of Regional Planning 320 W. Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 jsackett@planning.lacounty.gov Ms. Hilda Solis LA County Supervisor, First District 856 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 mailto:firstdistrict@bos.lacounty.gov Mr. Mark Ridley-Thomas LA County Supervisor, Second District 500 W. Temple Street, Room 866 Los Angeles, CA 90012 SecondDistrict@bos.lacounty.gov Ms. Sheila Kuehl LA County Supervisor, Third District 500 W. Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Sheila@bos.lacounty.gov Ms. Janice Hahn LA County Supervisor, Fourth District 500 W. Temple Street, Room 822 Los Angeles, CA 90012 FourthDistrict@bos.lacounty.gov Ms. Kathryn Barger LA County Supervisor, Fifth District 500 W. Temple Street, Room 869 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Kathryn@bos.lacounty.gov | misrepresentation, EIR, employment, traffic, housing, urban decay, SEA, Significant Ecological Areas, freeway expansion, conlfict of interest, CPRA, California Public Records Act | Citizens for Ceres v. Superior Court (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 889, 918 | N/A | N/A | https://planning.lacounty.gov/case/view/specific_plan_no_02_232_centennial_specific_plan | 34.79 | -118.72 | |
| 2019_Centennial_FEIR_ChangedCircumstances_March | Centennial Project | 2019 | 2004031072 | CEQA | EIR | N/A | Final | County | Los Angeles County | Los Angeles, Kern | San Gabriel Mountains Chapter, Kern Chapter | State Office | Center for Biological Diversity | Commercial/Educational/Industrial, Energy, Local Planning Action, Recreational, Residential, Transportation, Waste Treatment, Water Facilities | Ongoing. Intitially approved but was halted by the courts. It remains an ongoing project. | March 21, 2019 Sent via email and FedEx Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors c/o Ms. Celia Zavala Executive Officer 500 West Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 executiveoffice@bos.lacounty.gov Re: Changed Circumstances Regarding the Centennial Specific Plan and Tejon Ranch Conservancy Dear Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors: These comments are submitted on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity (“Center”) and the California Native Plant Society (“CNPS”) on the Centennial Specific Plan (“Centennial”). This letter highlights new information regarding the Tejon Ranch Conservancy (“Conservancy”) which is relevant to informed decision-making and public participation on Centennial and its Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”). As a result of this new information, a final vote on Centennial should be delayed and the EIR should be revised and recirculated for additional public comment. The Center is a non-profit, public interest environmental organization dedicated to the protection of native species and their habitats through science, policy, and environmental law. The Center has over one million members and online activists throughout California and the United Sates. The Center has worked for many years to protect imperiled plants and wildlife, open space, air and water quality, and overall quality of life for people in Los Angeles County. CNPS is a non-profit environmental organization with 10,000 members in 35 Chapters across California and Baja California, Mexico. CNPS’s mission is to protect California’s native plant heritage and preserve it for future generations through the application of science, research, Changed Circumstances Regarding the Centennial Specific Plan & Tejon Ranch Conservancy Page 2 education, and conservation. CNPS works closely with decision-makers, scientists, and local planners to advocate for well-informed policies, regulations, and land management practices. I. Tejon Ranch Conservancy Is Losing Approximately Half Of Its Staff, Including The President And CEO. It has come to the attention of the Conservation Groups that the Conservancy is facing severe financial challenges that may render it unable to fulfill its duties to manage mitigation lands for the Centennial development. A resignation letter authored by the President and CEO of the Conservancy published in the Conservancy’s February 6, 2019 newsletter1 reveals that the Conservancy will not be filling vacant positions for the President and CEO, Conservation Communications Manager, Public Access Manager, or Stewardship Manager: The landmark 2008 Ranch-Wide Agreement (RWA) was a historic achievement, creating the Conservancy and placing 240,000 ecologically significant acres into conservation—in itself, a pretty remarkable accomplishment. Due to circumstances that no one could have anticipated, and beyond anyone’s control, the economic collapse and recession that same year impacted the future flow of funding intended to support the Conservancy beyond 2021. By far, this remains the Conservancy’s biggest challenge and one we are all hopeful will be met. The Conservancy board has been working diligently to identify the best pathway forward, keenly aware of the importance of the historic RWA. In order to preserve resources to address this financial challenge, the Conservancy Board of Directors has had to make several difficult decisions. This includes moving forward with a smaller staff by not filling vacant positions (President and CEO, Conservation Communications Manager, Public Access Manager, as well as the Stewardship Manager position vacated in August). The Conservancy is hopeful these moves will help it prepare for the future and support its core mission of advancing conservation values here at Tejon Ranch. The Conservancy will proceed under the capable direction of Conservation Science Director C. Ellery Mayence, Ph.D., and supported by Operations Director Tim Bulone, Biologist Mitchell Coleman, Administrative Coordinator Susan Chaney, Education Coordinator Paula Harvey, and Public Access Assistant Reema Hammad. In other words, the Conservancy will be losing approximately half of its staff, including its key leadership. This is significant new information that has serious ramifications for the Centennial development, as described in further detail below. 1 The newsletter is currently available online at https://spark.adobe.com/page/vIeKwDenrcTge/. Changed Circumstances Regarding the Centennial Specific Plan & Tejon Ranch Conservancy Page 3 II. The Tejon Ranch Conservancy Is Charged With Carrying Out Mitigation Activities For Centennial. The EIR for Centennial expressly relies upon the Conservancy to carry out mitigation obligations for Centennial. For instance, the EIR states that the Conservancy “will adopt, update, monitor and enforce implementation of the Ranch-wide Management Plan (RWMP) (Final EIR Appendix 5.7-D) on dedicated conservation areas and option areas subject to conservation, preservation, mitigation, and enhancement measures...” (EIR at 2-123.) The EIR also relies upon the Conservancy to conduct activities to monitor pronghorn and implement habitat enhancements. (EIR at 2-146.) Elsewhere the EIR provides that “[m]aintenance of the open space or conserved lands will be the responsibility of the Conservancy, funded in large part by a fee based on a portion of the purchase price for each residential parcel on the Ranch.” (EIR at 2- 156.) The EIR further states, “The open space areas that fall into the Mitigation Preserve will remain preserved in perpetuity and managed long-term by Tejon Ranch Conservancy.” (EIR at 2-533.) The Ranchwide Agreement likewise states that the Conservancy is expected to carry out mitigation activities for the Centennial development. Section 3.10(e) of the Ranchwide Agreement transfers long-term responsibility for mitigation activities from Tejon Ranch Company to the Conservancy. Section 3.8(a) of the Ranchwide Agreement transfers the obligations to manage conservation lands and perform “conservation activities” from Tejon Ranch Company to the Conservancy. These “conservation activities” are defined in Exhibit N (section 7(b)) to include vegetation planting and management, animal control for feral and non- native animals, condor feeding, signage, non-native plant control, wetland and stream course restoration. In addition, section 3.8(d) provides that the Conservancy “shall be responsible, and shall bear all costs and liabilities of any kind related to Public Access or to the Conservation Activities, including, but not limited to, the incremental upkeep of the Conservation Easement Area due to Public Access or the Conservation Activities.” Because the organization charged with carrying out the mitigation responsibilities for Centennial is in serious financial trouble, the entire mitigation strategy of the EIR is called into question. It is unclear how the Conservancy can manage thousands of acres of conservation and mitigation lands if it is operating with less than half of its staff. Nor is it clear how the Conservancy can preserve the ecological values of Tejon Ranch or allow for public access when it will no longer have a Stewardship Manager, Public Access Manager, or other key team members. The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires mitigation measures to be effective in remedying a potential significant environmental problem. (See Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1116.) CEQA further requires mitigation measures to be “feasible,” meaning that the measures are “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (Public Resources Code § 21061.1; CEQA Guidelines § 15364.) It is not clear how the mitigation measures outlined in the EIR are “feasible” when the organization charged with carrying them out is underfunded, understaffed, and lacks a President and CEO. Changed Circumstances Regarding the Centennial Specific Plan & Tejon Ranch Conservancy Page 4 The Conservation Groups, the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, and Planning Commissioner Laura Shell have urged that the mitigation lands for Centennial should be owned and managed by an entity that is independent of Tejon Ranch Company (e.g., a public agency). The Board has the authority to require that Tejon Ranch Company transfer mitigation lands to a public agency as a condition of approval for the Centennial development. The fact that the Conservancy has been rendered unable to manage these lands due to the actions of Tejon Ranch Company underscores the need for public ownership and management. Moreover, Tejon Ranch Company’s pattern of arbitrarily banning certain groups from accessing or studying these lands (documented in other comment letters and in the LA Times2 ) further confirms that Tejon Ranch Company should not have authority over conservation lands or control over access. Tejon Ranch Company’s banning of certain groups also likely violates the terms of the conservation easements granted by the Wildlife Conservation Board which requires Tejon to “encourage[] and facilitat[e] access by the public.” III. The County Must Revise The EIR To Reflect This New Information. Given the significant change in circumstances described above, state law requires that the EIR be revised and recirculated. More specifically, CEQA requires that an EIR be recirculated for public comment when new data or information relevant to the decision-making process comes to light. CEQA provides: When significant new information is added to an environmental impact report after notice has been given pursuant to Section 21092 and consultation has occurred pursuant to Sections 21104 and 21153, but prior to certification, the public agency shall give notice again pursuant to Section 21092, and consult again pursuant to Sections 21104 and 21153 before certifying the environmental impact report. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21092.1.) The Board cannot make a decision which “intelligently takes account of environmental consequences” without current information on the organization charged with carrying out the mitigation responsibilities for this city-sized development. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15151; see also Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Com. v. Board of Port Cmrs. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1356 [the EIR must set forth sufficient information to “foster informed public participation and to enable the decision makers to consider the environmental factors necessary to make a reasoned decision.”].) IV. The Traffic Analysis For Centennial Must Be Revised To Reflect That The Grapevine Development Approvals Are Being Rescinded. There are additional independent grounds warranting recirculation of the EIR—the Grapevine Specific Plan is no longer “approved.” More specifically, the EIR states that the cumulative traffic scenarios for Centennial include the Grapevine Specific Plan in southern Kern 2 See Louis Sahagun, “A botanist criticized Tejon Ranch. So he got kicked out — along with 10,000 of his friends,” Los Angeles Times (Dec. 10, 2018), available at https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-tejon-blacklist-20181210-story.html. Changed Circumstances Regarding the Centennial Specific Plan & Tejon Ranch Conservancy Page 5 County because the Grapevine Specific Plan has “been approved by Kern County....” (EIR at 2- 558.) However, while the Kern County Board of Supervisors did initially approve the Grapevine Specific Plan in December 2016, a Kern County Superior Court judge issued a final writ of mandate and judgment in February 2019 directing Kern County to vacate all project approvals for the Grapevine Specific Plan. As such, Centennial’s traffic analysis needs to be revised to reflect the fact that Grapevine is not “approved” by Kern County and may not proceed forward. Given that traffic impacts are linked to impacts associated with greenhouse gases, air pollution, and growth-inducement, these sections of the EIR’s analysis (and any other appropriate sections) must also be revised and the EIR recirculated. V. The FEIR fails to adequately disclose, analyze, or mitigate the Project’s air quality impacts. The Supreme Court recently clarified that an EIR must disclose how the numbers or statistics in an EIR relating to emissions translate into adverse health impacts, or explain why such a translation is not possible. (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502, 521 (“Sierra Club”). The Supreme Court explained: CEQA requires that the EIR have made a reasonable effort to discuss relevant specifics regarding the connection between two segments of information already contained in the EIR, the general health effects associated with a particular pollutant and the estimated amount of that pollutant the project will likely produce. This discussion will allow the public to make an informed decision, as CEQA requires. Because the EIR as written makes it impossible for the public to translate the bare numbers provided into adverse health impacts or to understand why such translation is not possible at this time (and what limited translation is, in fact, possible), we agree with the Court of Appeal that the EIR's discussion of air quality impacts in this case was inadequate. (Id.) Here, the FEIR suffers from the same defect. The FEIR generally describes the Project’s air quality impacts as “significant” without explaining how these impacts translate into adverse health impacts for community members, and particularly for sensitive receptors such as children. The FEIR needs to be revised and recirculated with a thorough analysis as required by Sierra Club. Changed Circumstances Regarding the Centennial Specific Plan & Tejon Ranch Conservancy Page 6 VI. Conclusion Thank you once again for the opportunity to comment on the Centennial Specific Plan. Please feel free to contact us with any questions. Sincerely, J.P. Rose Staff Attorney Center for Biological Diversity 660 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, California, 90017 jrose@biologicaldiversity.org Nicholas Jensen, PhD Southern California Conservation Analyst California Native Plant Society 2707 K Street, Suite 1 Sacramento, California 95816 njensen@cnps.org Changed Circumstances Regarding the Centennial Specific Plan & Tejon Ranch Conservancy Page 7 Cc (email only): Mr. Jodie Sackett Department of Regional Planning 320 W. Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 jsackett@planning.lacounty.gov Ms. Hilda Solis LA County Supervisor, First District 856 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 mailto:firstdistrict@bos.lacounty.gov Mr. Mark Ridley-Thomas LA County Supervisor, Second District 500 W. Temple Street, Room 866 Los Angeles, CA 90012 SecondDistrict@bos.lacounty.gov Ms. Sheila Kuehl LA County Supervisor, Third District 500 W. Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Sheila@bos.lacounty.gov Ms. Janice Hahn LA County Supervisor, Fourth District 500 W. Temple Street, Room 822 Los Angeles, CA 90012 FourthDistrict@bos.lacounty.gov Ms. Kathryn Barger LA County Supervisor, Fifth District 500 W. Temple Street, Room 869 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Kathryn@bos.lacounty.gov | changed circumstances, new information, delay vote, EIR, recirculation, revision, mitigation, public ownership, traffic, greenhouse gases, air pollution, growth inducing impacts, air quality, health, conservation | Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1116; Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502, 521 | PRC §21061.1, CEQA §15364, PRC §21092.1 | N/A | https://planning.lacounty.gov/case/view/specific_plan_no_02_232_centennial_specific_plan | 34.79 | -118.72 | |
| 2019_Centennial_FEIR_ChangedCircumstances_April | Centennial Project | 2019 | 2004031072 | CEQA | EIR | N/A | Final | County | Los Angeles County | Los Angeles, Kern | San Gabriel Mountains Chapter, Kern Chapter | State Office | Center for Biological Diversity | Commercial/Educational/Industrial, Energy, Local Planning Action, Recreational, Residential, Transportation, Waste Treatment, Water Facilities | Ongoing. Intitially approved but was halted by the courts. It remains an ongoing project. | April 3, 2019 Sent via email and FedEx Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors c/o Ms. Celia Zavala Executive Officer 500 West Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 executiveoffice@bos.lacounty.gov Re: Changed Circumstances Regarding the Centennial Specific Plan and Tejon Ranch Conservancy Dear Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors: These comments are submitted on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity (“Center”) and the California Native Plant Society (“CNPS”) on the Centennial Specific Plan (“Centennial”). This letter highlights new information regarding the Tejon Ranch Conservancy (“Conservancy”) which is relevant to informed decision-making and public participation on Centennial and its Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”). As a result of this new information, a final vote on Centennial should be delayed and the EIR should be revised and recirculated for additional public comment. The Center is a non-profit, public interest environmental organization dedicated to the protection of native species and their habitats through science, policy, and environmental law. The Center has over one million members and online activists throughout California and the United Sates. The Center has worked for many years to protect imperiled plants and wildlife, open space, air and water quality, and overall quality of life for people in Los Angeles County. CNPS is a non-profit environmental organization with thousands of members in 35 Chapters across California and Baja California, Mexico. CNPS’s mission is to protect California’s native plant heritage and preserve it for future generations through the application of Changed Circumstances Regarding the Centennial Specific Plan & Tejon Ranch Conservancy Page 2 science, research, education, and conservation. CNPS works closely with decision-makers, scientists, and local planners to advocate for well-informed policies, regulations, and land management practices. I. Tejon Ranch Conservancy Is Losing Approximately Half Of Its Staff, Including The President And CEO. It has come to the attention of the Center and CNPS (the “Conservation Groups”) that the Conservancy is facing severe financial challenges that may render it unable to fulfill its duties to manage mitigation lands for the Centennial development. A resignation letter authored by the President and CEO of the Conservancy published in the Conservancy’s February 6, 2019 newsletter1 reveals that the Conservancy will not be filling vacant positions for the President and CEO, Conservation Communications Manager, Public Access Manager, or Stewardship Manager: The landmark 2008 Ranch-Wide Agreement (RWA) was a historic achievement, creating the Conservancy and placing 240,000 ecologically significant acres into conservation—in itself, a pretty remarkable accomplishment. Due to circumstances that no one could have anticipated, and beyond anyone’s control, the economic collapse and recession that same year impacted the future flow of funding intended to support the Conservancy beyond 2021. By far, this remains the Conservancy’s biggest challenge and one we are all hopeful will be met. The Conservancy board has been working diligently to identify the best pathway forward, keenly aware of the importance of the historic RWA. In order to preserve resources to address this financial challenge, the Conservancy Board of Directors has had to make several difficult decisions. This includes moving forward with a smaller staff by not filling vacant positions (President and CEO, Conservation Communications Manager, Public Access Manager, as well as the Stewardship Manager position vacated in August). The Conservancy is hopeful these moves will help it prepare for the future and support its core mission of advancing conservation values here at Tejon Ranch. The Conservancy will proceed under the capable direction of Conservation Science Director C. Ellery Mayence, Ph.D., and supported by Operations Director Tim Bulone, Biologist Mitchell Coleman, Administrative Coordinator Susan Chaney, Education Coordinator Paula Harvey, and Public Access Assistant Reema Hammad. In other words, the Conservancy will be losing approximately half of its staff, including its key leadership. This is significant new information that has serious ramifications for the Centennial development, as described in further detail below. 1 The newsletter is currently available online at https://spark.adobe.com/page/vIeKwDenrcTge/. Changed Circumstances Regarding the Centennial Specific Plan & Tejon Ranch Conservancy Page 3 II. The Tejon Ranch Conservancy Is Charged With Carrying Out Mitigation Activities For Centennial. The EIR for Centennial expressly relies upon the Conservancy to carry out mitigation obligations for Centennial. For instance, the EIR states that the Conservancy “will adopt, update, monitor and enforce implementation of the Ranch-wide Management Plan (RWMP) (Final EIR Appendix 5.7-D) on dedicated conservation areas and option areas subject to conservation, preservation, mitigation, and enhancement measures...” (EIR at 2-123.) The EIR also relies upon the Conservancy to conduct activities to monitor pronghorn and implement habitat enhancements. (EIR at 2-146.) Elsewhere the EIR provides that “[m]aintenance of the open space or conserved lands will be the responsibility of the Conservancy, funded in large part by a fee based on a portion of the purchase price for each residential parcel on the Ranch.” (EIR at 2- 156.) The EIR further states, “The open space areas that fall into the Mitigation Preserve will remain preserved in perpetuity and managed long-term by Tejon Ranch Conservancy.” (EIR at 2-533.) The Ranchwide Agreement likewise states that the Conservancy is expected to carry out mitigation activities for the Centennial development. Section 3.10(e) of the Ranchwide Agreement transfers long-term responsibility for mitigation activities from Tejon Ranch Company to the Conservancy. Section 3.8(a) of the Ranchwide Agreement transfers the obligations to manage conservation lands and perform “conservation activities” from Tejon Ranch Company to the Conservancy. These “conservation activities” are defined in Exhibit N (section 7(b)) to include vegetation planting and management, animal control for feral and non- native animals, condor feeding, signage, non-native plant control, wetland and stream course restoration. In addition, section 3.8(d) provides that the Conservancy “shall be responsible, and shall bear all costs and liabilities of any kind related to Public Access or to the Conservation Activities, including, but not limited to, the incremental upkeep of the Conservation Easement Area due to Public Access or the Conservation Activities.” Because the organization charged with carrying out the mitigation responsibilities for Centennial is in serious financial trouble, the entire mitigation strategy of the EIR is called into question. It is unclear how the Conservancy can manage thousands of acres of conservation and mitigation lands if it is operating with half of its staff. Nor is it clear how the Conservancy can preserve the ecological values of Tejon Ranch or allow for public access when it will no longer have a Stewardship Manager, Public Access Manager, or other key team members. The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires mitigation measures to be effective in remedying a potential significant environmental problem. (See Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1116.) CEQA further requires mitigation measures to be “feasible,” meaning that the measures are “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (Public Resources Code § 21061.1; CEQA Guidelines § 15364.) It is not clear how the mitigation measures outlined in the EIR are “feasible” when the organization charged with carrying them out is underfunded, understaffed, and lacks a President and CEO. Changed Circumstances Regarding the Centennial Specific Plan & Tejon Ranch Conservancy Page 4 The Conservation Groups, the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, and Planning Commissioner Laura Shell have urged that the mitigation lands for Centennial should be owned and managed by an entity that is independent of Tejon Ranch Company (e.g., a public agency). The Board has the authority to require that Tejon Ranch Company transfer mitigation lands to a public agency as a condition of approval for the Centennial development. The fact that the Conservancy has been rendered unable to manage these lands due to the actions of Tejon Ranch Company underscores the need for public ownership and management. Moreover, Tejon Ranch Company’s pattern of arbitrarily banning certain groups from accessing or studying these lands (documented in other comment letters and in the LA Times2 ) further confirms that Tejon Ranch Company should not have authority over conservation lands or control over access. Tejon Ranch Company’s banning of certain groups also likely violates the terms of the conservation easements granted by the Wildlife Conservation Board which requires Tejon to “encourage[] and facilitat[e] access by the public.” III. The County Must Revise The EIR To Reflect This New Information. Given the significant change in circumstances described above, state law requires that the EIR be revised and recirculated. More specifically, CEQA requires that an EIR be recirculated for public comment when new data or information relevant to the decision-making process comes to light. CEQA provides: When significant new information is added to an environmental impact report after notice has been given pursuant to Section 21092 and consultation has occurred pursuant to Sections 21104 and 21153, but prior to certification, the public agency shall give notice again pursuant to Section 21092, and consult again pursuant to Sections 21104 and 21153 before certifying the environmental impact report. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21092.1.) The Board cannot make a decision which “intelligently takes account of environmental consequences” without current information on the organization charged with carrying out the mitigation responsibilities for this city-sized development. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15151; see also Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Com. v. Board of Port Cmrs. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1356 [the EIR must set forth sufficient information to “foster informed public participation and to enable the decision makers to consider the environmental factors necessary to make a reasoned decision.”].) IV. The Traffic Analysis For Centennial Must Be Revised To Reflect That The Grapevine Development Approvals Are Being Rescinded. There are additional independent grounds warranting recirculation of the EIR—the Grapevine Specific Plan is no longer “approved.” More specifically, the EIR states that the cumulative traffic scenarios for Centennial include the Grapevine Specific Plan in southern Kern 2 See Louis Sahagun, “A botanist criticized Tejon Ranch. So he got kicked out — along with 10,000 of his friends,” Los Angeles Times (Dec. 10, 2018), available at https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-tejon-blacklist-20181210-story.html. Changed Circumstances Regarding the Centennial Specific Plan & Tejon Ranch Conservancy Page 5 County because the Grapevine Specific Plan has “been approved by Kern County....” (EIR at 2- 558.) However, while the Kern County Board of Supervisors did initially approve the Grapevine Specific Plan in December 2016, a Kern County Superior Court judge issued a final writ of mandate and judgment in February 2019 directing Kern County to vacate all project approvals for the Grapevine Specific Plan. As such, Centennial’s traffic analysis needs to be revised to reflect the fact that Grapevine is not “approved” by Kern County and may not proceed forward. Given that traffic impacts are linked to impacts associated with greenhouse gases, air pollution, and growth-inducement, these sections of the EIR’s analysis (and any other appropriate sections) must also be revised and the EIR recirculated. V. The FEIR fails to adequately disclose, analyze, or mitigate the Project’s air quality impacts. The Supreme Court recently clarified that an EIR must disclose how the numbers or statistics in an EIR relating to emissions translate into adverse health impacts, or explain why such a translation is not possible. (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502, 521 (“Sierra Club”). The Supreme Court explained: CEQA requires that the EIR have made a reasonable effort to discuss relevant specifics regarding the connection between two segments of information already contained in the EIR, the general health effects associated with a particular pollutant and the estimated amount of that pollutant the project will likely produce. This discussion will allow the public to make an informed decision, as CEQA requires. Because the EIR as written makes it impossible for the public to translate the bare numbers provided into adverse health impacts or to understand why such translation is not possible at this time (and what limited translation is, in fact, possible), we agree with the Court of Appeal that the EIR's discussion of air quality impacts in this case was inadequate. (Id.) Here, the FEIR suffers from the same defect. The FEIR generally describes the Project’s air quality impacts as “significant” without explaining how these impacts translate into adverse health impacts for community members, and particularly for sensitive receptors such as children. The FEIR needs to be revised and recirculated with a thorough analysis as required by Sierra Club. Changed Circumstances Regarding the Centennial Specific Plan & Tejon Ranch Conservancy Page 6 VI. Conclusion Thank you once again for the opportunity to comment on the Centennial Specific Plan. Please feel free to contact us with any questions. Sincerely, J.P. Rose Staff Attorney Center for Biological Diversity 660 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, California, 90017 jrose@biologicaldiversity.org Nicholas Jensen, PhD Southern California Conservation Analyst California Native Plant Society 2707 K Street, Suite 1 Sacramento, California 95816 njensen@cnps.org Changed Circumstances Regarding the Centennial Specific Plan & Tejon Ranch Conservancy Page 7 Cc (email only): Mr. Jodie Sackett Department of Regional Planning 320 W. Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 jsackett@planning.lacounty.gov Ms. Hilda Solis LA County Supervisor, First District 856 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 firstdistrict@bos.lacounty.gov Mr. Mark Ridley-Thomas LA County Supervisor, Second District 500 W. Temple Street, Room 866 Los Angeles, CA 90012 SecondDistrict@bos.lacounty.gov Ms. Sheila Kuehl LA County Supervisor, Third District 500 W. Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Sheila@bos.lacounty.gov Ms. Janice Hahn LA County Supervisor, Fourth District 500 W. Temple Street, Room 822 Los Angeles, CA 90012 FourthDistrict@bos.lacounty.gov Ms. Kathryn Barger LA County Supervisor, Fifth District 500 W. Temple Street, Room 869 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Kathryn@bos.lacounty.gov | changed circumstances, new information, delay vote, EIR, recirculation, revision, conservation, mitigation, public management, traffic, greenhouse gases, air pollution, growth inducing impacts, air quality, health | Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1116; Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502, 522 | PRC §21061.1, CEQA §15364, PRC §21092.2 | N/A | https://planning.lacounty.gov/case/view/specific_plan_no_02_232_centennial_specific_plan | 34.79 | -118.72 | |
| 2018_CrimsonSolar_EIS/EIRScoping | RE Crimson Solar Project | 2018 | 2018031027 | CEQA/NEPA | EIR/EIS | NOP | Scoping | Federal, State | Bureau of Land Management, California Department of Fish and Wildlife | Riverside | Riverside-San Bernadino Chapter | State Office | California Wilderness Coalition | Energy | Ongoing | Miriam Liberatore, Project Manager RE Crimson Solar Bureau of Land Management 3040 Biddle Road, Medford, OR 97504 Email: blm_ca_crimsonsolar@blm.gov Scoping comments on the proposed RE Crimson Solar Project Dear Ms. Liberatore, Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide scoping comments on the proposed RE Crimson Solar Project (the Project) in Riverside County, California. As proposed, the Project includes the construction, maintenance, operation, and decommissioning of a 350-MW solar energy generating facility on approximately 2,700 acres of desert habitat. The Project is located on land owned and administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the potential impacts of the Project will be evaluated in a joint EIS/EIR by the BLM and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The Project application predates the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP), adopted in 2016, and the Programmatic Solar Energy Development Plan. It will thus be evaluated under California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) land use plan and the Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated Management Plan (NECO), and applicable state and local laws. Depending on the findings of the EIS/EIR, amendments to the CDCA land use plan may be necessary. The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) is a statewide, non-profit organization with 10,000 members distributed across 35 local chapters. The mission of CNPS is to conserve California native plants and their natural habitats, and to increase their understanding, appreciation, and horticultural use. The California Wilderness Coalition (CalWild) is a nonprofit public benefit corporation organized under the laws of the State of California in 1976 and composed of conservation organizations, businesses and individual members. Through advocacy and public education, CalWild builds support for the protection of California’s wildest remaining places, primarily those managed by the federal government. Our concerns regarding the Project include, but are not limited to, impacts to rare plants, vegetation, jurisdictional waters, and ecological processes. Given the scale of the Project and existing site conditions, impacts to native plants and plant communities are unavoidable. Importantly, the Project is sited in the northern Sonoran Desert near the area in which this desert intergrades with the Mojave Desert to the north. The deserts of Western North America represent one of Earth’s last remaining large, intact ecosystems. These habitats are a reservoir of biodiversity, ecosystem services, and evolutionary processes. In the face of climate change, and a myriad of other impacts including renewable energy development, the maintenance of the primary roles of desert habitats is of utmost importance. Furthermore, renewable energy projects should be sited to avoid direct and indirect impacts to plant species (including transmission lines and roads), such as habitat reduction, alteration, fragmentation, exposure to contaminants or fires, and introduction of non- native species. With that in mind, we recommend that the following potential impacts be evaluated comprehensively in the EIS/EIR. 1. Impacts to Rare Plants. Based on a review of existing sources (the California Natural Diversity Database1 , Consortium of California Herbaria2 , and CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants3 ) the Project site is home to populations of Harwood’s eriastrum (Eriastrum harwoodii [CRPR 1B.2, BLM Sensitive]) and Harwood’s milk-vetch (Astragalus insularis var. harwoodii, CRPR 2B.2]). Additionally, based on a review of rare plants found in adjacent areas, the Project potentially supports suitable habitat for the following rare plants: Common Name Scientific Name CRPR gravel milk-vetch Astragalus sabulonum 2B.2 pink fairy-duster Calliandra eriophylla 2B.3 Emory's crucifixion-thorn Castela emoryi 2B.2 sand evening-primrose Chylismia arenaria 2B.2 Las Animas colubrina Colubrina californica 2B.3 spiny abrojo Condalia globosa var. pubescens 4.2 Abrams' spurge Euphorbia abramsiana 2B.2 Utah vine milkweed Funastrum utahense 4.2 ribbed cryptantha Johnstonella costata 4.3 winged cryptantha Johnstonella holoptera 4.3 Parish's desert-thorn Lycium parishii 2B.3 roughstalk witch grass Panicum hirticaule subsp. hirticaule 2B.1 desert unicorn-plant Proboscidea althaeifolia 4.3 dwarf germander Teucrium cubense subsp. depressum 2B.2 Chocolate Mountains tiquilia Tiquilia canescens var. pulchella 3.2 1 https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB 2 http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/ 3 http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/ Given that the Project will be evaluated under a joint CEQA/NEPA document, complete and comprehensive botanical surveys should be conducted in line with CDFW Botanical Survey Guidelines4 . This also means that the impacts to all plants included on the CDFW Special Status Plant List5 need to be evaluated, including those that occur on CRPR Ranks 2B, 3, and 4. In line with these guidelines, botanists should conduct inventories of all plants on the Project site. Also, surveys need to be conducted following adequate amounts of precipitation timed appropriately to ensure that rare plants are detectable. The list of rare plants with the potential to occur on the Project site includes numerous annuals that germinate following summer/fall precipitation. This means that surveys must be completed not only in the spring following adequate precipitation, but also in the fall following adequate precipitation. The detectability of special status plants with potential to occur on a project site can be verified by botanists visiting nearby reference populations of rare plants. The timing and details of visits to reference populations of special status plants should be detailed in the EIS/EIR. Lastly, details of the rare plant survey effort should also be included in the EIS/EIR including information on the dates of surveys, number of surveyors, names of surveyors, and the survey methods used. For rare plants found on the site, the analysis of impacts from the Project needs to be conducted in combination with the impacts to the same species on other renewable energy project sites in the region. Numerous solar energy development projects that are at various stages in the development process from existing and operational to the early planning stages are located in the region surrounding the Project site. Given that the Project is located in a DRECP Development Focus Area (DFA), additional solar energy development projects may be sited adjacent to the 556Project, and the cumulative impacts to rare species in the region remain a primary concern. Solar energy development projects and associated infrastructure projects located close to the Project site include: Colorado River Substation (existing) Desert Sunlight (existing) Genesis solar thermal (existing) Blythe Mesa four-mile long gen-tie (approved) Desert Harvest PV solar (approved) Blythe PV solar (under construction) McCoy PV solar (under construction) Desert Quartzite PV solar (proposed) Mule Mountain III PV solar (under application) Palen solar (under application) 4 https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Survey-Protocols#377281280-plants 5 https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109383&inline An analysis of cumulative impacts should include the effects of already- implemented projects in addition to the effects of projects that will be implemented in the future. Care should also be taken to ensure that ecological processes that maintain the habitat for rare species are also maintained (e.g. aeolian transport of sand in the case of Harwood’s eriastrum). Also, the Project should ensure the maintenance of biological corridors necessary for the movement of species in the face of climate change. The cumulative impact of the large number of proposed and already-implemented solar energy development projects in the region on ecological processes and biological corridors needs to be addressed. Lastly, we recommend that the Project maintain a 0.25-mile buffer for occurrences of rare plants, in line with the Conservation and Management Actions (CMAs) adopted in the DRECP. 2. Impacts to Vegetation. Based on a review of aerial imagery, the Project site contains numerous washes that contain “microphyll woodland” vegetation. Microphyll woodland vegetation types, including Blue Palo Verde-Ironwood Woodland (Parkinsonia florida-Olneya tesota), are rare (see CDFW’s list of California Sensitive Natural Communities6 ), and play an important role as habitat for avian species. The long-term persistence of these habitats is maintained by active hydrological processes, which require intact stream courses and adjacent upland habitats. Vegetation types on the Project site should be mapped to the Alliance level in accordance with CDFW’s Vegetation Classification and Mapping Standards7 . Mapping to the Alliance level is necessary to determine the potential impact to sensitive natural communities. Impacts to microphyll woodland vegetation should be avoided, employing a 200-foot setback, as is mandated in DRECP CMAs. Lastly, the methods used to classify and map vegetation types on the Project site should be clearly reported in the EIS/EIR. 3. Impacts to jurisdictional waters. The Project site includes numerous washes that are classifiable as jurisdictional waters of the State of California and/or the United States. The maintenance of washes and stream courses is essential to maintaining the hydrological function of desert ecosystems and sensitive habitats, such as Blue Palo Verde-Ironwood Woodland. In order to accurately document the episodic streams on the Project site we recommend that surveyors employ the Mapping Episodic Stream Activity (MESA)8 protocols developed by CDFW and the California Energy Commission. The methods used to identify and map jurisdictional waters and wetlands on the Project site should be clearly reported in the EIS/EIR. 6 https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153609&inline 7 https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/data/vegcamp/publications-and-protocols 8 http://www.energy.ca.gov/2014publications/CEC-500-2014-013/CEC-500-2014-013.pdf Once again, thank you for the opportunity to provide scoping comments on the RE Crimson Solar Project. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, Nicholas Jensen, PhD Southern California Conservation Analyst California Native Plant Society 1500 North College Ave Claremont, CA 91711 (530) 368-7839 njensen@cnps.org Linda Castro Assistant Policy Director California Wilderness Coalition (CalWild) (760) 221-4895 lcastro@calwild.org www.calwild.org | rare plants, habitat, cumulative impacts, vegetation, jurisdictional waters, washes, stream courses | N/A | N/A | N/A | https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/79712-2/attachment/XD2xclymoG00TknaBWQLeT3PZKCeg_Y5VgDv2KJ7wZT9F9ruCYVMJD4QPV5ZLz6AGTOC3b0GXtlGeBxc0 | 33.58 | -114.83 | |
| 2020_DelPuertoCanyon_DraftEIR | Del Puerto Canyon Reservoir Project | 2020 | 2019060254 | CEQA | EIR | N/A | Draft | Other | Del Puerto Water District | Stanislaus | North San Joaquin Chapter | State Office | N/A | Water Facilities | Approved | January 27, 2020 Anthea G. Hansen General Manager Del Puerto Water District P.O. Box 1596 Patterson, CA 95363. Submitted electronically to: ahansen@delpuertowd.org Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report, Del Puerto Canyon Reservoir Project SCH# 2019060254 Dear Ms. Hansen: These comments are submitted on behalf of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Del Puerto Canyon Reservoir Project. CNPS is a non-profit environmental organization with more than 10,000 members in 35 Chapters across California and Baja California, Mexico. CNPS’s mission is to protect California’s native plant heritage and preserve it for future generations through the application of science, research, education, and conservation. CNPS works closely with decision-makers, scientists, and local planners to advocate for well-informed policies, regulations, and land management practices. We recommend the following points be addressed in the Final EIR (FEIR) to adequately avoid and mitigate for impacts to native plants and habitats. We have concerns that special-status plants and natural habitats currently on the project site have been insufficiently evaluated in the Draft EIR and believe that the proposed mitigation measures are infeasible and would not reduce significant impacts to plants to less than significant. Overall EIR Comments: • In general, we find the DEIR cursory and lacking in the detail and analysis required for review under CEQA. For example, while repeatedly mentioning that the project would provide “approximately 82,000 acre-feet” of new water storage capacity, and while going into some detail regarding dam operations; the project description does not provide an estimate of the actual number of acres that would be affected by the project and associated project components. • The DEIR does not provide an estimate of the acreage that will be temporarily impacted by construction and staging activities. 2 • Not providing an estimate of the project acreage is a substantial oversight, particularly since it can be inferred (from Table 3.4-1) that the project would impact over 2,000 acres of undeveloped land. Since this acreage estimate is not contained in the project description, it is impossible to determine if the environmental analysis in this DEIR is accurate, as environmental analysis is based on what is listed in this project description. The DEIR is also unclear if the acreage estimates contained in Table 3.4-1 include construction and staging areas and conveyance facilities. Please revise this table in the FEIR to include the acreages of all areas that are expected to be temporarily impacted by the proposed project. • The project description in the DEIR does not provide adequate maps and figures to illustrate the areas that will be affected by the proposed construction, construction staging, road realignment, and dam inundation. Please revise the maps and figures in the FEIR to include all areas potentially affected by all site features of the proposed project. Please revise the maps and figures in the FEIR to include all areas potentially affected by all site features of the proposed project. Please show these jurisdictional boundaries on a figure in the FEIR. • The DEIR discusses the requirements, goals, and policies of the County of Stanislaus and the City of Patterson at various points in the text but does not provide a map or drawing in the project description illustrating where the boundaries of these agencies are located in relation to the project components. For this reason, it is impossible to determine which jurisdiction’s plans and policies apply to various project components. Section 3.4, Biological Resources – Terrestrial 3.4.1 Environmental Setting Vegetation Types: The vegetation maps were compiled using aerial photos and have not been field- verified. Sensitive plant communities and habitats may be present that could not be identified by the vegetation mapping effort. Since it is impossible to adequately identify sensitive plant communities that could be affected by the proposed project, it is also impossible to substantively determine if sensitive plant communities would be affected by this project. Please provide an analysis in the FEIR that details sensitive plant communities based on field surveys. Special-Status Species: Biologists visited the project site in June and July 2019 to conduct a wetland delineation survey,1 and again in October 2019 for a botanical survey. Since the blooming periods for most of the rare plants with potential to occur on the project site are detectable only in the spring (February/March to May/June), the DEIR fails to determine baseline conditions and does not disclose the extent of the potential impacts of project actions. Please provide conclusions on the presence of these plant species in the FEIR that are based on field surveys taken during the blooming periods (or other applicable diagnostic criteria) for these special-status plants. The DEIR discusses potential impacts to four plants listed as rare in the California Native Plant Society Inventory2 and were either seen during surveys or were documented in the past. This information is provided in the special-status plant assessment in Appendix B3.3 1 The draft wetland delineation survey mentioned in the DEIR text and Appendix B3 was not provided for public review. 2 California Native Plant Society, Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/ 3 ICF. “Re: Special-Status Plant Assessment – Del Puerto Canyon Reservoir Project.” November 18, 2019. 3 These four species are: Species CNPS Rare Plant Rank Blooming Period DEIR Population Estimate Big tarplant (Blepharizonia plumosa) 1B.1: Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere (1B)/ Seriously endangered in California (.1) July-October 60.9 acres total, 45.25 acres of occupied habitat mapped on project site. Lemmon’s jewelflower (Caulanthus lemmonii) 1B.2: Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere (1B)/ Fairly endangered in California (.2) February- April Collected in the study area in 1930’s. Presumed extant. Diamond-petaled California poppy (Eschscholzia rhombipetala) 1B.1: Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere (1B)/ Seriously endangered in California (.1) March-April Collected in the study area in 1940. Presumed extant. California alkali grass (Puccinellia simplex) 1B.2: Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere (1B)/ Fairly endangered in California (.2) March-May 80 occurrences, two in the county. New population mapped on project site. Based on the analysis in Appendix B3 of the DEIR, potential habitat for 15 additional rare plant species is present in the study area and/or road relocation area. 4 These species, their rarity, and their blooming periods are listed below: Species Federal/State Listing, CNPS Rare Plant Rank Blooming Period Santa Clara thorn-mint (Acanthomintha lanceolata) 4.2: Limited distribution in California/Fairly endangered March-June red‐flowered bird’s‐foot trefoil (Acmispon rubriflorus) 1B.1: Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere (1B)/Seriously endangered in California (.1) April-June large‐flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia grandiflora) Federally Endangered/State Endangered, 1B.1: Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere (1B)/Seriously endangered in California (.1) March-May California androsace (Androsace elongata ssp. acuta) 4.2: Limited distribution in California /fairly endangered March-June chaparral harebell (Campanula exigua) 1B.2: Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere (1B)/Fairly endangered in California (.2) May-June Brewer’s clarkia (Clarkia breweri) 4.2: Limited distribution in California/fairly endangered April-June small‐flowered morning‐glory (Convolvulus simulans) 4.2: Limited distribution in California/fairly endangered March-July Rattan’s cryptantha (Cryptantha rattanii) 4.3: Limited distribution in California/not very endangered in California April-July 4 The Draft EIR states that the project site has potential habitat for 17 additional rare plant species. 4 Species Federal/State Listing, CNPS Rare Plant Rank Blooming Period Hospital Canyon larkspur (Delphinium californicum var. interius) 1B.2: Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere (1B)/Fairly endangered in California (.2) April-June San Benito poppy (Eschscholzia hypecoides) 4.3: Limited distribution in California/not very endangered in California March-June showy madia (Madia radiata) 1B.1: Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere (1B)/Seriously endangered in California (.1) March-May Hall's bush mallow (Malacothamnus hallii) 1B.2: Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere (1B)/Fairly endangered in California (.2) (April) May- September (October) shining navarretia (Navarretia nigelliformis subsp. radians) 1B.2: Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere (1B)/Fairly endangered in California (.2) (March) April-July San Benito pentachaeta (Pentachaeta exilis subsp. aeolica) 1B.2: Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere (1B)/Fairly endangered in California (.2) March-May forget‐me‐not (warty) popcornflower (Plagiobothrys verrucosus) 2B.1: Rare or Endangered in California, common elsewhere (2B)/Seriously endangered in California (.1) April-May Of the four species that have been documented in the project area, and the 15 additional species with potential habitat on the project site, only two species were observed during site visits by the project’s biological consultants (big tarplant and California alkali grass). For information on the proper design of protocol-level botanical surveys please see the Protocols5 prepared by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Private lands (such as those included in the project site) are often difficult for botanists to access, and the low rate of herbarium collections and database reports from the area cannot be inferred as the confirmation that rare species are absent. The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) search included in Appendix B3 provides an introductory overview of the rare plants that may be present on the site. Botanical surveys over large areas, such as the project site (apparently over 2,000 acres), that have not been frequently surveyed in the past often result in the discovery of new species and populations of rare plants. Conclusions about the impacts to rare plants is not possible without thorough pre-project botanical surveys conducted during appropriate blooming times per CDFW Protocols. 3.4.3 Impact Analysis, Methodology for Analysis. This section states: “Permanent direct impacts on terrestrial resources were quantified using the estimated amount of land cover that would be converted as a result of construction of new facilities and the operation of the project, which would be from the filling of the reservoir. Temporary impacts on biological resources were quantified using the estimated amount of land cover that would be temporarily disturbed during project construction but would be restored to pre-project conditions within one year of disturbance.” 5 State of California, California Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife. “Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. March 20, 2018. Available at: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline 5 Although the DEIR states that the permanent and temporary impacts were quantified using GIS software, as stated above, the DEIR does not contain what the estimated amount of land cover that would be affected by the project. The size of the areas affected by temporary and permanent project activities needs to be disclosed in the FEIR, with a breakdown of the acreage affected by temporary/permanent impacts in each habitat type (e.g. grasslands, oak woodlands, etc.) Impact BIO-TERR-1a, Special-Status Plants. This section describes permanent and temporary impacts to special-status plants. However, it concludes that the full extent of impacts on special-status plants is currently unknown, as botanical surveys for spring-blooming special-status plants have not been conducted for the study area. The DEIR relies on the special-status plant assessment in Appendix B3 for the evaluation of impacts, but admits that: “...Although many spring‐ and ‐summer‐blooming plants were still identifiable, many were not, and spring‐ and summer‐blooming special‐status plants were assumed to be neither evident nor identifiable. Therefore, no findings regarding spring‐ or summer‐blooming special‐status species are made in this report. The only special‐status plant presumed to be evident and identifiable during the fall survey was big tarplant.” As stated above, the failure to conduct appropriate and timely botanical surveys makes it impossible for the Lead Agency to make any meaningful impact determinations, develop feasible mitigation measures, or make defensible CEQA findings regarding botanical resources. Mitigation Measure BIO-TERR-1a Avoid and Minimize Impacts on Biological Resources This measure concludes that impacts on biological resources can be reduced to less than significant levels. This measure relies on standard best management practices for the avoidance of sensitive resources. However, due to the nature of the project’s impacts which would inundate a large area for the new reservoir, it is assumed that these measures would primarily apply to construction and staging areas. This means that there is no analysis to determine the terrestrial impacts related to the inundation of a large area for the reservoir. Since impacts to rare plants and other biological resources cannot be avoided in the areas to be inundated, reliance on these standard construction avoidance measures to reduce impacts to less than significant is inadequate and incorrect. The FEIR must contain an analysis on the proposed inundation, make conclusions on the significance of the potential impacts, and determine if mitigation measures will reduce impacts identified in this process to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure BIO-TERR-1b: Avoid and Compensate for Adverse Effects on Special-Status Plant Species Where Temporary Ground-disturbing Activities Would Take Place Mitigation Measure BIO-TERR-1b describes measures intended to reduce impacts to special-status species to less than significant levels. This measure describes the following steps: surveys for special- status plants following appropriate protocols of the CDFW during the appropriate season, and “no more” than three years before construction. The reports would be submitted to the lead agency, CDFW, and other responsible agencies “no less” than one year prior to construction. The project would also implement avoidance measures for plants outside of the inundation area. We question the ability of these proposed mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to special-status plants to less than significant, for the following reasons. 6 Pre-construction Surveys The CDFW protocols mentioned in the DEIR recommend conducting surveys early in the process to form the foundation for an adequate impact analysis.6 Appropriate surveys for special-status plants should be completed prior to the development of mitigation measures. Complete survey information about the species that will be affected by the project and detailed, species-specific mitigation measures should be included in the EIR before the project is considered for approval. Deferring botanical surveys to a date after the project’s EIR is certified is not a suitable mitigation measure. This means that the public, resource agencies, and the scientific community have no way of knowing what botanical resources will actually be impacted by the project, and so it goes against the basic tenets of CEQA to provide agencies, decisionmakers and the public with enough information to make an informed decision regarding land use change. CEQA requires an accurate disclosure of baseline project conditions before a project is considered for approval. This allows for an objective and transparent review of a project’s impacts and proposed mitigation measures. Deferring surveys until after project approval conflicts with the intent of CEQA, because it precludes disclosure of the magnitude and severity of the project’s impacts. These surveys must be done now and the results need to be contained in the FEIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15121(a) state that “An EIR is an informational document which will inform public agency decision-makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effect of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project.” The Guidelines Section 15151 go on to say that “An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences.” Without providing decision- makers with relevant information on the project’s biological impacts - how can they make an informed decision about this project? Figure 2-9 (Construction Sequence) in the project description shows the conceptual project schedule. The EIR proposes to start utility relocation in Year 1, road relocation in Year 2, and the main dam/spillway construction in Year 3. The text suggests construction could start as early as 2022, depending on funding, design and permitting. There is no mention of biological surveys in this project timeline. Since the project proponent is proposing an aggressive construction timeline, botanical surveys should be completed this spring and summer (timing and site conditions must be appropriately timed to document all plant species present on the site). The results of these surveys should be presented in the FEIR for the review of the lead agency, resource agencies and the public for review and comment. These surveys must be completed prior to the project’s approval. Buffers and Activity Exclusion Zones Mitigation Measure BIO-TERR-1b also states: “Where surveys determine that a special-status plant species is present in or adjacent to a project area where temporary ground-disturbing activities would take place, project impacts on the species shall be avoided through the establishment of activity exclusion zones, within which no ground- disturbing activities will take place, including construction staging, or other temporary work areas. Activity exclusion zones for special-status plant species shall be established around each occupied habitat site, the boundaries of which shall be clearly marked with standard orange plastic construction exclusion fencing or its equivalent. The establishment of activity exclusion zones shall not be required if no construction-related disturbances will occur within 250 feet of the occupied 6 State of California, California Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife. “Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. March 20, 2018. Available at: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline. 7 habitat. The size of activity exclusion zones may be reduced through consultation with a qualified biologist and with concurrence from CDFW based on site-specific conditions.” Since the location and population of size of special-status plants is mostly unknown (apart from two species), this measure can only be implemented following botanical surveys. As the appropriate timing for these surveys is February-June, the project proponent should be required to finalize construction and staging plans and activities after the biological surveys are completed and reviewed. Proceeding with construction, staging, and other ground-disturbance activities prior to completion of these surveys risks permanent damage to special-status plants and habitats. Compensation Habitat After surveys are completed, the project proponents propose: “compensation habitat for each affected species shall be acquired and permanently protected at a ratio of 2 acres protected for every 1 acre that would be lost. Compensation habitat shall consist of existing, off-site occupied habitat acquired in-fee, through conservation easements, or from a certified conservation bank.” The DEIR concludes that implementation of this mitigation measure (protection of occupied habitat at a 2:1 ratio) would reduce the impact to special-status plants to less than significant. Since adequate information about special-status plants is not included in the DEIR, the mitigation measures proposed to reduce these significant impacts are infeasible and vague. Based on this measure, if rare plants are found on the site, implementation of this measure may require the project proponent to locate off-site occupied habitat for potentially up to 19 rare plant species at a 2:1 ratio. Has the project proponent confirmed this required habitat is available for purchase or acquisition of easement and not already protected? Please disclose where equivalent acreage for any of the species is available for offsite mitigation. As previously stated, the DEIR has failed to disclose the amount of “occupied” habitat for rare plants on the project site. The density of plants on the site and the quality of the habitat should be equivalent or better in mitigation sites compared to the resident population on the project site. In the case of big tarplant, over 90 acres of occupied habitat would need to be acquired in-fee or via the acquisition of conservation easements. Even though preliminary information about the size of the population of big tarplant on the project site is currently available, the DEIR does not identify where this mitigation acreage might be located or how it would be acquired. The DEIR also suggests a “certified conservation bank” as a third option to protect the rare plants on site. Based on the current “Conservation and Mitigation Banks Established in California by CDFW” webpage, 7 there are currently no conservation and mitigation banks available to mitigate any of the 19 rare plant species with suitable habitat on site. The same is true of mitigation banks operated by the USFWS Sacramento Fish & Wildlife Office.8 Since conservation banks are not available to mitigate the loss of these species, this part of the mitigation measure should be deleted from the EIR. Please note that one of the species with potential habitat on the project site (large-flowered fiddleneck, Amsinckia grandiflora) is listed both by the Federal (FESA) and State (CESA) Endangered Species Acts as Endangered. Any listed species that are found would require the project proponent to obtain a 7 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. “Conservation and Mitigation Banks Established in California by CDFW” https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/Banking/Approved-Banks. Accessed January 23, 2019. 8 USFWS, Sacramento Fish & Wildlife Office. “Conservation Banks within Our Service Area.” https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/Conservation-Banking/Banks/In-Area/. 8 Biological Opinion from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or an Incidental Take Permit form the CDFW. For purposes of a take permit, CDFW must rely on information and analysis in an EIR. CDFW cannot issue an incidental take permit unless the EIR addresses all project impacts to CESA-listed species and specifies a mitigation monitoring and reporting program that will meet the fully mitigated requirements of an incidental take permit. These permits are not guaranteed and are contingent upon the project being fully able to mitigate for impacts. If a population of this species was encountered on site, the project may not be able to mitigate impacts to this vulnerable species. Habitat Monitoring After acquisition, monitoring of these dispersed conservation sites is described as follows: “The compensation habitat shall be monitored annually to verify that the habitat suitability is maintained. An operations and management plan shall be prepared and implemented for each compensation habitat, with funding provided through an endowment, to monitor the habitat and determine and implement appropriate management measures to maintain the habitat. Annual monitoring reports shall be submitted to CDFW for review and determination that the project remains in compliance with the mitigation.” Any mitigation measure requiring monitoring reports should specify: • the frequency and duration in years when reports would be required, • what success criteria are being monitored, • who is responsible for submitting the reports, and • what management or restoration measures are required. The measure does not specify how large the endowment must be or how it would be managed. The measure does not specify what the CDFW’s responsibility is for ensuring the success of these dispersed habitat conservation areas as mitigation. Since the lead agency has not established performance standards for these sites, it is not clear how the CDFW would respond and what actions would be taken if the project proponent is found to be not in compliance with the mitigation. The CDFW has no legal authority to require remedial actions if conservation lands are not functioning as adequate habitat. There is no guarantee that these habitat areas (whether in-fee or by conservation easement) and special-status plants would be preserved in perpetuity. Please provide this specific information in the FEIR. Other Measures Not Included The DEIR does not propose any measures for preserving plants prior to construction and inundation by the reservoir. These measures could include salvage of rare plants and seed-banking to preserve genetic material and allow the potential use of these species for future restoration sites in similar habitats. Without reliable information on the species that occur -- and as a result, the level and types of project impacts on those species -- the DEIR cannot conclude that the proposed mitigation measures would reduce project impacts to less than significant levels. A conclusion of this nature would rely on the presumption that all possible impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level, which clearly is unrealistic. In summary, the DEIR has not shown that Mitigation Measure BIO-TERR-1b is feasible, nor would the steps in this measure reduce the impacts to special-status plants to less than significant. Therefore, this information must be contained in the FEIR. Otherwise, this impact can only be characterized as Significant and Unavoidable. 9 Impact BIO-TERR-2 Substantial Adverse Effect on Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Community. The project would result in the permanent removal of over 16 acres of riparian woodland and 19 acres of riparian habitats/wetlands. These impacts should be considered significant in the FEIR and mitigation measures/avoidance protocol needs to be identified. Once again, the project proposes to acquire or permanently protect riparian habitat at a 1:1 ratio, without identifying the location of potential habitat to be acquired. The DEIR lacks details and specificity about how the monitoring and maintenance of this habitat would be accomplished. This specificity needs to be included in the FEIR. Impact BIO-TERR-5 Conflict with Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources A total of 39 acres of blue oak woodland would be lost as a result of the project. This is also a significant impact, and analysis and measures to reduce this impact need to be included in the FEIR. The project proposes a management plan “for the protection and enhancement of oak woodlands to offset the loss of oak woodlands from the project.” The location of oak woodland that would be acquired to offset these impacts is suggested, but specific details and a description of these areas and a long-term management plan is lacking. Without greater specificity, future acquisition of oak woodland habitat is speculative and would not reduce this impact to less than significant. Impact BIO-TERR-7. Spread invasive plant species such that there would be a substantial effect on special-status species, sensitive communities, or wetlands Appendix B3 to the DEIR notes that at least 30 invasive plant species were identified on the project site. The DEIR states that “Introduction or spread of invasive species into the project area during construction activities would not have a substantial adverse effect on special-status species, sensitive natural communities, or wetlands, because these resources would be permanently removed by the proposed project, as identified in BIOTERR-1, BIO-TERR-2 and BIO-TERR-3. If there were spread of invasive plant species during the construction phase, they would be inundated along with the other plants and habitats under reservoir operations.” This impact statement implies that the entire project site would be inundated, which is clearly inaccurate, since the proposed project also includes the realigned roadway, dam faces, and conveyance and electrical facilities. No mitigation measures, or even best management practices (BMPs) are proposed in the DEIR to reduce the spread of invasive plants during and after construction are specified. This analysis ignores standard construction practices in California, particularly with regard to roadway construction and revegetation activities. It is well established that invasive weeds disrupt ecosystem processes and degrade habitat for native plants and animals. Although some weed species are already present in the study area, the project has the potential to: (1) introduce new invasive plant species, and (2) facilitate the spread of existing invasive plant species. The California Invasive Plant Council has published guidelines for preventing the spread of invasive plants.9 The BMPs described therein are feasible and they should be incorporated as required mitigation measures. Because the DEIR fails to incorporate any mitigation, potentially significant 9 Cal-Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC). 2012. “Preventing the Spread of Invasive Plants: Best Management Practices for Land Managers (3rd ed.)” Cal-IPC Publication 2012-03. California Invasive Plant Council, Berkeley, CA. Available at: https://www.cal-ipc.org/resources/library/publications/landmanagers/ 10 impacts associated with the colonization and spread of weeds remain unmitigated. These measures must be contained in the FEIR. Other Comments 2.4.4 Dam Facilities Construction, and 2.4-10 Environmental Commitments. Please specify measures for the revegetation of the dam and spillway areas post-construction in these sections, including measures to control invasive species. Please add a conceptual plant list of appropriate native plant species for this purpose, and add this plant list to the FEIR. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft EIR. Please feel free to contact us with any questions. Sincerely, Nick Jensen, PhD Conservation Scientist California Native Plant Society 2707 K Street, Suite 1 Sacramento, CA 95816 njensen@cnps.org 530-368-7839 | details, mapping, survey, baseline, rare plants, habitat, special status plants, mitigation, monitoring, sensitive natural communities, invasive species | N/A | CEQA §15121(a) | N/A | https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2019060254/3 | 37.49 | -121.22 | |
| 2020_DelPuertoCanyon_FinalEIR | Del Puerto Canyon Reservoir Project | 2020 | 2019060254 | CEQA | EIR | N/A | Final | Other | Del Puerto Water District | Stanislaus | North San Joaquin Chapter | State Office | N/A | Water Facilities | Approved | October 20, 2020 Anthea G. Hansen General Manager Del Puerto Water District P.O. Box 1596 Patterson, CA 95363 Submitted electronically to: ahansen@delpuertowd.org Re: Final Environmental Impact Report, Del Puerto Canyon Reservoir Project SCH# 2019060254 Dear Ms. Hansen: These comments are submitted on behalf of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) on the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Del Puerto Canyon Reservoir Project as proposed by the Del Puerto Water District (District). CNPS is a non-profit environmental organization with more than 10,000 members in 35 Chapters across California and Baja California, Mexico. CNPS’s mission is to protect California’s native plant heritage and preserve it for future generations through the application of science, research, education, and conservation. CNPS works closely with decision-makers, scientists, and local planners to advocate for well-informed policies, regulations, and land management practices. We are providing this letter to follow up on your responses to our Draft EIR comment letter. We appreciate your attention to our letter, and the responses and text revisions provided in the FEIR. We also acknowledge the District’s effort to conduct spring surveys in March and April 2020 for rare plants in the project area. These surveys identified more than 100 additional plant species that were not previously listed in the Draft EIR, which illustrates the value of appropriately timed plant surveys for environmental review (however late in the process this information was provided). We continue to have concerns about the revised mitigation measures included in the FEIR, as we are of the opinion that off-site mitigation or the use of mitigation banks are not feasible measures for this project to reduce impacts to special-status plants to less than significant. Off-site mitigation sites have not been identified, so it is uncertain at this time if the District will be able to purchase enough sites that have similar habitat values to compensate for those that would be lost as a result of the proposed project. In addition, mitigation banking sites are not being currently being created, and those that are available are becoming full. Our specific additional comments are as follows: 2 Response to Comment 11-1: Thank you for providing the size of the permanent impact area of the project, which was included in a table in the Alternatives section of the Draft EIR. Identification of the size of the project’s permanent impacts should have been a primary component of the project description, not buried deep in the document. A project description that is difficult to understand or is incomplete does not provide decision-makers, responsible agencies, or the public with a reasonable understanding of the project’s permanent impact and land use changes. California Environmental Quality Act, Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21003(b) (“Documents prepared pursuant to this division [must] be organized and written in a manner that will be meaningful and useful to decision makers and to the public.”). Response to Comment 11-7, 11-8: Thank you for including the spring surveys in the FEIR. We do not agree with the District’s conclusion, however, that these surveys “do not result in the addition of substantial new information, as the results confirmed the presence or absence of most sensitive plants assumed present where suitable habitat was present in the Draft EIR,” and that these surveys are “sufficient.” The project’s own special-status plant assessment, Appendix B3 (Attachment 1), notes that: “Because of the low late winter rainfall, the absence of several special-status species could not be established definitively. These species are Lemmon’s jewelflower, diamond-petaled California poppy, showy madia, and shining navarretia. Surveys of the grasslands portions of the study area should be done in a year with normal or above-normal rainfall to be considered conclusive and to be able to determine the need for mitigation measures.” 1 The March/April 2020 survey report is inconclusive for four out of the seventeen species that occur or potentially occur in the project area. Two of these species, showy madia and shining navarretia, are not even mentioned in Mitigation Measures BIO-TERR-1a and BIO-TERR-1b. The District’s response that no additional impacts or mitigation measures are needed is not consistent with the project’s technical experts, who are not able to make the same conclusion (see also Response 11-10). Furthermore, the FEIR does not adequately analyze why thirteen out of seventeen species that occur or have potential to occur in the project area are presumed absent from the project site, but the absence of the four species listed above “cannot be definitively presumed” “because of the low late winter rainfall.”2 It is possible that drought conditions are impeding the survey results for more than just the four species listed above, and that additional spring surveys conducted in a year with normal or above-normal rainfall will reveal the existence of far more special-status plants. The spring surveys have revealed that additional, appropriately timed surveys must be conducted in years with normal or above-normal rainfall in order to adequately analyze the impacts to special- status plants and design appropriate mitigation measures. At the present, there is a lack of substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that BIO-TERR-1a and BIO-TERR-1b will reduce impacts to less than significant. Response to Comment 11-14: CNPS disagrees with the District’s statement that “With the completion of spring surveys, the need for mitigation has been further clarified.” On the contrary, 1 Final EIR, Appendix B3. “Memorandum Regarding Special-Status Plant Assessment–Del Puerto Canyon Reservoir Project.” April 22, 2020. Page 11. 2 Final EIR, Appendix B3. “Memorandum Regarding Special-Status Plant Assessment–Del Puerto Canyon Reservoir Project.” April 22, 2020. Pages 7-11. 3 the spring surveys show that additional surveys during years with normal rainfall are necessary for determining the need for mitigation measures. CNPS also disagrees with the statement that “Mitigation would only be needed for 0.03 acre of occupied habitat for California alkali grass, 0.01 acre of habitat for San Benito poppy and 25.0 acres of occupied habitat for big tarplant.” This response does not clarify that the actual mitigation required would be twice what is listed due to the 2:1 mitigation ratio, as described in Response 11- 15, or that an additional 7.0 acres of big tarplant could be indirectly affected (and that unknown acreage for potential populations of diamond-petaled California poppy, Lemmon’s jewelflower, showy madia, and shining navarretia may be required). Fifty to sixty acres of land for species that are not traditionally included in mitigation banks is a substantial commitment, and the District simply does not know at this time whether a sufficient amount of compensation habitat is presently available or will become available by the time project activities begin. Instead, Mitigation Measure BIO- TERR-1b relies on the assumption that entirely new mitigation banks will be created to accommodate the need for compensation habitat.3 This mitigation measure is highly speculative and not likely to reduce impacts to less than significant. Response to Comment 11-16: The District states that it would be impossible to salvage or seed bank any rare plants with project implementation, as no habitat would be available on the project site for restoration, and the practice is “an experimental approach.” However, it is unclear from the environmental documentation whether the District has confirmed that any of the areas used for construction staging and other nearby areas temporarily impacted within the study area contain suitable habitat. CNPS supports the use of seed banking as a potential method to save special-status plant species. Seed banking is a practice that has not been listed in any of the environmental documentation for this project. This method could be employed not only to restore plants on the project site by transplantation or re-seeding, but also to contribute to state (and global) seed-banking efforts to protect natural biodiversity. California Plant Rescue (https://www.caplantrescue.org/about-us.html) is an established network of seed banks and collectors that partner with organizations like CNPS to make collections of seeds and living plants to secure high levels of genetic diversity in off-site collections to safeguard populations.4, 5 The District and partners could coordinate with California Plant Rescue to preserve seeds and material from the rare plants on site impacted by project construction. Even if the project site doesn’t contain suitable habitat for out-planting and restoration, the project could still contribute to this important state initiative to preserve our natural biodiversity. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program At many places in the responses to comments (including Response 11-12), the District refers to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) when asked for the details of how the complex biological mitigation measures will be implemented. The draft MMRP is now available for 3 In Response to CNPS comment 11-14, the FEIR states that “The Project Partners are prepared to work with resource agencies to identify appropriate areas for acquisition of property or conservation easements or with mitigation bank providers to establish a new mitigation bank that would provide the necessary mitigation.” (emphasis added). 4 California Fish and Game. 100(1):79-85; 2014. “Seed banking California’s rare plants.” Meyer, Jensen, and Fraga. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=86943&inline=1 5 Center for Plant Conservation. January 2020 Newsletter. https://saveplants.org/2020/01/07/january-2020-news/ 4 public review. At the outset, it should be noted that the MMRP does not mention a single plant species, which severely diminishes the MMRP’s usefulness as a tool for effective implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. The MMRP also shows that with respect to Mitigation Measure BIO-TERR-1b (Avoid and Compensate for Adverse Effects on Special-Status Plant Species), the responsibility for implementing and reporting the success of the measures, and the review and approval of the measures, is the responsibility of the District and contractors. The “Monitoring and Reporting Actions” column of the MMRP states in part: 3. Confirm acquisition of compensation habitat for any permanent impacts. 4. If compensation habitat is managed by Project Partners, confirm submittal of annual monitoring reports to CDFW. Mitigation bank operators(s) shall be responsible for monitoring if compensation habitat is obtained from certified conservation bank. Document compliance and retain in project file. No mitigation banks or appropriate compensation habitats have been identified by the District; there is no evidence that such properties exist, or, if they do, that the District could acquire them. For example, the FEIR states that at least 25.0 acres of occupied habitat for big tarplant would be permanently lost – has the District identified 50 acres of compensatory habitat to achieve its planned 2:1 mitigation ratio? Shouldn’t compensatory habitat for known populations of special-status plants that will be permanently impacted be acquired prior to their destruction? The mitigation as it is currently presented is likely to fail, and populations of these several rare plant species will be lost. Thank you for the opportunity to comment further on this EIR. Please feel free to contact us with any questions. Sincerely, Isabella Langone, JD Conservation Analyst California Native Plant Society 2707 K Street, Suite 1 Sacramento, CA 95816 ilangone@cnps.org 209-327-5569 | survey, mitigation, project description, rare plants, sensitive plants, habitat | N/A | PRC §21003(b) | N/A | https://www.delpuertocanyonreservoir.com/resources#final-EIR | 37.49 | -121.22 | |
| 2020_DelPuertoCanyon_NOI | Del Puerto Canyon Reservoir Project | 2020 | N/A | NEPA | EIS | NOI | Scoping | Federal | Bureau of Reclamation | Stanislaus | North San Joaquin Chapter | State Office | N/A | Water Facilities | Ongoing | May 29, 2020 Ms. Allison Jacobson, Project Manager United States Bureau of Reclamation, Division of Planning 2800 Cottage Way CGB–700 Sacramento, CA 95825 Sent via email to ajacobson@usbr.gov RE: Notice of Intent (NOI) to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Del Puerto Canyon Reservoir Project, Stanislaus County, California Dear Ms. Jacobson: The following comments for the NOI for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Del Puerto Canyon Reservoir Project (Project) are submitted on behalf of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). CNPS is a non-profit environmental organization with 10,000 members in 35 Chapters across California and Baja California, Mexico. Our mission is to protect California’s native plant heritage and preserve it for future generations through the application of science, research, education, and conservation. CNPS works closely with decision-makers, scientists, and local planners to advocate for well-informed policies, regulations, and land management practices. Earlier this year, the Project was the subject of a draft EIR pursuant to the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CNPS responded during the CEQA public review process with a comment letter that highlighted the substantial concerns we have with this Project. Our complete comment letter is contained at the end of this document for your convenience. Many of the comments contained therein are relevant to this NOI and the forthcoming draft EIS for this project. The following NOI comments represent the relevant highlights from that letter, as we find that this is a good way to ensure that these items are included in the analysis to be contained in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that the Bureau of Reclamation will be preparing. 1. In the EIS, please provide an estimate of the actual number of acres that would be affected by the Project and associated project components, including the acreage of temporary impacts from construction and staging activities. 2. The EIR and the Geotechnical Report prepared for the EIR acknowledge and discuss the proposed impacts that could result from an earthquake on the San Joaquin/Orestimba Fault, which lies approximately 0.2 mile west of the Project’s proposed main dam. Other 2 published data on Quaternary Faults in this area of the Diablo Range and northwestern San Joaquin Valley state that, “the southern portion of the fault exhibits the greatest uplift along the eastern Diablo Range in Del Puerto Canyon1 .” Please provide a separate Geotechnical Report of the effects of siting a dam at this location, and any potential effects related to the additional weight of the dam and reservoir on this fault. The EIR concluded that the dam did not pose a significant impact to future geological events along this fault, and also concluded that the siting of the dam adjacent to this fault would not result in flooding of areas downstream of the dam because 1) the dam would be sited in bedrock and 2) the dam would be overseen by the State Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD). Please provide evidence that supports the conclusion that the new reservoir will not be impacted from a significant earthquake event. Additionally, please provide data and analysis in the EIS that show the depth to bedrock from the surface at the proposed dam sites (there are more than one dams in this project) and provide more mitigation measures than just relying on DSOD oversight. As is evidenced in the recent Oroville Dam Spillway disaster, relying on regulation to solve basic geological and construction issues is not foolproof. 3. Please ensure that the EIS contains field verification of the vegetation types and rare plants in the project area. The project area potentially contains at least one Federally Endangered plant, the large-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia grandiflora), and many CNPS-ranked Rare Plants. Please provide an analysis in the EIS that details sensitive plant communities based on field surveys for the EIS taken during the blooming periods (or other applicable diagnostic criteria) for these special-status plants. It is essential that the potential impacts to botanical resources be presented to the public for comment in the form of a revised Draft EIR and draft EIS prior to the release of a final EIR/EIS. These documents must provide meaningful avoidance protocols, and mitigation measures that would reduce any significant temporary and permanent impacts to less than significant levels. These mitigation measures must be drafted based on the project-specific impacts based on survey results conducted in accordance with CDFW’s botanical survey guidelines2 . Lastly, any impacts to Amsinckia grandiflora or any other federally-listed species would require consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to provide a determination of Not Likely to Adversely Affect or the preparation of a Biological Opinion. 4. Reliance on Conservation and Mitigation banks for impacts to special-status species is not a reliable option for this project. As noted in our DEIR letter, there are no conservation and mitigation banks available, including those operated by the Fish and Wildlife Service, to mitigate for impacts to the rare plants likely to be found on the project site. 1 United States Geological Survey. 2007. Final Technical Report Assessment and Documentation of Transpressional Structures, Northeastern Diablo Range, for the Quaternary Fault Map Database: Collaborative Research with William Lettis & Associates, Inc., and the U.S. Geological Survey. Available at: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/external_grants/reports/06HQGR0139.pdf 2 CDFW Botanical Survey Guidelines: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline 3 5. The DEIR did not mention any measures for preserving plants prior to construction and inundation by the reservoir. Please provide details of these mitigation measures in the EIS. These measures could include salvage of rare plants and seed-banking prior to construction in order to preserve genetic material and allow the potential use of seeds in future restoration sites in similar habitats. 6. The Special-Status Plant Assessment prepared for the DEIR (Appendix B3) at page 3 states that “Riparian woodland and wetlands are present along Del Puerto Creek, and a few small ponds, seasonal seeps, and isolated seasonal wetlands are scattered across the survey area3 .” Page 4 of this Assessment states that “Approximately 24 acres of riparian wetlands are present in the study area.” The Project, as analyzed in the DEIR, would result in the permanent removal of over 16 acres of riparian woodland and 19 acres of riparian habitats/wetlands. These impacts are significant, and a complete analysis of any impacts to existing wetlands must be required. In addition, implementable and potentially successful mitigation measures/avoidance protocols for these habitats need to be identified in the EIS. Any offsite mitigation acreage needs to be identified in the EIS, with specific details about how the monitoring and maintenance of this habitat would be accomplished. 7. Appendix B3 of the DEIR notes that at least 30 invasive plant species were identified on the project site. It is well established that invasive weeds disrupt ecosystem processes and degrade habitat for native plants and animals. Although some weed species are already present in the study area, the project has the potential to: (1) introduce new invasive plant species, and (2) facilitate the spread of existing invasive plant species. The California Invasive Plant Council published guidelines for preventing the spread of invasive plants4 . The BMPs described therein are feasible and they should be incorporated as required mitigation measures. Because the DEIR fails to incorporate any mitigation for invasive plant impacts, potentially significant impacts associated with the colonization and spread of weeds remain unmitigated. The EIS needs to contain a rigorous accounting of the location, type and amount of these invasive plant species, and needs to identify implementable and successful measures to ensure that the proposed Project does not cause significant impacts to native plant communities and ecosystems as a result of Project implementation. Finally, please specify measures for the revegetation of the dam and spillway areas post- construction in these sections, including measures to control invasive species. Please add 3 Del Puerto Water District. 2020. Del Puerto Canyon Reservoir Draft Environmental Impact Report. Appendix B3: Special Status Plant Assessment-Del Puerto Canyon Reservoir Project. Available at: https://www.delpuertocanyonreservoir.com/assets/pdf/reports/Del-Puerto-Canyon-Reservoir-EIR- Appendices_Dec19.pdf 4 Cal-Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC). 2012. “Preventing the Spread of Invasive Plants: Best Management Practices for Land Managers (3rd ed.)” Cal-IPC Publication 2012-03. California Invasive Plant Council, Berkeley, CA. Available at: https://www.cal-ipc.org/resources/library/publications/landmanagers/ 4 a conceptual plant list of appropriate native plant species for this purpose and add this plant list to the EIS. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this NOI. Please feel free to contact us with any questions. Sincerely, Nick Jensen, PhD Lead Conservation Scientist California Native Plant Society 2707 K Street, Suite 1 Sacramento, CA 95816 njensen@cnps.org 530-368-7839 January 27, 2020 Anthea G. Hansen General Manager Del Puerto Water District P.O. Box 1596 Patterson, CA 95363. Submitted electronically to: ahansen@delpuertowd.org Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report, Del Puerto Canyon Reservoir Project SCH# 2019060254 Dear Ms. Hansen: These comments are submitted on behalf of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Del Puerto Canyon Reservoir Project. CNPS is a non-profit environmental organization with more than 10,000 members in 35 Chapters across California and Baja California, Mexico. CNPS’s mission is to protect California’s native plant heritage and preserve it for future generations through the application of science, research, education, and conservation. CNPS works closely with decision-makers, scientists, and local planners to advocate for well-informed policies, regulations, and land management practices. We recommend the following points be addressed in the Final EIR (FEIR) to adequately avoid and mitigate for impacts to native plants and habitats. We have concerns that special-status plants and natural habitats currently on the project site have been insufficiently evaluated in the Draft EIR and believe that the proposed mitigation measures are infeasible and would not reduce significant impacts to plants to less than significant. Overall EIR Comments: • In general, we find the DEIR cursory and lacking in the detail and analysis required for review under CEQA. For example, while repeatedly mentioning that the project would provide “approximately 82,000 acre-feet” of new water storage capacity, and while going into some detail regarding dam operations; the project description does not provide an estimate of the actual number of acres that would be affected by the project and associated project components. • The DEIR does not provide an estimate of the acreage that will be temporarily impacted by construction and staging activities. 2 • Not providing an estimate of the project acreage is a substantial oversight, particularly since it can be inferred (from Table 3.4-1) that the project would impact over 2,000 acres of undeveloped land. Since this acreage estimate is not contained in the project description, it is impossible to determine if the environmental analysis in this DEIR is accurate, as environmental analysis is based on what is listed in this project description. The DEIR is also unclear if the acreage estimates contained in Table 3.4-1 include construction and staging areas and conveyance facilities. Please revise this table in the FEIR to include the acreages of all areas that are expected to be temporarily impacted by the proposed project. • The project description in the DEIR does not provide adequate maps and figures to illustrate the areas that will be affected by the proposed construction, construction staging, road realignment, and dam inundation. Please revise the maps and figures in the FEIR to include all areas potentially affected by all site features of the proposed project. Please revise the maps and figures in the FEIR to include all areas potentially affected by all site features of the proposed project. Please show these jurisdictional boundaries on a figure in the FEIR. • The DEIR discusses the requirements, goals, and policies of the County of Stanislaus and the City of Patterson at various points in the text but does not provide a map or drawing in the project description illustrating where the boundaries of these agencies are located in relation to the project components. For this reason, it is impossible to determine which jurisdiction’s plans and policies apply to various project components. Section 3.4, Biological Resources – Terrestrial 3.4.1 Environmental Setting Vegetation Types: The vegetation maps were compiled using aerial photos and have not been field- verified. Sensitive plant communities and habitats may be present that could not be identified by the vegetation mapping effort. Since it is impossible to adequately identify sensitive plant communities that could be affected by the proposed project, it is also impossible to substantively determine if sensitive plant communities would be affected by this project. Please provide an analysis in the FEIR that details sensitive plant communities based on field surveys. Special-Status Species: Biologists visited the project site in June and July 2019 to conduct a wetland delineation survey,1 and again in October 2019 for a botanical survey. Since the blooming periods for most of the rare plants with potential to occur on the project site are detectable only in the spring (February/March to May/June), the DEIR fails to determine baseline conditions and does not disclose the extent of the potential impacts of project actions. Please provide conclusions on the presence of these plant species in the FEIR that are based on field surveys taken during the blooming periods (or other applicable diagnostic criteria) for these special-status plants. The DEIR discusses potential impacts to four plants listed as rare in the California Native Plant Society Inventory2 and were either seen during surveys or were documented in the past. This information is provided in the special-status plant assessment in Appendix B3.3 1 The draft wetland delineation survey mentioned in the DEIR text and Appendix B3 was not provided for public review. 2 California Native Plant Society, Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/ 3 ICF. “Re: Special-Status Plant Assessment – Del Puerto Canyon Reservoir Project.” November 18, 2019. 3 These four species are: Species CNPS Rare Plant Rank Blooming Period DEIR Population Estimate Big tarplant (Blepharizonia plumosa) 1B.1: Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere (1B)/ Seriously endangered in California (.1) July-October 60.9 acres total, 45.25 acres of occupied habitat mapped on project site. Lemmon’s jewelflower (Caulanthus lemmonii) 1B.2: Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere (1B)/ Fairly endangered in California (.2) February- April Collected in the study area in 1930’s. Presumed extant. Diamond-petaled California poppy (Eschscholzia rhombipetala) 1B.1: Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere (1B)/ Seriously endangered in California (.1) March-April Collected in the study area in 1940. Presumed extant. California alkali grass (Puccinellia simplex) 1B.2: Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere (1B)/ Fairly endangered in California (.2) March-May 80 occurrences, two in the county. New population mapped on project site. Based on the analysis in Appendix B3 of the DEIR, potential habitat for 15 additional rare plant species is present in the study area and/or road relocation area. 4 These species, their rarity, and their blooming periods are listed below: Species Federal/State Listing, CNPS Rare Plant Rank Blooming Period Santa Clara thorn-mint (Acanthomintha lanceolata) 4.2: Limited distribution in California/Fairly endangered March-June red‐flowered bird’s‐foot trefoil (Acmispon rubriflorus) 1B.1: Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere (1B)/Seriously endangered in California (.1) April-June large‐flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia grandiflora) Federally Endangered/State Endangered, 1B.1: Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere (1B)/Seriously endangered in California (.1) March-May California androsace (Androsace elongata ssp. acuta) 4.2: Limited distribution in California /fairly endangered March-June chaparral harebell (Campanula exigua) 1B.2: Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere (1B)/Fairly endangered in California (.2) May-June Brewer’s clarkia (Clarkia breweri) 4.2: Limited distribution in California/fairly endangered April-June small‐flowered morning‐glory (Convolvulus simulans) 4.2: Limited distribution in California/fairly endangered March-July Rattan’s cryptantha (Cryptantha rattanii) 4.3: Limited distribution in California/not very endangered in California April-July 4 The Draft EIR states that the project site has potential habitat for 17 additional rare plant species. 4 Species Federal/State Listing, CNPS Rare Plant Rank Blooming Period Hospital Canyon larkspur (Delphinium californicum var. interius) 1B.2: Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere (1B)/Fairly endangered in California (.2) April-June San Benito poppy (Eschscholzia hypecoides) 4.3: Limited distribution in California/not very endangered in California March-June showy madia (Madia radiata) 1B.1: Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere (1B)/Seriously endangered in California (.1) March-May Hall's bush mallow (Malacothamnus hallii) 1B.2: Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere (1B)/Fairly endangered in California (.2) (April) May- September (October) shining navarretia (Navarretia nigelliformis subsp. radians) 1B.2: Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere (1B)/Fairly endangered in California (.2) (March) April-July San Benito pentachaeta (Pentachaeta exilis subsp. aeolica) 1B.2: Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere (1B)/Fairly endangered in California (.2) March-May forget‐me‐not (warty) popcornflower (Plagiobothrys verrucosus) 2B.1: Rare or Endangered in California, common elsewhere (2B)/Seriously endangered in California (.1) April-May Of the four species that have been documented in the project area, and the 15 additional species with potential habitat on the project site, only two species were observed during site visits by the project’s biological consultants (big tarplant and California alkali grass). For information on the proper design of protocol-level botanical surveys please see the Protocols5 prepared by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Private lands (such as those included in the project site) are often difficult for botanists to access, and the low rate of herbarium collections and database reports from the area cannot be inferred as the confirmation that rare species are absent. The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) search included in Appendix B3 provides an introductory overview of the rare plants that may be present on the site. Botanical surveys over large areas, such as the project site (apparently over 2,000 acres), that have not been frequently surveyed in the past often result in the discovery of new species and populations of rare plants. Conclusions about the impacts to rare plants is not possible without thorough pre-project botanical surveys conducted during appropriate blooming times per CDFW Protocols. 3.4.3 Impact Analysis, Methodology for Analysis. This section states: “Permanent direct impacts on terrestrial resources were quantified using the estimated amount of land cover that would be converted as a result of construction of new facilities and the operation of the project, which would be from the filling of the reservoir. Temporary impacts on biological resources were quantified using the estimated amount of land cover that would be temporarily disturbed during project construction but would be restored to pre-project conditions within one year of disturbance.” 5 State of California, California Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife. “Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. March 20, 2018. Available at: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline 5 Although the DEIR states that the permanent and temporary impacts were quantified using GIS software, as stated above, the DEIR does not contain what the estimated amount of land cover that would be affected by the project. The size of the areas affected by temporary and permanent project activities needs to be disclosed in the FEIR, with a breakdown of the acreage affected by temporary/permanent impacts in each habitat type (e.g. grasslands, oak woodlands, etc.) Impact BIO-TERR-1a, Special-Status Plants. This section describes permanent and temporary impacts to special-status plants. However, it concludes that the full extent of impacts on special-status plants is currently unknown, as botanical surveys for spring-blooming special-status plants have not been conducted for the study area. The DEIR relies on the special-status plant assessment in Appendix B3 for the evaluation of impacts, but admits that: “...Although many spring‐ and ‐summer‐blooming plants were still identifiable, many were not, and spring‐ and summer‐blooming special‐status plants were assumed to be neither evident nor identifiable. Therefore, no findings regarding spring‐ or summer‐blooming special‐status species are made in this report. The only special‐status plant presumed to be evident and identifiable during the fall survey was big tarplant.” As stated above, the failure to conduct appropriate and timely botanical surveys makes it impossible for the Lead Agency to make any meaningful impact determinations, develop feasible mitigation measures, or make defensible CEQA findings regarding botanical resources. Mitigation Measure BIO-TERR-1a Avoid and Minimize Impacts on Biological Resources This measure concludes that impacts on biological resources can be reduced to less than significant levels. This measure relies on standard best management practices for the avoidance of sensitive resources. However, due to the nature of the project’s impacts which would inundate a large area for the new reservoir, it is assumed that these measures would primarily apply to construction and staging areas. This means that there is no analysis to determine the terrestrial impacts related to the inundation of a large area for the reservoir. Since impacts to rare plants and other biological resources cannot be avoided in the areas to be inundated, reliance on these standard construction avoidance measures to reduce impacts to less than significant is inadequate and incorrect. The FEIR must contain an analysis on the proposed inundation, make conclusions on the significance of the potential impacts, and determine if mitigation measures will reduce impacts identified in this process to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure BIO-TERR-1b: Avoid and Compensate for Adverse Effects on Special-Status Plant Species Where Temporary Ground-disturbing Activities Would Take Place Mitigation Measure BIO-TERR-1b describes measures intended to reduce impacts to special-status species to less than significant levels. This measure describes the following steps: surveys for special- status plants following appropriate protocols of the CDFW during the appropriate season, and “no more” than three years before construction. The reports would be submitted to the lead agency, CDFW, and other responsible agencies “no less” than one year prior to construction. The project would also implement avoidance measures for plants outside of the inundation area. We question the ability of these proposed mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to special-status plants to less than significant, for the following reasons. 6 Pre-construction Surveys The CDFW protocols mentioned in the DEIR recommend conducting surveys early in the process to form the foundation for an adequate impact analysis.6 Appropriate surveys for special-status plants should be completed prior to the development of mitigation measures. Complete survey information about the species that will be affected by the project and detailed, species-specific mitigation measures should be included in the EIR before the project is considered for approval. Deferring botanical surveys to a date after the project’s EIR is certified is not a suitable mitigation measure. This means that the public, resource agencies, and the scientific community have no way of knowing what botanical resources will actually be impacted by the project, and so it goes against the basic tenets of CEQA to provide agencies, decisionmakers and the public with enough information to make an informed decision regarding land use change. CEQA requires an accurate disclosure of baseline project conditions before a project is considered for approval. This allows for an objective and transparent review of a project’s impacts and proposed mitigation measures. Deferring surveys until after project approval conflicts with the intent of CEQA, because it precludes disclosure of the magnitude and severity of the project’s impacts. These surveys must be done now and the results need to be contained in the FEIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15121(a) state that “An EIR is an informational document which will inform public agency decision-makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effect of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project.” The Guidelines Section 15151 go on to say that “An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences.” Without providing decision- makers with relevant information on the project’s biological impacts - how can they make an informed decision about this project? Figure 2-9 (Construction Sequence) in the project description shows the conceptual project schedule. The EIR proposes to start utility relocation in Year 1, road relocation in Year 2, and the main dam/spillway construction in Year 3. The text suggests construction could start as early as 2022, depending on funding, design and permitting. There is no mention of biological surveys in this project timeline. Since the project proponent is proposing an aggressive construction timeline, botanical surveys should be completed this spring and summer (timing and site conditions must be appropriately timed to document all plant species present on the site). The results of these surveys should be presented in the FEIR for the review of the lead agency, resource agencies and the public for review and comment. These surveys must be completed prior to the project’s approval. Buffers and Activity Exclusion Zones Mitigation Measure BIO-TERR-1b also states: “Where surveys determine that a special-status plant species is present in or adjacent to a project area where temporary ground-disturbing activities would take place, project impacts on the species shall be avoided through the establishment of activity exclusion zones, within which no ground- disturbing activities will take place, including construction staging, or other temporary work areas. Activity exclusion zones for special-status plant species shall be established around each occupied habitat site, the boundaries of which shall be clearly marked with standard orange plastic construction exclusion fencing or its equivalent. The establishment of activity exclusion zones shall not be required if no construction-related disturbances will occur within 250 feet of the occupied 6 State of California, California Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife. “Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. March 20, 2018. Available at: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline. 7 habitat. The size of activity exclusion zones may be reduced through consultation with a qualified biologist and with concurrence from CDFW based on site-specific conditions.” Since the location and population of size of special-status plants is mostly unknown (apart from two species), this measure can only be implemented following botanical surveys. As the appropriate timing for these surveys is February-June, the project proponent should be required to finalize construction and staging plans and activities after the biological surveys are completed and reviewed. Proceeding with construction, staging, and other ground-disturbance activities prior to completion of these surveys risks permanent damage to special-status plants and habitats. Compensation Habitat After surveys are completed, the project proponents propose: “compensation habitat for each affected species shall be acquired and permanently protected at a ratio of 2 acres protected for every 1 acre that would be lost. Compensation habitat shall consist of existing, off-site occupied habitat acquired in-fee, through conservation easements, or from a certified conservation bank.” The DEIR concludes that implementation of this mitigation measure (protection of occupied habitat at a 2:1 ratio) would reduce the impact to special-status plants to less than significant. Since adequate information about special-status plants is not included in the DEIR, the mitigation measures proposed to reduce these significant impacts are infeasible and vague. Based on this measure, if rare plants are found on the site, implementation of this measure may require the project proponent to locate off-site occupied habitat for potentially up to 19 rare plant species at a 2:1 ratio. Has the project proponent confirmed this required habitat is available for purchase or acquisition of easement and not already protected? Please disclose where equivalent acreage for any of the species is available for offsite mitigation. As previously stated, the DEIR has failed to disclose the amount of “occupied” habitat for rare plants on the project site. The density of plants on the site and the quality of the habitat should be equivalent or better in mitigation sites compared to the resident population on the project site. In the case of big tarplant, over 90 acres of occupied habitat would need to be acquired in-fee or via the acquisition of conservation easements. Even though preliminary information about the size of the population of big tarplant on the project site is currently available, the DEIR does not identify where this mitigation acreage might be located or how it would be acquired. The DEIR also suggests a “certified conservation bank” as a third option to protect the rare plants on site. Based on the current “Conservation and Mitigation Banks Established in California by CDFW” webpage, 7 there are currently no conservation and mitigation banks available to mitigate any of the 19 rare plant species with suitable habitat on site. The same is true of mitigation banks operated by the USFWS Sacramento Fish & Wildlife Office.8 Since conservation banks are not available to mitigate the loss of these species, this part of the mitigation measure should be deleted from the EIR. Please note that one of the species with potential habitat on the project site (large-flowered fiddleneck, Amsinckia grandiflora) is listed both by the Federal (FESA) and State (CESA) Endangered Species Acts as Endangered. Any listed species that are found would require the project proponent to obtain a 7 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. “Conservation and Mitigation Banks Established in California by CDFW” https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/Banking/Approved-Banks. Accessed January 23, 2019. 8 USFWS, Sacramento Fish & Wildlife Office. “Conservation Banks within Our Service Area.” https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/Conservation-Banking/Banks/In-Area/. 8 Biological Opinion from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or an Incidental Take Permit form the CDFW. For purposes of a take permit, CDFW must rely on information and analysis in an EIR. CDFW cannot issue an incidental take permit unless the EIR addresses all project impacts to CESA-listed species and specifies a mitigation monitoring and reporting program that will meet the fully mitigated requirements of an incidental take permit. These permits are not guaranteed and are contingent upon the project being fully able to mitigate for impacts. If a population of this species was encountered on site, the project may not be able to mitigate impacts to this vulnerable species. Habitat Monitoring After acquisition, monitoring of these dispersed conservation sites is described as follows: “The compensation habitat shall be monitored annually to verify that the habitat suitability is maintained. An operations and management plan shall be prepared and implemented for each compensation habitat, with funding provided through an endowment, to monitor the habitat and determine and implement appropriate management measures to maintain the habitat. Annual monitoring reports shall be submitted to CDFW for review and determination that the project remains in compliance with the mitigation.” Any mitigation measure requiring monitoring reports should specify: • the frequency and duration in years when reports would be required, • what success criteria are being monitored, • who is responsible for submitting the reports, and • what management or restoration measures are required. The measure does not specify how large the endowment must be or how it would be managed. The measure does not specify what the CDFW’s responsibility is for ensuring the success of these dispersed habitat conservation areas as mitigation. Since the lead agency has not established performance standards for these sites, it is not clear how the CDFW would respond and what actions would be taken if the project proponent is found to be not in compliance with the mitigation. The CDFW has no legal authority to require remedial actions if conservation lands are not functioning as adequate habitat. There is no guarantee that these habitat areas (whether in-fee or by conservation easement) and special-status plants would be preserved in perpetuity. Please provide this specific information in the FEIR. Other Measures Not Included The DEIR does not propose any measures for preserving plants prior to construction and inundation by the reservoir. These measures could include salvage of rare plants and seed-banking to preserve genetic material and allow the potential use of these species for future restoration sites in similar habitats. Without reliable information on the species that occur -- and as a result, the level and types of project impacts on those species -- the DEIR cannot conclude that the proposed mitigation measures would reduce project impacts to less than significant levels. A conclusion of this nature would rely on the presumption that all possible impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level, which clearly is unrealistic. In summary, the DEIR has not shown that Mitigation Measure BIO-TERR-1b is feasible, nor would the steps in this measure reduce the impacts to special-status plants to less than significant. Therefore, this information must be contained in the FEIR. Otherwise, this impact can only be characterized as Significant and Unavoidable. 9 Impact BIO-TERR-2 Substantial Adverse Effect on Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Community. The project would result in the permanent removal of over 16 acres of riparian woodland and 19 acres of riparian habitats/wetlands. These impacts should be considered significant in the FEIR and mitigation measures/avoidance protocol needs to be identified. Once again, the project proposes to acquire or permanently protect riparian habitat at a 1:1 ratio, without identifying the location of potential habitat to be acquired. The DEIR lacks details and specificity about how the monitoring and maintenance of this habitat would be accomplished. This specificity needs to be included in the FEIR. Impact BIO-TERR-5 Conflict with Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources A total of 39 acres of blue oak woodland would be lost as a result of the project. This is also a significant impact, and analysis and measures to reduce this impact need to be included in the FEIR. The project proposes a management plan “for the protection and enhancement of oak woodlands to offset the loss of oak woodlands from the project.” The location of oak woodland that would be acquired to offset these impacts is suggested, but specific details and a description of these areas and a long-term management plan is lacking. Without greater specificity, future acquisition of oak woodland habitat is speculative and would not reduce this impact to less than significant. Impact BIO-TERR-7. Spread invasive plant species such that there would be a substantial effect on special-status species, sensitive communities, or wetlands Appendix B3 to the DEIR notes that at least 30 invasive plant species were identified on the project site. The DEIR states that “Introduction or spread of invasive species into the project area during construction activities would not have a substantial adverse effect on special-status species, sensitive natural communities, or wetlands, because these resources would be permanently removed by the proposed project, as identified in BIOTERR-1, BIO-TERR-2 and BIO-TERR-3. If there were spread of invasive plant species during the construction phase, they would be inundated along with the other plants and habitats under reservoir operations.” This impact statement implies that the entire project site would be inundated, which is clearly inaccurate, since the proposed project also includes the realigned roadway, dam faces, and conveyance and electrical facilities. No mitigation measures, or even best management practices (BMPs) are proposed in the DEIR to reduce the spread of invasive plants during and after construction are specified. This analysis ignores standard construction practices in California, particularly with regard to roadway construction and revegetation activities. It is well established that invasive weeds disrupt ecosystem processes and degrade habitat for native plants and animals. Although some weed species are already present in the study area, the project has the potential to: (1) introduce new invasive plant species, and (2) facilitate the spread of existing invasive plant species. The California Invasive Plant Council has published guidelines for preventing the spread of invasive plants.9 The BMPs described therein are feasible and they should be incorporated as required mitigation measures. Because the DEIR fails to incorporate any mitigation, potentially significant 9 Cal-Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC). 2012. “Preventing the Spread of Invasive Plants: Best Management Practices for Land Managers (3rd ed.)” Cal-IPC Publication 2012-03. California Invasive Plant Council, Berkeley, CA. Available at: https://www.cal-ipc.org/resources/library/publications/landmanagers/ 10 impacts associated with the colonization and spread of weeds remain unmitigated. These measures must be contained in the FEIR. Other Comments 2.4.4 Dam Facilities Construction, and 2.4-10 Environmental Commitments. Please specify measures for the revegetation of the dam and spillway areas post-construction in these sections, including measures to control invasive species. Please add a conceptual plant list of appropriate native plant species for this purpose, and add this plant list to the FEIR. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft EIR. Please feel free to contact us with any questions. Sincerely, Nick Jensen, PhD Conservation Scientist California Native Plant Society 2707 K Street, Suite 1 Sacramento, CA 95816 njensen@cnps.org 530-368-7839 | geological events, earthquake, details, survey, rare plants, endangered species, sensitive natural communities, mitigation, habitat, riparian habitat, wetlands, invasive species | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 37.49 | -121.22 | |
| 2018_DesertQuartzite_DraftEIR/EIS | Desert Quartzite Solar Project. | 2018 | 2015031066 | CEQA/NEPA | EIR/EIS | N/A | Draft | County, Federal | Bureau of Land Management, Riverside County | Riverside | Riverside-San Bernadino Chapter | State Office | N/A | Energy, Local Planning Action | Approved | November 8, 2018 Desert Quartzite Solar Project Bureau of Land Management Palm Springs South Coast Field Office 1201 Bird Center Drive Palm Springs, CA 92234 Submitted via email to: blm_ca_desert_quartzite_solar_project@blm.gov Re: Desert Quartzite Draft Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report DOI-BLM-CA-D060-2017-0002 CA State Clearinghouse No. 2015031066 Dear Brandon G. Anderson, Project Manager, Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Plan Amendment (PA), Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Desert Quartzite Solar Project. The Draft EIS/EIR covers 5,115 acres of land in Riverside County. The proposed action (Alternative 1) would impact 3,831 acres of habitat, 3,677 of which are administered by the Bureau of Land Management and 154 of which are in a privately-owned inholding. Given that the private land is under the authority of Riverside County, and was previously farmed for the production of jojoba oil, we are especially concerned with impacts to portion of the project under the authority of the BLM, which contains intact, undisturbed habitats. However, despite these historical land uses, habitat for rare plant species still exists within the inholding. On September 10, 2018, California Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 1001 (De Leon) into law, thus requiring, “100 percent of total retail sales of electricity in California to come from eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources by December 31, 2045.” On the same day, the governor authored Executive Order (EO) B-55-182 , which, given global climate change, outlines specific measures that must be taken for the state to achieve carbon neutrality. Executive Order B-55-18 dictates that the goal of carbon neutrality, including the production of renewable energy, should be achieved with minimal environmental damage. Specifically, the EO states that, “all programs and policies to achieve carbon neutrality shall be implemented in a manner that supports climate adaptation and biodiversity, including protection of the state’s water supply, water quality and native plants and animals.” As an analog, physicians ascribe to a version of the Hippocratic Oath, in which they promise to ethically treat patients to the best of their ability while minimizing harm. Along those lines, land use decisions should be made such that the benefits of proposed actions are not outweighed by 1 SB 100 2 E0 B-55-18 their environmental consequences. In that spirit, the environmental impacts associated with Desert Quartzite should be minimized such that they are consistent with tenor of EO B-55-18. The California Native Plant Society (“CNPS”) is a non-profit environmental organization with more than 10,000 members in 35 Chapters across California and Baja California, MX. CNPS’ mission is to protect California's native plant heritage and to preserve it for future generations through the application of science, research, education, and conservation. CNPS works closely with decision-makers, scientists, and local planners to advocate for well-informed policies, regulations, and land management practices. CNPS supports science-based, rational policies and actions, on the local, state, national, and international levels, that lead to the production of renewable energy and the reduction of greenhouse gases without endangering California's native flora.3 Along with our mission we provide the following comments on the Draft PA/EIS/EIR for the Desert Quartzite Solar Project: 1. Impacts to Rare Plants Six plants included in the CNPS Inventory of Rare, Threatened or Endangered Plants (CNPS Inventory) were documented during surveys of the project area (see Table 1). Table 1: Rare plants of the Desert Quartzite project site Scientific Name Common Name Rare Plant Rank BLM Sensitive Astragalus insularis var. harwoodii Harwood's milkvetch 2B.2 N Johnstonella (Cryptantha) costata ribbed cryptantha 4.3 N Eriastrum harwoodii Harwood's eriastrum 1B.2 Y Euphorbia abramsiana Abrams' spurge 2B.2 N Funastrum utahense Utah vine milkweed 4.2 N Proboscidea althaeifolia desert unicorn-plant 4.3 N The distribution of these species within the project site is detailed in Table 2 below. This table provides an overview of the direct impacts to each species under the proposed project alternatives (a more detailed analysis of impacts appears in Table ES-1 in the DEIS/EIR). For example, Astragalus harwoodii var. insularis (Harwood’s milk-vetch) occurs within the BLM- owned and the “Inholding” portions of the project area and will be directly impacted by project Alternatives 1-3. Furthermore, Euphorbia abramsiana (Abrams’ spurge) occurs only within the BLM-owned portion of the project area and would be impacted directly by Alternatives 1-3. Below, we focus on three rare plant species that exemplify our concerns with Desert Quartzite. 3 CNPS Climate Change Statement Table 2: Distribution of rare plants within the project area Scientific Name BLM Presence Inholding Presence Alt. 1 Direct Impact Alt. 2 Direct Impact Alt. 3 Direct Impact Astragalus insularis var. harwoodii Y Y Y Y y Johnstonella (Cryptantha) costata Y Y Y N N Eriastrum harwoodii Y N Y Y Y Euphorbia abramsiana Y N Y Y Y Funastrum utahense Y N N N N Proboscidea althaeifolia Y N Y Y Y Eriastrum harwoodii CNPS is especially concerned with the project’s impacts to Eriastrum harwoodii (Harwood’s eriastrum). Eriastrum harwoodii is on California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1B.2 (plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere), and a BLM Sensitive species. Although Desert Quartzite is not a covered project under the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP)4 , we contend that the Conservation Management Actions (CMAs), enacted to ensure the conservation of rare species, are germane to this project. Specifically, CMA LUPA-BIO-PLANT-2, implements “an avoidance setback of 0.25 mile for all Focus and BLM Special Status Species occurrences.” Setbacks are to be “placed strategically adjacent to occurrences to protect ecological processes necessary to support the plant species.” This means that all ground-disturbing activities would have to remain at least 0.25 miles away from all locations of E. harwoodii on a project site. These setback requirements were deemed necessary to avoid direct and indirect impacts to rare species. This CMA is especially important for species such as E. harwoodii, which grows on the edge of sand dune habitat. As sand dune habitats are by their very nature unstable and subject to Aeolian movement, ensuring that E. harwoodii has space to shift with its naturally shifting habitat is of utmost importance. Project Alternative 1 would directly impact 510 individuals and 110 acres of occupied habitat of E. harwoodii. It would also place photovoltaic (PV) arrays within 0.25 miles of many acres occupied by this species. Alternatives 2 and 3 would reduce direct impacts to E. harwoodii to 77 individuals and 35 acres of occupied habitat, while continuing to place PV arrays immediately adjacent to known locations, especially in the northwest portion of the project site. We advocate strongly for a redesign of the siting of PV arrays to conform to the 0.25 mile 4 DRECP setback requirement outlined in the DRECP. These measures are necessary to ensure the long- term persistence of this species. Elsewhere, E. harwoodii occurs in other locations where future solar energy development is likely to occur. This means that the cumulative impacts to this species are likely to increase in the future, thus necessitating conservation actions in line with DRECP CMAs on the Desert Quartzite project site. In the absence of the complete avoidance of E. harwoodii on the Desert Quartzite project site, off-site compensatory mitigation at a minimum ration of 2:1 (conserved to impacted) should be required. Astragalus insularis var. harwoodii We are also concerned about the potential impacts to Astragalus insularis var. harwoodii (Harwood’s milkvetch), which is a CRPR 2B.2 taxon. Although it is on CRPR 2B (plants rare in California, but more common elsewhere), from a global perspective A. insularis var. harwoodii has a small range, being found only in California and Arizona. Desert Quartzite is located at the center of the California distribution of this taxon, and more than 26,000 individuals were observed in botanical surveys. Undeniably, Desert Quartzite represents a threat to this taxon in California. Astragalus insularis var. harwoodii occurs throughout the project site with more 10,420 individuals to be affected by Alternative 1. Alternatives 2 and 3 reduce the number of individuals impacted slightly to 9,507 individuals. As a result, Desert Quartzite should be designed to ensure the long-term persistence of this species in California. This is especially important given that an estimated 12,658 individuals occur within the inholding (see Appendix M, page 53) on private land that is subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As A. insularis var. harwoodii is on CRPR 2B, it is included on the CDFW Special Plants list5 . According to CDFW, “the plants of Rank 2B are rare, threatened or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere. Plants common in other states or countries are not eligible for consideration under the provisions of the Federal Endangered Species Act; however they are eligible for consideration under the California Endangered Species Act.” As the inholding is private land, the impacts to this taxon must be analyzed comprehensively by Riverside County. Also, Appendix A, Figure 3.3-3 does not show A. insularis var. harwoodii in the inholding. In contrast, Figure 10 in Appendix M shows an extensive population of A. insularis var. harwoodii within the inholding. The number of individuals of this species that are likely to be impacted by the project seems to be out of sync with the number of individuals that are reported in Appendix M. If, as stated Appendix M, Table 11, there are 12,658 individuals of A. insularis var. harwoodii present in the inholding, and the inholding will be converted completely to PV arrays, then how could the total number of impacted individuals only between 9,507 in Alternatives 2 and 3, and 10,420 in Alternatives 1? Lastly, like E. harwoodii, A. insularis var. harwoodii also occurs in other locations that will potentially be impacted by solar energy development. 5 CDFW Special Plants List Johnstonella costata Desert Quartzite threatens a large population of Johnstonella costata (ribbed cryptantha) with 64,234 individuals to be impacted in Alternative 1 and 30,178 individuals to be impacted by Alternatives 2 and 3. Because, J. costata is currently on CRPR 4 (plants of limited distribution), and the California Natural Diversity Database does not track occurrence level data for species at this rank, it is difficult to place the potential impact to this species in perspective. Documenting and assessing impacts to annual plant species is notoriously difficult, in that variation in population size varies from year to year. How large are populations of this species throughout its range? Does Desert Quartzite present a significant threat to persistence of this species in California? One thing for certain is that J. costata occurs in large quantities on Desert Quartzite and this signifies that the site has immense potential as habitat for rare species. While we agree that the botanical survey effort detailed in Appendix M was sufficient, a multi- year study of interannual variation in species composition on the site is warranted. This is necessary to ensure that rare species dormant in the seed bank and only apparent in years with a specific amount and timing of precipitation are detected. 2. Habitat Impacts Pleuraphis rigida Alliance In California, the CDFW ranks sensitive natural communities (aka rare vegetation types) in accordance with NatureServe’s global and state rankings6 . The list of Sensitive Natural Communities7 contains vegetation alliances ranked as globally (G1-G3) and/or state rare (S1-S3) rare. Under CEQA, an EIR is required if a project threatens “to eliminate a plant or animal community8 .” In the DRECP, the conservation of “unique landscape features, important landforms, and rare or unique vegetation types” is highlighted in Goal 1.4. Alternative 1 will result in the loss of 40.4 acres of Pleuraphis rigida Alliance, which is globally rare and is ranked as G3 and S2.2 by CDFW. The number of impacted acres is reduced to 14 acres in Alternatives 2 and 3. According to the Manual of California Vegetation9 (MCV), the Pleuraphis rigida Alliance occurs on “flat ridges, lower bajadas, slopes, dune aprons, and stabilized dunes.” Vegetation alliances that are associated with sand dunes are highlighted for conservation in the DRECP. For example, CONS-BIO-DUNE-2 states that, “all activities will be sited and/or configured to maintain the spatial extent, habitat quality, and ecological function of Aeolian transport corridors unless related to maintenance of existing (at the time of the DRECP LUPA ROD) facilities/activities.” Given its rarity and its association with Aeolian transport corridors we recommend that the project be redesigned to avoid stands of Pleuraphis rigida. 6 CDFW Natural Communities and NatureServe Ranking 7 CDFW Sensitive Natural Communities List 8 Article 5 of CEQA Guidelines 9 MCV Pleuraphis rigida Alliance Microphyll Woodlands Microphyll woodlands are characterized in the DRECP as, “drought-deciduous, small- leaved (microphyllus), mostly leguminous trees. Occurs in bajadas and washes where water availability is somewhat higher than the plains.” These habitats include the “desert willow, mesquite, smoke tree, and the blue palo verde-ironwood” vegetation alliances. DEIR Appendix 1, Map 3.3-2 shows the location of Parkinsonia florida-Olneya tesota (palo verde-ironwood) alliance within the planning area. In the DRECP, Sonoran-Coloradan Semi-Desert Wash Woodland/Scrub including Parkinsonia florida-Olneya tesota Alliance must be avoided with a 200 foot buffer. The DEIR (Table ES-1) indicates that zero acres of Parkinsonia florida-Olneya tesota Alliance will be directly affected under Alternatives 1-3. However, a stand of Parkinsonia florida-Olneya tesota is located immediately adjacent to the PV arrays in the northeastern portion of the project site under Alternative 1. CNPS recommends that the project be redesigned to ensure, at a minimum, a 200 foot buffer to all stands of Parkinsonia florida- Olneya tesota. 3. Mitigation Measures According to Appendix M (pages 55-56), “the proposed methods of site development involve intensive and comprehensive soil surface disturbance by grubbing, grading, compaction, and application of soil surface stabilizers. This type of development inhibits re-establishment of natural plant communities: essentially nothing is allowed to grow between the panels.” Mitigation Measure (MM) Veg-9 details actions that must be taken to avoid, minimize, and compensate for impacts to special status plant species. While we see the utility of MM VEG-9.A,B, which detail the avoidance and minimization of impacts to special status plant species, we fail to see how this is reasonable given the nature of the site development (see quote from Appendix M above). Consequently, we advocate for the project to rely heavily upon off-site compensatory mitigation, as is outlined in MM VEG-9.C. That said, in the case of renewable energy projects such as Desert Quartzite, which are sited on public lands, securing off-site mitigation land is challenging. First, rare plants, by their very nature are regionally and/or globally scarce. Second, much of the land in the vicinity of the Desert Quartzite project is already publicly owned and under the jurisdiction of the federal government. These lands, managed primarily by the BLM, are already de facto conserved. If no occupied habitat is available on private lands, is MM VEG-9.C-I (Compensatory Mitigation by Acquisition) even feasible? Has the project proponent identified private land that is available for purchase containing populations of the rare species that will be affected by this project and could be used for compensatory mitigation by acquisition? In the absence of land that is available for acquisition, MM VEG-9.C-II details compensatory mitigation by habitat enhancement/restoration. While habitat enhancement/restoration may be a reasonable mitigation measures for common species or for species that are from non-xeric habitats (see these references10,11) these measures rarely work for desert rare species. 10 Ex Situ Plant Conservation 11 Restoring diversity: strategies for the reintroduction of endangered plants In conclusion, three mitigation measures proposed in Appendix G are beset with serious flaws. Avoidance and minimization is clearly not feasible, off-site compensatory mitigation will be challenging given the project’s location, and habitat enhancement/restoration is likely to be fully ineffective. Consequently, the mitigation measures proposed in the DEIS/EIR merit serious revision. 4. Carbon Sequestration The siting of solar energy projects on desert public lands is a Faustian bargain, in that ecosystems of immeasurable value are traded for short-term gain. Desert habitats are instrumental in sequestering atmospheric carbon12 . Specifically, desert vegetation (especially woodlands and shrub-dominated ecosystems) and soils store vast amounts of carbon. This stored carbon is released into the atmosphere when these habitats are disturbed. As mentioned above, EO B-55-18 emphasizes the production of renewable energy while minimizing environmental impacts. Projects, such as Desert Quartzite run counter to this principle. Alternatives to converting intact desert habitats to solar energy development include siting projects on already degraded lands, brownfields, and on rooftops in urban areas. The EIS/EIR evaluates and rejects the siting of the project on brownfields. Why doesn’t the EIS/EIR evaluate the feasibility of siting the project on rooftops in urban areas or on already degraded lands? 5. Selection of a Project Alternative Alternative 1 is listed as the proposed action. The environmental consequences associated with each alternative are summarized in Table ES-1. Clearly, Alternative 4, the “No Action Alternative” would ensure the greatest level of protection for biological resources. In line with our mission to conserve California’s native plant heritage and conserve it for future generations, CNPS advocates that decision makers select Alternative 4. Alternative 1 includes the largest amount of impacted acreage (3,831 acres), and the greatest impacts to wildlife, cultural resources, rare plants, and common and sensitive habitats. Alternative 3 (Reduced Project, 2,112 acres) includes the smallest amount of impacted acreage and reduces the direct impacts to certain biological resources, including occupied habitat for Eriastrum harwoodii. Alternative 2 (Resource Avoidance, 2,845 acres) affects more acreage and negatively impacts more biological resources than Alternative 3 but is still far less damaging than Alternative 1. The BLM has identified Alternative 2 as the agency preferred alternative. While CNPS does not support Alternatives 1, 2, or 3, Alternatives 2 and 3 are more favorable than Alternative 1. In the absence of selecting Alternative 4, decision makers should choose Alternative 3, as its smaller footprint will ensure a reduced impact on sensitive biological resources. 12 Carbon Balance in California Deserts 6. Conclusions The Desert Quartzite Solar Project, if implemented, will have significant impacts to rare plants, sensitive vegetation types, and ecosystem services, such as carbon sequestration. The very nature of the project site means that mitigating for habitat loss will be challenging to impossible. While we advocate for the no project alternative, we recognize that compromise is often necessary. This means that, if faced with choosing between alternatives 1, 2, or 3, decision makers should select Alternative 3, the reduced project alternative. Once again, thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on Desert Quartzite. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Nicholas Jensen, PhD Southern California Conservation Analyst California Native Plant Society 1500 North College Ave Claremont, CA 91711 (530) 368-7839 njensen@cnps.org | rare plants, vegetation, sensitive natural communities, habitat, mitigation, carbon sequestration, alternatives | N/A | Executive Order B-55-18, Senate Bill 100 (De Leon) | N/A | https://planning.rctlma.org/Portals/14/Postings/Desert%20Quartzite%20Solar%20Project/FinalEIR/Desert%20Quartzite%20Final%20EIS-EIR.pdf | 33.59 | -114.75 | |
| 2020_GetawayHouse_MND | Getaway House | 2020 | 2020040111 | CEQA | MND | N/A | Draft | County | Mendocino County Planning & Building Services Department | Mendocino | Sanhedrin Chapter | State Office, Sanhedrin Chapter | N/A | Local Planning Action, Recreational | Ongoing | November 23, 2020 Sent via email to davisj@mendocinocounty.org Jesse Davis Senior Planner Planning and Building Services County of Mendocino 860 North Bush St., Ukiah, CA 95482 (707) 234-6650 RE: Getaway House, Inc. Major Use Permit, Case # U_2020_0002 Dear Mr. Davis: We are writing to provide comments on the Getaway House, Inc. Major Use Permit, Case # U_2020- 0002 (“Getaway House” or “Project”), a development project on property owned by Brutocao Vineyards. The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) is a statewide organization with approximately 10,000 active members and 35 chapters across California and Baja, MX. CNPS is dedicated to the preservation of native plants and their natural habitats, and to increasing understanding, appreciation, and horticultural use of native plants since 1965. The Sanhedrin Chapter of the California Native Plant Society comprises the inland part of Mendocino County and all of Lake County, and has been active in the area since 1981. CNPS provided comments on the first iteration of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration on March 2, 2020. The revised Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) was made publicly available on October 20, 2020. CNPS urges the County to not approve the Project until the following concerns have been rectified regarding the revised IS/MND: I. The Project Description Is Inadequate. The IS/MND states, “The final locations of the micro-cabin RV pads, walking trails, and access roads would may [sic] be modified during preparation of final development plans, to retain trees and vegetation that may be located within the footprint currently proposed for development.” (IS/MND p. 26). A project description needs to be sufficiently settled so as to allow meaningful analysis of the project’s impacts, so that appropriate mitigation measures can be crafted to lessen those impacts. See County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193 (“An accurate, stable, and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR.”). The environmental impacts of Getaway House cannot be meaningfully analyzed unless it is clear where the 45 micro-cabins will be placed. Additionally, The IS/MND has not quantified how many acres of the entire 90.87-acre site will need to be modified. The revised project description states that associated improvements to the site include the development of primary and secondary Site access roads; microcabin RV pads for up to 45 micro-cabin RVs; a two-story, 1,344-square-foot building (lodge facility) to house a full-time residence for an on-site 2 manager on the second floor, with the bottom floor comprised of a small office and storage area for daytime staff, an accessible restroom, meeting room, and a laundry area for micro-cabin RV linens; a carport; walking trails; on-site underground utility line, among many other utility installations, etc. The combined acreage of these structures, including the 100 feet of defensible space for fire risk reduction that needs to surround each structure, must be quantified and incorporated into the analysis of impacts. The County should not approve this Project until the final locations of the micro-cabins, trails, roads, and other structures are settled, and the acreage they will take up is quantified, so that a meaningful analysis of environmental impacts can be achieved. II. Sensitive Natural Communities Have Not Been Properly Analyzed. Botanical surveys identified a total of 82 plant taxa on the property, including native and introduced plants, and no sensitive species were identified. However, neither the Biological Resource Assessment nor the revised IS/MND identifies or analyzes the presence of sensitive natural communities (“SNCs”) on the Project site. It is not evident that protocols for mapping and describing vegetation types were followed. The IS/MND acknowledges that there are 51.38 acres of mixed oak woodland, 30.58 acres of blue oak woodland, and 0.41 acres of chamise chaparral on the Project Site. Some of these habitats are designated as SNCs by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.1 Associations within these broad vegetation categories mentioned above or “Alliances”, specifically those with Global and/or State rankings between 1-3, are considered SNCs. The botanical report mentions two vegetation types (chamise-common manzanita and mixed oak stands where Garry oak is dominate) which are considered SNCs. SNCs are specifically referenced in the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines (See Appendix G, Environmental Checklist) and should undergo the full CEQA analysis. However, the IS/MND contains no analysis of the impacts the project will have on these SNCs. In fact, it does not even these communities as SNCs. The most current (Sept. 2020) list of SNC are found here: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities There is no analysis of how many acres of these communities will be impacted, nor does the IS/MND quantify or even describe the loss, degradation, and fragmentation of oak woodlands. The MND states, “Tree and vegetation removal will be limited to the footprints of the micro-cabin RV pads, access roads/trails, lodge facility and parking area, and 100 feet from each side of the lodge facility, as required by CalFire for defensible space. . . . the proposed development is focused on openings in the oak woodland canopy, clearings, and open grasslands.” (IS/MND p. 27). This is completely vague, particularly in light of the fact that the exact location of the final footprint of the 45 micro-cabins is not yet known. Making room for 45 micro-cabins, trails, parking, and all of the associated structures and improvements will result in significant removal of trees and vegetation. Even with vague promises that “tree and vegetation removal would be limited to the extent feasible” and removal will be “limited to the footprints” of the micro-cabins, roads, etc., the complete failure to disclose the amount of loss is a violation of CEQA. Effective mitigations cannot begin to be discussed until the foundational information 1 https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153609&inline. 3 about the loss of habitat is disclosed and analyzed. The IS/MND should disclose the number, species, and size of oak trees and that cannot be avoided and quantify the loss, degradation, and fragmentation of oak woodlands and propose effective mitigations, as well as the total number of acres that will be compromised by the Project’s footprint. The County should not approve the project until these disclosures have been made and properly analyzed. III. Mitigation Measure BIO-4 Is Inadequate and Improperly Deferred. a. BIO-4 Fails to Mitigate Loss to the Entire Woodland Community Mitigation Measure BIO-4, which is designed to mitigate impacts to oak woodlands, is inadequate because it focuses solely on individual oaks. The analysis of this measure ignores the fact that oak woodlands are a SNC, and thus impacts to the entire habitat – not just individual trees – should be considered. Assurances that project development is focused on openings in canopy, clearings and open grasslands miss this point. Impacts to the entire community, including the open space and grasslands that surround individual trees, must be analyzed and mitigated. b. BIO-4 Improperly Defers Mitigation In general, deferred mitigation is not permitted under CEQA. (CEQA Guideline 15126.4). Specific details of mitigation measures may be deferred until after project approval, but only if the agency (1) commits itself to the mitigation, (2) adopts specific performance standards the mitigation will achieve, and (3) identifies the type(s) of potential action(s) that can feasibly achieve that performance standard and that will be considered, analyzed, and potentially incorporated in the mitigation measure. Id. These requirements have not been met with respect to BIO-4 and the Oak Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (“Oak MMP”). Bio-4 states, “The final development plans shall emphasize design that limits tree loss and concentrates development in woodland openings and grassland habitat to the extent practical.” It goes on to say that “Construction activities shall avoid excavation beneath the driplines of oak trees for all oak trees that have not been approved for removal as part of the Oak MMP, to the extent feasible.” This is vague and non-committal. If the County is going to defer mitigation until after the project is approved and the final design is settled, it needs to fully commit itself to a proposed mitigation plan. The inventory of trees lost and the Oak MMP should be done before County approves the IS/MND. There is no way for the County or the public to determine whether the Oak MMP is feasible, let alone whether it will be sufficient to protect the acres of oak woodlands impacted on the project site, unless the acreage of habitat and number of trees that will be lost is disclosed and analyzed. The lack of analysis of impacts to oak woodland renders the entirety of BIO-4 speculative and illusory. BIO-4 promises that “The Oak MMP shall identify natural recruitment areas, if any, to be established in areas where no development is proposed. Natural recruitment areas shall be identified on the final development plans and where occupants of the Site would be discouraged from encroaching.” However, it is impossible to determine whether this is feasible because an analysis of impacts was not done. It cannot be known how many acres of recruitment will be needed because there has been no analysis of how many acres or individual oaks will be impacted by the project. 4 c. The Details of BIO-4 Are Inadequate and Should Be Modified. Any mitigation measure for oaks or oak woodland should include trees that have a diameter at breast height (“dbh”) of five inches and larger. That is consistent with CEQA, Public Resources Code section 21083.4. Additionally, the proposed 3:1 mitigation ratio is not sufficient. The County should follow the recommendations provided by CDFW and increase this ratio to at least 6:1: • <1” dbh replaced at a minimum of 1:1 mitigation ratio • 1-11” dbh replaced at a minimum of 6:1 mitigation ratio • 12-18” dbh replaced at a minimum of 8:1 mitigation ratio • 18” dbh replaced at a minimum of 10:1 mitigation ratio Finally, three years of maintenance and monitoring is not sufficient. Oaks take hundreds of years to grow, and the maintenance and monitoring of replacement oaks should last at least 10 years or until they attain the height above the deer browse line IV. Inadequate description of indirect impacts. The IS/MND states that “the majority of the 90.87-acre Site would remain undisturbed, allowing for passive recreational activities and ensuring that wildlife corridors are maintained, to the extent possible.” (p. 26-27). However, the IS/MNS fails to account for indirect impacts to the SNCs from the presence of people and pets, spread of invasive plants, trampling on existing vegetation, and harm resulting from excavation for roads and around oaks that could disrupt water flow to/away from plants. Just because the majority of the site will not be disturbed does not mean that construction and increased presence of humans will not indirectly impact the undisturbed portions of the land. Under CEQA, these indirect impacts must be analyzed and mitigated. V. Plant Surveys Were Inadequate. CNPS suggests that additional spring time botanical surveys be conducted. Surveys were done on March 31 and June 11, 2020, a year with below average rainfall in the month of February. At least one additional survey should be performed in the spring, during a year with adequate rainfall, to determine whether any special status plants exist on the Project site that were not previously documented. Simply put, it is easy to miss things when surveys are limited. For example, one of the potentially occurring rare species listed in Tables 2 and 3 of the Biological Resources Assessment, the Colusa Layia (Layia septentrionalis), shows a narrow blooming period of April-May, exactly the period when botanists were not on the ground. Generally, a minimum of 5 site visits are recommended which cover early blooming annuals as well as late season herbaceous perennial species and everything in between. At the very least, 3 site visits during the peak growing season (April, May, June) should have been conducted. Stating a floristic survey has been conducted without site visits in April and May in this part of the state is both unprofessional and a flagrant disregard of CDFW survey protocols. Additionally, CDFW Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities should be followed.2 The fact that the neighboring 2 https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline 5 parcel just north of the Getaway House site has a plant list of 682 species is strong indication that there is potential for far more special status plants to exist on the Project site than are presently documented. Additional spring surveys in a year with adequate rainfall can settle this concern definitively. Additional spring survey (Apr-May) would certainly result in an increase of vascular plants observed. VI. Zoning As noted in its March 2, 2020 comment letter, CNPS reiterates that Getaway House clearly is not an appropriate project for a site that is zoned as rangeland (R-L 160), and without a Major Use Permit the property would have to be re-zoned in order to proceed with this Project. CNPS urges the County to consider preserving this site for uses that are compatible with its current zoning and that are consistent with the Mendocino County General Plan. Sec. 20.060.005 of the Mendocino County code regarding rangeland states: "This district is intended to create and preserve areas for, (A) the grazing of livestock, (B) the production and harvest of natural resources, and (C) the protection of such natural resources as watershed lands from fire, pollution, erosion, and other detrimental effects. Processing of products produced on the premises would be permitted as would certain commercial activities associated with crop and animal raising. Typically, the R-L District would be applied to lands for incorporation into Type II Agricultural Preserves, other lands generally in range use, and intermixed smaller parcels and other contiguous lands the inclusion of which is necessary for the protection and efficient management of rangelands Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Getaway House IS/MND. We urge the planning department to not approve the IS/MND until the above issues have been resolved. Please keep us informed about future opportunities for comment regarding this matter. Sincerely, Isabella Langone Conservation Analyst California Native Plant Society 2707 K Street, Suite 1 Sacramento, CA 95816 Mobile: (209) 327-5569 ilangone@cnps.org Jennifer Riddell, Co-President, Sanhedrin Chapter California Native Plant Society jenariddell@gmail.com Andrea Davis, Co-President, Sanhedrin Chapter California Native Plant Society tworns@pacific.net | project description, sensitive natural communities, habitat, vegetation, mapping, mitigation, indirect impacts, survey, zoning | County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193 | CEQA §15126.4 | N/A | https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2020040111/3 | 38.97 | -123.06 | |
| 2020_HyampomFire_Scoping | Hyampom Fire Resilient Community Project | 2020 | N/A | NEPA | Scoping Proposal | N/A | Scoping | Federal | The United States Forest Service | Trinity | North Coast Chapter | State Office | California Wilderness Coalition, The Wilderness Society, Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club Redwood Chapter, Northcoast Environmental Center, Californians for Western Wilderness, Safe Alternatives for our Forest Environment, Lassen Forest Preservation Group, Friends of Plumas Wilderness, Tuleyome, Foothill Conservancy | Vegetation Management | Ongoing | November 13, 2020 Mr. Dan Ostmann Shasta-Trinity National Forests 3644 Avtech Parkway Redding, CA 96002 Via email: comments-pacificsouthwest-shasta-trinity-yollabolla-hayfork@usda.gov Re: Scoping comments for the Hyampom Fire Resilient Community Project Dear Mr. Ostmann: Thank you for soliciting public scoping comments in response to the Hyampom Fire Resilient Community Project. The undersigned local, regional, statewide, and national conservation organizations are jointly submitting these scoping comments and request that the Forest Service work with coalition members to resolve potential conflicts and concerns. We also appreciate the decades of effort that the local community has invested in fire resiliency efforts and hope that the eventual project plan adequately reflects those efforts. The Hyampom Fire-Resilient Community Project (hereafter “Hyampom Project” or “Project”) is located in an area of the Shasta-Trinity National Forests that possesses highly sensitive and diverse biological resources, as well as important scenery, recreation, and cultural values. The Project is required to comply with the management direction in the 1995 Shasta-Trinity National Forests Land and Resources Management Plan (LRMP) and subsequent national management direction that includes the 2000 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR). The 2 Project also overlaps with areas and streams proposed for protection in legislation that has already passed the House of Representative and is currently pending in in the U.S. Senate. The environmental review for this project must consider all these issues and ensure that the Project complies with existing management direction and avoid conflict with areas and rivers proposed for protection in current legislation. Hyampom Project Treatments Although conservationists generally support the use of prescribed fire to reduce fuels and to improve the health of fire-based forest ecosystems, the Hyampom Project includes some treatments that may be too intensive to protect biological diversity (including at-risk fish, wildlife, and plant species and their habitat), water quality, scenery and recreation values, and heritage values. The project proposes three prescriptive treatments, summarized below: Prescription A – Ridgetop, Roadside, and Property Line Fuelbreaks includes 2,460 acres of 600 foot-wide ridgetop, roadside, and property line fuelbreaks. Trees greater than 8 inches DBH (Diameter Breast Height) “thinned from below”, retaining only the healthiest large trees with 10-30 feet of separation depending on slope and reducing the canopy cover to only 30%. Prescription A treatments would be followed by the fuels modification and prescribed fire treatments in Prescription C (Scoping Proposal pgs. 3- 4). Prescription B – Plantation Thinning includes 4,776 acres of plantation thinning to create variable density and mix of species. The largest healthiest trees would be retained but up to 80% of the total competing vegetation will be removed by hand and mechanically. Gaps up to 1⁄4 acre would be created in stands with trees less than 10 inches DBH. In stands with trees greater than 10 inches DBH, 45 to 100 trees per acre will be retained but openings up to 3 acres in size will be created. Prescription B treatments would be followed by treatments found in Prescription C (Scoping Proposal pgs. 3, 5). Prescription C – Fuel Modification includes 13,879 acres of fuel modification and prescribed fire. Fuels will be modified through hand thinning of brush and small trees (up to 8” DBH) and then broadcast burned (prescribed fire). Small trees could be thinned to 20-25 foot spacing and clumps of brush up to 10 feet in diameter will be retained 20-30 feet apart, plus pruning of residual trees. Areas treated under Prescription C will require re-entry every 3-7 years to maintain clearance. There will be “release” of residual conifers and hardwoods, which implies post-treatment use of herbicides. Prescription C includes all the treatment tools in Prescription A, except for thinning trees larger than 8 inches DBH (Scoping Proposal pgs. 3, 6). We understand the need to have a wide variety of prescriptive tools to achieve the desired results. Our primary concern is the potential impacts of implementing these prescriptions in 3 areas and streams proposed for legislative protection and compliance with current protective management direction. For example, in areas currently proposed for wilderness protection in legislation pending in Congress, Prescription B could create “openings” up to 3 acres in size and retain as few as 45 trees per acre greater than 10 inches DBH. Another example is the proposed roadside fuelbreak (Prescription A) along the lower South Fork Road in the vicinity of Salmon Rock and Big Slide Campground that could reduce canopy cover to only 30% in the South Fork Trinity Recreational River corridor. These kind of potential impacts must be identified in the environmental review process and avoided or mitigated. Please refer to the map attached to the end of this letter, showing where the legislative proposals overlap with the Hyampom Project. Conflict With Proposed & Potential Wilderness Some intensive treatments under Prescription B Plantation Thinning potentially conflict with legislation authored by Rep. Jared Huffman and approved by the House of Representatives. Identical legislation authored by Senator Kamala Harris is currently pending in the Senate. The Northwest California Wilderness, Recreation, and Working Forests Act (Huffman/Harris) includes the 28,595-acre proposed Pattison Wilderness east of Hyampom on Hayfork Creek, the 26,446-acre South Fork Trinity River Wilderness straddling the South Fork Trinity Wild and Scenic River, and a 405 acre Potential Wilderness addition to the proposed South Fork Wilderness. About 3,152 acres of the proposed Pattison Wilderness, 820 acres of the proposed South Fork Wilderness, and all 405 acres of the proposed South Fork potential wilderness addition could be adversely impacted by Prescription B treatments to varying degrees. We support reintroducing fire into wilderness and roadless areas for ecological restoration purposes. A good example of this kind of project supported by conservation groups is the Caples Ecological Restoration Project on the Eldorado National Forest.1 The project was conducted in the Caples Creek Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) recommended by the Forest Service for wilderness protection. It involved establishment of a perimeter line outside of the roadless area where roads, trails, or natural barriers were absent, but allowed hand line construction where needed in the IRA/recommended wilderness. Use of bulldozers to create fuelbreaks was limited to areas outside of the IRA/recommended wilderness. Where fuel loading would have adverse fire effect in the Caples Creek IRA, pockets of continuous ladder fuels and dense fuel loading were hand cut, piled, and burned prior to understory prescribed burning. Forest litter around the bases of the largest and oldest tress were hand-raked. Hot spots from prescribed fire treatments in 2019 flared into a wildfire in response to a weather event. The Forest Service’s post-fire assessment found that largely due to the earlier prescribed fire and other treatments the overall fire effects were close to typical 1 https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/eldorado/landmanagement/?cid=fseprd553069 4 fire regime patterns and produced post-fire structure and fuel loading aligned with the natural range of variability. The Hyampom Project should be adjusted to avoid establishing permanent fuel breaks requiring mechanical maintenance in the proposed wilderness areas or adjusted to less intensive treatments similar to the Caples Project. Any post-designation maintenance in wilderness would be subject to a minimum tools analysis. Alternatively, Prescription B within the proposed wilderness areas could be adjusted to provide less intensive treatments similar to those applied to the Caples Creek Project. We support plantation thinning, prescribed fire, the establishment of shaded fuel breaks in appropriate places. In fact, these activities are encouraged in Title I, Sec. 101 of the Huffman/Harris bill with the establishment of the 729,089 acre South Fork Trinity-Mad River Restoration Area. Section 101 facilitates restoration projects in these watersheds that maintain or restore the characteristics of ecosystem composition and structure, reduce wildlife risk to local communities by promoting forests that are fire resilient, improve the habitat of at-risk species, and protect and improve water quality. The legislation encourages the establishment of shaded fuel breaks, thinning of existing plantations, grazing to control noxious weeds, road decommissioning, collaboration with local interests, and use of stewardship contracts to fulfill this work. Many of the treatments proposed in the Hyampom Project fulfill the purposes of Section 101. Our primary concern is the location of treatments in areas and rivers proposed for protection in the Huffman/Harris bill and those areas already protected under the Forest Plan. In addition, a robust environmental review must address, avoid, and/or mitigate impacts to at-risk species, water quality, recreation opportunities, and other sensitive resources Potential Conflict With Proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers The Hyampom Project could also adversely impact three wild and scenic rivers proposed in the Huffman/Harris legislation, including 16.4 miles of Hayfork Creek, 2.8 miles of Olsen Creek (a Hayfork tributary), and a short segment of the existing South Fork Trinity Recreational River recommended by the Forest Service for legislative redesignation by Congress. Proposed Hayfork Creek Wild and Scenic River: According to the Forest Service, Hayfork Creek supports moderate to high populations of salmon, steelhead, and native trout, and the creek offers high quality scenery. The agency recommended Scenic classification for the stream, while the Huffman/Harris bills propose Recreational and Scenic classification. Neither classification would necessarily prohibit Prescription B treatments in and adjacent to the river corridor, but the treatments are required by law to avoid adverse impacts on Hayfork Creek’s free flowing character and Forest Service- identified outstandingly remarkable fish and scenery values. In addition, the House Committee on Natural Resources report for the Huffman/Harris bill identified an 5 outstandingly remarkable recreation value for the creek, in addition to its Forest Service recognized fish and scenery values.2 Proposed Olsen Creek Wild and Scenic River: Although Olsen Creek (a Hayfork Creek tributary) was not apparently assessed for Wild and Scenic River eligibility in the 1994 Forest Plan, federal and state studies have since identified Olsen Creek as an important stream for the recovery of threatened Coho salmon in the South Fork watershed. A 2.8 mile segment of the creek from the confluence of its source tributaries to the Forest boundary is proposed for Scenic classification in the Huffman/Harris bill. Any Prescription B treatments proposed in the Hyampom Project must be conducted in a manner that protects the free flowing character and outstandingly remarkable fish value of Olsen Creek. Proposed Redesignation South Fork Trinity Wild and Scenic River: The 1995 Forest Plan Record of Decision (ROD) proposes legislative redesignation of 106.4 miles of the Trinity River system that were previously administratively protected by the Interior Secretary in 1981. According to the ROD, the purpose of the redesignation recommendation is “for clarity of administration and consistency in protection.” This recommendation is partially implemented in the Harris/Huffman by redesignating a 7 mile segment of the South Fork Trinity as a scenic river from its confluence with Eltapom Creek to the confluence with Grouse Creek. The identified outstandingly remarkable values for this segment have been expanded from anadromous fisheries to also include scenery, recreation, and wildlife.3 The Prescription A fuelbreak treatment would be applied along nearly two miles of this segment between the Lower South Fork Road and the river. Although Wild and Scenic protection doesn’t necessarily prohibit this treatment, it must be conducted in a manner that doesn’t harm the river’s free flowing character and outstandingly remarkable scenery, recreation, fish, and wildlife values. Potential Conflict With Existing Management South Fork Trinity Wild and Scenic River: This is the same segment north of Hyampom proposed for redesignation in the Huffman/Harris bill. The Hyampom Project proposes a 600 foot-wide fuel break along the Lower South Fork Road that would remove trees and other vegetation in a 300 foot-wide swath between the road and the river, within the protected river corridor. The potentially impacted segment is currently classified as Recreational. Although Prescription A treatments are not necessarily prohibited by the river’s Recreational status, the proposed treatments must avoid adversely impacting the river’s free flowing character and outstandingly remarkable salmon and steelhead fishery. Treatments should also avoid degrading scenic values and recreation 2 House Committee on Natural Resources Report 116-389, Northwest California Wilderness, Recreation, and Working Forests Act, pg. 29. 3 ibid, pg. 28. 6 opportunities along a segment of the river that hosts two campgrounds and two picnic areas. Hayfork Creek Wild and Scenic River Recommendation: The 1995 Shasta-Trinity National Forests plan guides the current Forest Service management of this area. The plan includes a Forest Service recommendation to protect 14 miles of Hayfork Creek as a Wild and Scenic River. The Hyampom Project proposes Prescription B treatments in the Hayfork Creek corridor. Although these activities are not necessarily prohibited by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, they must be conducted in a manner that protect the stream’s free flowing character and outstandingly remarkable anadromous fish and scenery values. South Fork Late-Successional Forest Reserve: Plantation treatments and a 600 foot-wide fuel break are also proposed within an area managed as a Late-Successional Forest Reserve (adjacent to the South Fork roadless area). The Reserve is to be managed to protect old growth forests and at-risk wildlife species that depend on old growth forests. The Hyampom Project environmental review must explain how the Hyampom Project treatments meet these objectives. Inventoried Roadless Areas: Adopted in 2000 by the Clinton Administration, the Forest Service’s Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR) prohibits road building and logging in inventoried roadless areas. RACR section 294.13 states that timber may not be cut, sold, or removed, unless the proposed maintain one or more roadless characteristics, including high quality water, plant and animal diversity, TES habitat, primitive and semi- primitive recreation opportunities, high scenic quality, traditional cultural properties and sacred sites, and other locally identified unique characteristics. The Hyampom Project proposes Prescription B plantation thinning and prescribed burning in portions of the Pattison and South Fork IRAs protected by the RACR. Prescription A treatments, including 600 foot-wide fuel breaks, may be located in or directly adjacent to portions of the Pattison and South Fork inventoried roadless areas (although it is difficult to ascertain definitely due to the scale of the project map). The Hyampom Project must avoid treatments in these areas unless they directly benefit roadless values per the RACR. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines: In addition to the Desired Future Condition (DFC) direction for fuels management noted in the Project Proposal, there are numerous other DFCs, goals, objectives, standards and guidelines in the 1994 Forest Plan that apply to the Hyampom Project. Forest Plan direction applicable to the Project includes (but is not limited to) the protection of late successional reserves; recommended Wild and Scenic Rivers; sensitive, threatened, and endangered wildlife species; fisheries improvements, riparian reserves; sensitive and endemic plants; management of unique habitats in caves and rock outcrops; wildlife corridors; chaparral management; semi-primitive motorized and non-motorized recreation areas; heritage resources; and visual quality 7 objectives. All these directives should be addressed in the Project’s environmental review. There is also specific management area direction provided in the Forest Plan. The Hyampom Project encompasses portions of Management Areas (MA) 17, 19, 20, and 21. For example, MA 17 direction includes suitable habitat surveys and protecting type localities for Niles’ madia and pale yellow stonecrop (sensitive and/or endemic plants). MA 17 direction also requires recognition of the potential for cumulative watershed effects on streams. This is vitally important as tributaries of Hayfork Creek flowing from the Pattison IRA, including Bear Creek within the Hyampom Project area, have been identified as critical sources of cold water and as cold water refuges for anadromous fish in Hayfork Creek.4 The Hyampom Project environmental review must document how the Project will comply with all applicable forest-wide and area-specific DFC’s, goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines. Environmental Review The Hyampom Project scoping documents fail to identify the level of environmental review that will be conducted to identify and mitigate the potential impacts of the project. Given potential adverse impacts on roadless areas, proposed wilderness and wild and scenic rivers, the existing South Fork Trinity Wild and Scenic River, and critical habitat for numerous rare, sensitive, threatened, and endangered animal and plant species (including a Late Successional Forest Reserve intended to protect such species), this project should be analyzed in a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or at least a robust Environmental Assessment (EA), not a legally deficient Categorical Exclusion (CE). At-Risk Species The Forest Service’s scoping documents for the Hyampom Project fail to mention how the various proposed treatments will avoid or mitigate adverse impacts on the area’s at-risk fish, wildlife, and plant species, and their habitat. Aquatic and terrestrial habitat in the project area supports a wide range of rare, sensitive, threatened, and endangered species, including the Northern spotted owl, Pacific fisher, American marten, willow fly-catcher, Northern red-legged frog, Western pond turtle, Coho salmon, spring-run chinook salmon, and summer and winter steelhead. Rare or endemic plants located or likely to be found in the project area include Nile’s madia, pale yellow stonecrop, Canyon Creek stonecrop, and California globe mallow. Proposed treatments could increase erosion and sedimentation into streams that support at-risk anadromous fish and amphibians, degrade old growth forest habitat required by the spotted owl and other old-growth dependent species, and harm or destroy habitat for rare plant populations. The environmental review for the Hyampom Project must fully assess potential impacts on at risk species and avoid or fully mitigated those impacts. 4 http://www.krisweb.com/biblio/sft_xxxx_higgins_1995_hayfork/hayfish.htm 8 Potential Fuelbreak & Trail 7E34 Although not included on the Hyampom Project map, we’ve heard speculation that prescribed fire treatments under Prescription B in the east end of the Pattison IRA would require a permanent fuelbreak on the drainage divide between Bear and Corral Creeks. If this is the case, why isn’t a Prescription A fuelbreak noted on the map for this area? This drainage divide is the route of the unmaintained Trail 7E34 that drops south from the Pattison Ridge past Ray’s Peak and Gate’s Mountain to Corral Creek. It should be noted that Trail 7E34 is the only trail that accesses the portion of the Pattison IRA managed under the Forest Plan for unroaded non- motorized recreation, with a visual quality objective of retention. The Hyampom Project must avoid adversely impacting the semi-primitive recreation and retention visual quality of this trail and perhaps consider re-establishing the trail for future recreation use. Plantations In The Pattison IRA Map 3 shows several plantations proposed for treatment in the proposed Pattison Wilderness. Due to Covid 19 restrictions, we have been unable to review this part of the proposal out in the field. However, field surveys we conducted prior to proposing a boundary for the proposed Pattison Wilderness did not find any plantations in this area and a review of Google Earth satellite photos fails to show any plantations. Unfortunately, we have been unable to field check this because of Covid-19 travel restrictions and forest closures associated with the August Complex Fire. The environmental review document should address whether post-fire tree planting in this area was conducted to re-vegetate the landscape or to establish timber stands for future commercial harvest. This area would be an ideal destination for a collaborative field trip, following social distancing guidelines, to discuss the status of plantations in this area. Summary • Potential Conflicts With Huffman/Harris Bill – The Hyampom Project should be adjusted to avoid establishing permanent fuel breaks requiring mechanical maintenance in the proposed wilderness areas or adjusted to less intensive treatments similar to the Caples Project. The Project should also ensure that the free-flowing character and outstandingly remarkable values of the proposed Hayfork Creek and Olsen Creek Wild and Scenic Rivers are protected. • Potential Conflicts With Existing Management Direction – The Hyampom Project environmental review should document how the Project will comply with all applicable forest-wide and area-specific DFC’s, goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines. • Environmental Review – The Hyampom Project should be analyzed in a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or at least a robust Environmental Assessment (EA), not a legally deficient Categorical Exclusion (CE). 9 • At-Risk Species – The environmental review for the Hyampom Project should fully assess potential impacts on at-risk fish, wildlife, and plant species and avoid or fully mitigated those impacts. • Potential Fuelbreak & Trail 7E34 – The Hyampom Project should avoid adversely impacting the semi-primitive recreation and retention visual quality of this trail and perhaps consider re-establishing the trail for future recreation use. In addition, the Forest Service should clarify if its seeking to establish a permanent fuel break 600 feet wide on the drainage divide between Bear Creek and Corral Creek in the proposed Pattison Wilderness. • South Fork Trinity Recreational River - The proposed roadside fuelbreak along the lower South Fork Road in the vicinity of Salmon Rock and Big Slide Campground, among others, could reduce canopy cover to only 30% in the South Fork Trinity Recreational River and impact the value of these recreational assets. The organizations represented in this letter wish to work with the Forest Service and the Hyampom Fire-Safe Council to develop and approve a project that all can support. A field trip subject to Covid 19 safe distancing protocols to survey key areas would be very useful. Please keep us informed of the progress of this important project. Sincerely, Steven Evans CalWild Rivers Director Email: sevans@calwild.org Phone: (916) 708-3155 Matthew S. Dietz, Ph.D., Lead Ecologist, Research Department, The Wilderness Society. Email: mattd@tws.or; Phone: (415) 398-1482. Pamela Flick, California Program Director, Defenders of Wildlife. Email: pflick@defenders.org; Phone: (916) 442-5746. Isabella Langone, Conservation Analyst, California Native Plant Society. Email: ilangone@cnps.org; Phone: (209) 327-5569. Victoria Brandon, Chapter Chair, Sierra Club Redwood Chapter. Email: vbrandon@95457@gmail.com; Phone: (707) 994-1931. 10 Larry Glass, President & Executive Director, Northcoast Environmental Center. Email: larryglass71@gmail.com; Phone: (707) 822-6918. Michael J. Painter, Coordinator, Californians for Western Wilderness. Email: mike@caluwild.org; Phone: (415) 752-3911. Larry Glass, President, Safe Alternatives for our Forest Environment (SAFE). Email: larryglass71@gmail.com; Phone: (707) 845-7136. Patricia Puterbaugh, Executive Director, Lassen Forest Preservation Group. Email: pmputerbaugh@yahoo.com; Phone (530) 345-1641. Darrel Jury, Executive Director, Friends of Plumas Wilderness. Email: djury@frc.edu; Phone: (53) 616-1461. Sandra Schubert, Executive Director, Tuleyome. Email: sschubert@tuleyome.org; Phone: (530) 350-2599. Sherry Pease, Executive Director, Foothill Conservancy. Email: sherry@foothillconservancy.org; Phone: (209) 223-3508. 11 Hyampom Project Treatments And Potential Conflicts With The Northwest California Wilderness, Recreation, And Working Forests Act (Huffman/Harris) | categorical exclusion, extraordinary circumstances, sensitive plants, sensitive wildlife, inventoried roadless area, EIS, fuel reduction | N/A | N/A | N/A | https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=46044 | 40.64 | -123.45 | |
| 2020_MitsubishiCement_DraftROD | Mitsubishi Cement Corporation South Quarry Project | 2020 | N/A | NEPA | EIS | ROD | Draft | Federal | The United States Forest Service | San Bernadino | Riverside-San Bernadino Chapter | State Office | Center for Biological Diversity | Mining | Approved | October 13, 2020 Randy Moore, Regional Forester USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region 1323 Club Drive, Vallejo CA 94592 Fax: (707) 562-9130 email to: objections-pacificsouthwest-regional-office@usda.gov Re: Objection to the Draft ROD and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Mitsubishi Cement Corporation South Quarry Project – August 2020 Dear Regional Forester Moore: The Center for Biological Diversity (“Center”) and the California Native Plant Society (“CNPS”), collectively the Objecting Parties, have reviewed the Final EIS and the draft Record of Decision (“draft ROD”) issued by USFS in September 2020. Pursuant to Forest Service regulations at 36 C.F.R. § 218 et seq., the Objecting Parties respectfully submit this timely objection for the reasons discussed below. STANDING TO FILE OBJECTION The Center for Biological Diversity is a non-profit conservation organization dedicated to the protection of native species and their habitats through science, policy, and environmental law. The Center has more than 1.7 members and supporters throughout the United States, including residents in southern California and members who visit and utilize the SBNF lands in and around the area of the proposed mining expansion. The Center has worked for many years to protect imperiled plants and wildlife (including the Carbonate Endemic plants and the Cushenbury herd of desert bighorn sheep), the habitat they depend on, open space, air and water quality. The Center participated extensively in the most recent planning process for the SBNF Land Management Plan (“LMP”) and supported the adoption of the Carbonate Habitat Management Strategy in the LMP as a path to protect the federally listed and endemic plant species. The California Native Plant Society (“CNPS”) is a non-profit environmental organization with 10,000 members in 35 Chapters across California and Baja California, MX. CNPS’ mission is to protect California's native plant heritage and preserve it for future generations through application of science, research, education, and conservation. CNPS works closely with decision- makers, scientists, and local planners to advocate for well-informed policies, regulations, and land management practices. CNPS was a participant in crafting the Carbonate Habitat Management Strategy (CHMS) that was finalized in 2003 and subsequently adopted by the SBNF in their LMP. October 13, 2020 Center & CNPS Mitsubishi South Quarry Pre-decisional Objection 2 The Center submitted scoping comments on the Mitsubishi South Quarry project on March 23, 2012. The CNPS submitted scoping comments on the Mitsubishi South Quarry project on April 6, 2012. The Center and CNPS submitted joint comments on the Draft EIS with references on February 13, 2017. Those comments and references are incorporated herein pursuant to 36 CFR §218.8(b)(4). Accordingly, the Objecting Parties have standing to bring this appeal pursuant to 36 CFR § 218.5. Objector Contact or “Lead Objector”: Lisa T. Belenky, Senior Attorney Center for Biological Diversity 1212 Broadway, Suite 800 Oakland, CA 94612 ofc (510) 844-7107 cell (415-385-5694 lbelenky@biologicaldiversity.org REQUEST FOR RESOLUTION MEETING Forest Service regulations provide that an objector may request to meet with the Responsible Official to discuss issues raised in this objection and potential resolution. Pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 218.11(a), the Objecting Parties respectfully request to meet with the Regional Forester to discuss and attempt to resolve these objection points. Please contact the Objector Contact listed above to coordinate the meeting. STATEMENT OF ISSUES AND OBJECTIONS We appreciate the U.S. Forest Service’s (“USFS”) consideration of previous comments from the Objecting Parties, on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Mitsubishi Cement Corporation South Quarry Plan of Operation EIS in the San Bernardino National Forest (“SBNF”) and for clarifying issues and including some of our requests in the Final EIS. While the Forest Service’s draft Record of Decision (“ROD”) has improved from the initial proposal, the draft ROD is still inadequate in several respects. All of these issues and objections made herein were raised in our previous comment letters, as detailed below. Issue #1: The proposed decision does not comply with the CHMS although the LMP requires implementation of the CHMS. Objection #1: Because the CHMS Furnace Unit has not been “activated,” the proposed decision cannot lawfully allow any mining impacts in the Furnace Unit. To activate the Furnace Unit, the CHMS requires Initial Furnace Transactions and conveyance of Stage 1 Priority Areas to the Habitat Reserve; because those actions have not been completed no loss of habitat for Carbonate Plants can be lawfully authorized in the Furnace Unit. In addition, the proposed direct October 13, 2020 Center & CNPS Mitsubishi South Quarry Pre-decisional Objection 3 mining impact to 16 acres in the Stage 1 Priority Area may undermine the ability of the CHMS to reach its goals. The Objecting Parties previously commented on this issue (Center’s Scoping comments March 2012 at page 4, CNPS’ scoping comments April 2012 at page 1, and Objecting Parties’ joint comments February 2017, pages 22-24). The CHMS requires (at pg. 12): Stage 1 Priority Areas. No loss of habitat for Carbonate Plants may occur under the CHMS within any Administrative Unit until most of the valuable Carbonate Plant habitat in the “Stage 1 Priority Areas” within such Unit (see Map 3 in Appendix I) has been added to the Habitat Reserve (see Section 9(b)(i)). Such habitat in the Stage 1 Priority Areas plus the portion of the Initial Habitat Reserve within each Unit provide a solid base of conservation within each Administrative Unit that must be part of the Reserve before any loss of Carbonate Plants can occur within that Unit under the CHMS.” [emphasis original] Neither the FEIS nor the draft ROD clarifies the amount of habitat that has been added to the Furnace Unit’s Stage 1 Priority Area to date, if any. Instead the FEIR and draft ROD use the CHMS’ mitigation ratio as the basis for consultation and the resulting the Section 7 Biological Opinion. However, without first activating the Furnace Unit, this results in far too little mitigation and protection for the species. The CHMS’ mitigation ratios are purposefully low because they are to be applied after activation of the unit, in this case, the Furnace Unit. Activation of any unit requires significant acres of land to already be conserved in the Stage 1 Priority Habitat Areas. In addition, the mitigation proposed here relies on a future mining withdrawal of habitat executed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) that would need to be regularly renewed during the life of the project. The Forest Service’s 2018 Final Carbonate Habitat Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment identifies that the purpose and need for this project to be: “The requested withdrawal is needed to offset species and habitat losses specifically associated with two currently proposed mine development projects on the SBNF, the Mitsubishi Cement Company South Quarry and the Omya Inc. Butterfield Quarry Expansion.” (FEA at 1-17) The most recent Schedule of Proposed Actions identifies the withdrawal project to be “on hold” because “Decision authority is with DOI”. As noted in our joint comments (at pg. 24), the BLM (to date) has failed to execute a required mining withdrawal for a federally listed rare plant and its federally designated critical habitat on BLM managed lands, as initially required by the 2006 West Mojave Plan and its Biological Opinion. In fact, BLM executed a segregation but failed to follow through with the actual withdrawal. The permanent impact to the carbonate plants and their critical habitat requires permanent conservation as mitigation. The reliance on an impermanent and a questionable mineral withdrawal process, based on BLM’s recent record associated with mining withdrawals for federally listed rare plant conservation, fails to adequately assure impacts are mitigated. October 13, 2020 Center & CNPS Mitsubishi South Quarry Pre-decisional Objection 4 Recommendations to Resolve Objection #1: - The Forest Service must ensure adequate mitigation land in fee and/or relinquishment of unpatented mining claims that includes the withdrawal from mineral location and entry under U.S. mining laws through an increased mitigation ratio of 10:1 in the Stage 1 Priority area to offset the lack of the Furnace Unit’s activation. This transaction must be completed prior to any disturbance and all the mitigation lands are located in the Furnace Unit where the disturbance is proposed to occur (not other CHMS Units). - The Forest Service must reject development in the 16 acres of Stage 1 Priority Area until the Furnace Unit is activated in order to support the CHMS’ mitigation strategy. Compliance with the SBNF LMP is required. See, e.g., 16 U.S.C § 1604(i); Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Lewis, 628 F.3d 1143, 1149 (9th Cir. 2010), amended, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1640 (9th Cir. 2011); Native Ecosystems Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 418 F.3d 953, 961 (9th Cir. 2005). The recommendations to resolve Objection #1 would require the Forest Service to comply with the Record of Decision for the San Bernardino National Forest, Forest Plan Record of Decision (2006) which states: “This Record of Decision includes my decision to implement the Carbonate Habitat Management Strategy. This strategy will be implemented where it applies on the San Bernardino National Forest and will provide for ongoing mining of carbonate rock, while also providing for the conservation and recovery of four threatened and endangered plant species that are associated with carbonate soils.” (LMP ROD at 10). Thus, compliance with the CHMS is required by the LMP and compliance with the CHMS is needed in addition to the Forest Service’s formal Section 7 ESA consultation. The San Bernardino National Forest Land Management Plan - Part 2 San Bernardino National Forest Strategy (LMP) states: “The emphasis will be consistent with the requirements of the Carbonate Habitat Management Strategy to sustain mineral production by providing refugia for resource protection (ME 1 - Minerals Management, and Lands 4 - Mineral Withdrawals). Staff expect to increase the carbonate plant habitat reserve by approximately 2,600 acres through land acquisition or exchange (Lands 1 - Land Ownership Adjustment), allowing for future mining in other areas” (LMP at 27-28.) The LMP mining section also recognizes the CHMS implementation as foundational stating: “The Minerals and Energy Program will emphasize processing and administration of exploration and development proposals and operations while providing adequate protection of surface resources, wildlife habitat, scenery and recreation settings (ME 1 - Minerals Management). Permits, leases, and Plans of Operation will require that adverse environmental effects are minimized, or mitigated, and that mined lands are reclaimed in a October 13, 2020 Center & CNPS Mitsubishi South Quarry Pre-decisional Objection 5 timely manner to regain surface production and use. Reasonable access for approved mineral operations will be allowed. The emphasis will be consistent with the requirements of the Carbonate Habitat Management Strategy to sustain mineral production by providing refugia for resource protection (ME 1 - Minerals Management, and Lands 4 - Mineral Withdrawals). Staff expect to increase the carbonate plant habitat reserve by approximately 2,600 acres through land acquisition or exchange (Lands 1 - Land Ownership Adjustment), allowing for future mining in other areas.” (LMP at 37.) In addition, the LMP states: “Carbonate habitats are protected from mining impacts in perpetuity within carbonate habitat reserves dedicated and managed as described in the Carbonate Habitat Management Strategy. The Carbonate Habitat Reserve is managed to allow public uses that are compatible with the conservation of the listed carbonate plants. Areas disturbed through past activity are restored.” (LMP at 56-57), and “Maintenance of habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and management of habitat linkages will be emphasized in all management activities. Management is expected to center on implementation of the Carbonate Habitat Management Strategy to continue mining while preserving and managing habitat for the four federally listed plants.” (LMP at 57.) In the Desert Rim Place, the LMP, states: “Carbonate and pebble plain habitat supporting federally listed plant species is present. A large area of critical habitat is designated for the recovery of carbonate endemic plants. An intensive collaborative effort led to the development of the Carbonate Habitat Management Strategy (CHMS) in 2003. The strategy is designed to provide long-term protection for the carbonate endemic plants and also provide for continued mining.” (LMP at 63), and “Carbonate habitats are protected from mining impacts in perpetuity within carbonate habitat reserves dedicated and managed as described in the Carbonate Habitat Management Strategy. The Carbonate Habitat Reserve is managed to allow public uses that are compatible with the conservation of the listed carbonate plants. Within the Carbonate Habitat Management Area, carbonate plants are likely to persist indefinitely by managing and maintaining geomorphic and ecological processes of the landscape in large, well- placed blocks of habitat. Destruction or modification of critical habitat is avoided. Listed October 13, 2020 Center & CNPS Mitsubishi South Quarry Pre-decisional Objection 6 species are recovered and delisted. Future listings are not needed. Areas disturbed through past activity are restored.” (LMP at 64) and later on that same page: “Management is expected to center on implementation of the Carbonate Habitat Management Strategy and to continue mining while preserving and managing habitat for the four federally listed plants.” The LMP’s Forest-specific Design Criteria also requires: SBNF S3 - In carbonate habitat, mine restoration prescriptions shall include the success criteria and provisions for effectiveness monitoring and reporting as described in the Carbonate Habitat Management Strategy (Big Bear Back Country and Desert Rim Places or other Places as needed). (LMP at 99.) The LMP describes the carbonate habitat and the desired condition for the Carbonate Habitat Reserve as: “Carbonate habitat is located on the northern and eastern flanks of the San Bernardino National Forest. The 48,670 acres of carbonate soils have developed from outcrops of limestone and dolomite bedrock. Like serpentine and gabbro soils, carbonate soils are low in nutrients and support an assortment of endemic plant species. Seventeen at risk species are found on this habitat. The principal threat to carbonate habitats has been mining for high-grade carbonate deposits. In fact, almost all of the habitat of the listed threatened and endangered carbonate endemic plants is under mining claim. Carbonate habitats are highly sensitive to ground disturbance and vegetation removal. Once disturbed, vegetation recovery is exceedingly slow. Although unauthorized off-road driving is posing an increasing threat to these disturbance-sensitive areas, mining remains the primary threat to this habitat. An intensive collaborative effort led to the development of the Carbonate Habitat Management Strategy (CHMS) in 2003. The strategy is designed to provide long-term protection for the carbonate endemic plants and also provide for continued mining. The desired condition is for the Carbonate Habitat Reserve (dedicated and managed as described in the Carbonate Habitat Management Strategy) to be protected in perpetuity from mining impacts. The Carbonate Habitat Reserve will be managed to allow public uses that are compatible with the conservation of the listed carbonate plants. Within the Carbonate Habitat Management Area, carbonate plants are likely to persist indefinitely by managing and maintaining geomorphic and ecological processes of the landscape in large, well-placed blocks of habitat. Destruction or modification of critical habitat is avoided. Listed species are recovered and delisted. Future listings are not needed. Areas disturbed through past activity are restored. October 13, 2020 Center & CNPS Mitsubishi South Quarry Pre-decisional Objection 7 Outcome Evaluation questions: Is carbonate habitat being conserved over the long-term through the implementation of the Carbonate Habitat Management Strategy (CHMS) actions?” (LMP at 101.) Under the draft ROD for this project coupled with other mining expansions in the area, the answer to the outcome evaluation question would be “no”, which also shows that the draft ROD is inconsistent with the LMP. In contrast, the recommendations to resolve Objection #1 would work towards compliance with the CHMS and the LMP. Issue #2: Proposed decision does not comply with the North Slope San Bernardino Mountains Bighorn Sheep Conservation Strategy (Appendix C) Objection #2: The FEIS and draft ROD fails to fully incorporate the Management Measures, Standard Design Measures and Protection Measures of the North Slope San Bernardino Mountains Bighorn Sheep Conservation Strategy. The Objecting Parties previously commented on the following issues. - A draft of North Slope Bighorn Sheep Conservation Strategy (NSBHSCS) was not available for public review as part of the DEIS and therefore we could not provide comments on it previously in this process. While the DEIS referenced a Bighorn Sheep Management Plan, at the time that the DEIS was available for public comment, the Management Plan was being written (DEIS comments at pg. 26). While we appreciate that a final NSBHSCS is provided in Appendix C, the draft should have been included for prior review in this NEPA process. Regarding the issues that the Objecting Parties did raise in relation to the State fully protected Cushenbury herd of desert bighorn sheep, some of our key concerns are not adequately addressed including: - The FEIS and/or draft ROD fail to adopt key Management Measures from the NSBHSCS regarding avoidance of impacts to lambing areas for the State fully protected Cushenbury herd of desert bighorn sheep. The DEIS identified that both action Alternatives, including the one that the draft ROD proposes to adopt, will impact bighorn lambing habitat. The DEIS stated: “Some of the area, particularly the rugged area at the north margin of the proposed South quarry is likely to provide lambing habitat; most of this area would become part of the South Quarry is likely to provide lambing habitat; most of this are would become part of the South Quarry with Alternative 1 – Proposed Action” (DEIR at 3.3-62). (DEIS Comments at page 25.) The alternative proposed to be adopted by the ROD decreases the amount of surface disturbance compared to Alternative 1, although it will still affect the lambing habitat, but October 13, 2020 Center & CNPS Mitsubishi South Quarry Pre-decisional Objection 8 potentially to a lesser degree than Alternative 1. Therefore, the FEIS/ROD needs to incorporate PM-2 from the NSBHSCS which states: “If lambing areas are identified in close proximity (e.g.<1 mile to the disturbance activity and there is a lack of intervening topography that may reduce risk to bighorn sheep, a Limited Operating Period (LOP) will be considered with a restriction on blasting (or other activities likely to cause injury or mortality) during the lambing season.” (NSBHSCS at pg. 16) - In order to address the Objecting Parties concerns about the declining Cushenbury bighorn sheep herd (DEIS comments at page 25), the FEIS/ROD also needs to adopt all of the NSBHSCS’ o Management Measures (at pgs. 13-14) o Standard Design Features (at pgs. 15-16), and o PM-1 at (at pg. 16) - Other concerns about the final NSBHSCS include lack adequate funding for all needed conservation actions. The final NSBHSCS provides information that was missing from the draft on funding in Appendix A of Appendix C. It relies on a non-wasting endowment of just $600,000 with management actions to be used solely for monitoring and translocation of bighorn every 8-9 years in order to try to keep the herd viable. While translocation may now be a necessary tool to maintain a viable herd, the NSBHSCS fails to fully address many of the primary causes of mortality and measures to minimize those threats which are critical to conservation. Among the needed additional conservation measures are the following: o Protecting in perpetuity remaining lambing areas, foraging habitat and connectivity from development. Because the Cushenbury herd of desert bighorn sheep use the carbonate plant habitat, fully implementing the CHMS will aid in providing some of the necessary conservation for the fully protected Cushenbury herd of desert bighorn sheep. o MCC must immediately start contributing to the non-wasting endowment, designated as the North Slope Bighorn Sheep Conservation Fund (Fund) while the mining mineral withdrawal is being processed. o A public education campaign about the threats domestic stock (sheep and goats) and feral and/or domestic dogs pose to bighorn and development and implementation an action plan to deal with those sources of mortality when they arise; o A public education campaign about the threats that balloon litter and other trash poses to this bighorn herd and annual systematic clean-up of balloon litter in the herd area; Recommendations to Resolve Objection #2 - Adopt the NSBHSCS in full as part of the project requirements; October 13, 2020 Center & CNPS Mitsubishi South Quarry Pre-decisional Objection 9 - Activate the Stage 1 Priority Areas for the Furnace Unit (which will also protect some existing foraging and lambing areas for the State Fully Protected Cushenbury herd of desert bighorn sheep in the SBNF); - Mitigate any mining impacts to Stage 1 Priority Areas of 10:1 at minimum in order to “jumpstart” Stage 1 Priority Area activation; - Increase the non-wasting fund in order to effect needed increased conservation of habitat for the bighorn including acquisition of and extinguishing of mining claims in bighorn habitat. In addition, we urge the Forest service to amend the BHSCS to include the following conservation actions: - Identify foraging areas for the Cushenbury herd outside of the mining and claimed areas and propose these areas for protection under a future LMP amendment; - Develop and implement a public education campaign about the threats domestic stock (sheep and goats), feral and/or domestic dogs, and balloon litter pose to bighorn; - Develop and implement an action plan to deal with domestic stock (sheep and goats) and feral and/or domestic dogs, which are documented causes of bighorn mortality, when they arise; - Assess the need for additional wildlife drinkers accessible to wildlife including bighorn particularly as the effects of climate change proceed; - Fund and implement annual systematic clean-up of balloon litter and other trash in the herd area; - Increase monitoring of bighorn by CDFW and USFS including additional GPS collars for monitoring the herd; - Develop and implement a monitoring plan to determine seasonal lambing areas and other important resource areas for the Cushenbury herd. Once identified, propose these areas for protection under a future LMP amendment to safeguard those areas from future development; and - Increase the non-wasting endowment to support the additional avoidance and recovery measures. CONCLUSION The draft ROD fails to require implementation of the Carbonate Habitat Management Strategy as adopted by the San Bernardino National Forest Land Management Plan Record of Decision as described above. The draft ROD also fails to require full implementation of the final North Slope Bighorn Sheep Conservation Strategy. The Strategy also fails to require conservation actions that are needed to protect habitat, foraging resources and connectivity for the critically imperiled and fully protected Cushenbury herd of desert bighorn sheep. October 13, 2020 Center & CNPS Mitsubishi South Quarry Pre-decisional Objection 10 The Objecting Parties look forward to working with the USFS through this objection process to resolve these objection points and craft a solution that benefits all parties involved, resulting in stronger protections for the imperiled Carbonate Endemic plants in the SBNF and the affected Bighorn Sheep herd. Sincerely, Lisa T. Belenky, Senior Attorney Center for Biological Diversity 1212 Broadway, Suite 800 Oakland, CA 94612 ofc (510) 844-7107 cell (415) 385-5694 lbelenky@biologicaldiversity.org Nick Jensen, PhD Southern California Conservation Analyst California Native Plant Society 2707 K Street, Suite One Sacramento, CA 95816 njensen@cnps.org (530) 368-7839 ec : Joanna Gibson, CDFW Joanna.Gibson@wildlife.ca.gov Jeff Villepique CDFW Jeff.Villepique@wildlife.ca.gov Scott Eliason, USFS, Scott.Eliason@usda.gov | habitat, CHMS, Carbonate Habitat Management Strategy, mitigation, rare plants, North Slope San Bernardino Mountains Bighorn Sheep Conservation Strategy, protected wildlife, wildlife | Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Lewis, 628 F.3d 1143, 1149 (9th Cir. 2010), amended, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1640 (9th Cir. 2011); Native Ecosystems Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 418 F.3d 953, 961 (9th Cir. 2005) | 16 USC §1604(i) | N/A | https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/80465_FSPLT3_5341794.pdf | 34.34 | -116.86 | |
| 2019_PanamintValley_EA | Panamint Valley Lithium Exploration Project | 2019 | N/A | NEPA | EA | N/A | Draft | Federal | Bureau of Land Management | Inyo | Birstlecone Chapter | State Office | Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of the Inyo, Western Watersheds Project, Californians for Western Wilderness, California Wilderness Coalition, Range of Light Group, Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, Conservation Lands Foundation, The Wilderness Society, Transition Habitat Conservancy | Mining | Approved | Randall Porter, Geologist Bureau of Land Management Ridgecrest Field Office 300 S. Richmond Road Ridgecrest, CA 93555 Sent via email to: rporter@blm.gov Re: Comments on Environmental Assessment for the Panamint Valley Lithium Exploration Project, Inyo County, California (Plan of Operations CACA-57756) Dear Mr. Porter; Thank you for the opportunity to review and submit comments on the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Panamint Valley Lithium Exploration Project, Inyo County, California. On behalf of our hundreds of thousands of members and supporters, the California Wilderness Coalition (CalWild), The California Native Plant Society (CNPS), Californians for Western Wilderness (CalUWild), Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Conservation Lands Foundation (CLF), Defenders of Wildlife (Defenders), Friends of The Inyo (FOI), the Sierra Club, Sierra Club Range of Light Group, Transition Habitat Conservancy (THC), Western Watersheds Project (WWP), and The Wilderness Society (TWS) submit these comments in response to the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) request for public input on the Panamint Valley Lithium Exploration Project Environmental Assessment (EA). Our organization’s members and supporters include residents of Inyo County and active participants in the abundant recreational opportunities in the area that may be directly and indirectly impacted by the proposed Panamint Valley Lithium Exploration Project. CalWild is a nonprofit public benefit corporation organized under the laws of the State of California in 1976 and composed of conservation organizations, businesses, and individual members. Through advocacy and public education, CalWild builds support for the protection of California’s wildest remaining places, primarily those managed by the federal government. The California Native Plant Society (“CNPS”) is a non-profit environmental organization with more than 10,000 members in 35 Chapters across California and Baja California, Mexico. CNPS’s mission is to protect California’s native plant heritage and preserve it for future generations through the application of science, research, education, and conservation. CNPS works closely with decision-makers, scientists, and local planners to advocate for well-informed policies, regulations, and land management practices, and participated as a stakeholder on the DRECP throughout its development. Californians for Western Wilderness (CalUWild) is a citizens organization based in San Francisco, California, dedicated to encouraging and facilitating participation in legislative and administrative actions affecting wilderness and other public lands in the West. Our members use and enjoy the public lands in California and all over the West. The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 1.4 million members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places. The Center has actively advocated for the protection of public lands the CDCA for more than 20 years The mission of the Conservation Lands Foundation (CLF) is to protect, restore, and expand the National Conservation Lands through education, advocacy and partnerships. We are the only nonprofit dedicated solely to safeguarding National Conservation Lands and supporting the more than 60 community-based organizations across the West who are leading the on-the-ground stewardship, education, and advocacy efforts for these protected public lands. Defenders is a national conservation organization with over 1.8 million members and supporters, including 279,000 in California. We are dedicated to protecting all wild animals and plants in their natural communities. To this end, we employ science, public education and participation, media, legislative advocacy, litigation, and proactive on-the-ground solutions to impede the accelerating rate of extinction of species, associated loss of biological diversity, and habitat alteration and destruction. FOI is a grassroots nonprofit conservation organization based in Bishop, California, dedicated to the stewardship, exploration and preservation of the Eastern Sierra’s public lands and wildlife. Over our 30-year history, FOI has become an active partner with federal land management agencies including the BLM. The Sierra Club was founded by legendary conservationist John Muir in 1892 and is now the nation’s largest grassroots environmental organization – with more than two million members and supporters including nearly 450 in the Eastern Sierra. In Inyo and Mono Counties, CA the Sierra Club Range of Light Group is a member of the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club and offers outings and advocates for public lands and environmental protection on a wide range of issues with 400 members across both Counties. Transition Habitat Conservancy is a land trust whose mission is focused on habitat protection in the West Mojave, but we also support our conservation partners throughout the California Desert. For background connection, we spearheaded a comprehensive hydrology survey effort to visit and map all spring sites within BLM California Desert District- including the springs that will be affected by this project in the Panamint Valley. Western Watersheds Project(WWP) is a conservation nonprofit with more than 9,500 members and followers, that works to protect and conserve the public lands, wilderness, wildlife, and natural resources of the American West through education, scientific study, public policy initiatives, and litigation. The Wilderness Society (TWS) is a national non-profit organization with over one million members and supporters nationwide whose mission is to protect wilderness and inspire Americans to care for our wild places. Since it’s founding in 1935, TWS has worked to provide scientific, legal, and policy guidance to land managers, communities, local groups, state and federal decision-makers, and diverse interests who care about our American public lands. Our organizations offer the following comments in regards to the Panamint Valley Exploration Project EA. As written in the Panamint Valley Lithium Exploration Project EA, “the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 states that it is the policy of the United States to manage the public lands for multiple-use and sustained yield while providing for resource protection in a manner that also recognizes the nation’s need for domestic sources of minerals, provides rights of ingress and egress to locators under the Mining Law of 1872, and mandates the Secretary of the Interior to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of public lands.” BLM’s multiple-use mandate prohibits the agency from managing public lands primarily for resource development or in a manner that unduly or unnecessarily degrades other uses. See, 43 U.S.C. § 1732(a). The multiple-use mandate directs BLM to achieve “a combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into account the long-term needs of future generations.” 43 U.S.C. § 1702(c). Further, as co-equal, principal uses of public lands, outdoor recreation, fish and wildlife conservation must receive the same consideration as resource development, including grazing, logging, hard rock mining and rights-of-way. 43 U.S.C. § 1702(l). In recognition of the environmental components of the multiple-use mandate, courts have repeatedly held that permitting industrial uses and development of public lands is not required, but must instead be weighed against other possible uses, including conservation. See, New Mexico ex rel. Richardson, 565 F.3d at 710 (“BLM’s obligation to manage for multiple-use does not mean that development must be allowed. . . Development is a possible use, which BLM must weigh against other possible uses — including conservation to protect environmental values, which are best assessed through the NEPA process.”); Rocky Mtn. Oil & Gas Ass’n v. Watt, 696 F.2d 734, 738 n.4 (10th Cir. 1982) (“BLM need not permit all resource uses on a given parcel of land.”). Thus, any action by BLM that seeks to establish resource development as the dominant use of public lands would violate FLPMA. Our organizations would like to emphasize that FLPMA’s multiple-use mandate does not permit the prioritization of mineral development over other uses of public lands. The other resources and uses of the project site must be given full and equal consideration in the BLM’s decision making for the Panamint Valley Lithium Exploration Project particularly in light of the fact these lands are designated for conservation through the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) as National Conservation Lands and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. Project background: In November 2017, Battery Mineral Resources California, Inc. submitted a plan of operations to explore for lithium on four unpatented, undiscovered placer mining claims located on BLM National Conservation Lands within Panamint Valley. The proposed exploration entails drilling four 3-inch diameter wells to 2,000 feet deep on or immediately adjacent to the Panamint Dry Lake playa. Water for the drilling operations would be obtained from an outside source and trucked to each site. Drilling fluids would be contained in an excavated sump at each site measuring 10-feet wide, 5-feet deep and 20-feet long. After brine samples for lithium are obtained and the drilling fluids naturally dry, the sumps would be backfilled and recontoured to approximate conditions and contours that existed prior to the operations. Regulatory framework: The primary regulatory framework governing locatable mineral exploration and development on public lands includes the Surface Management Regulations (43 CFR 3809) and the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan, as amended. The most recent applicable amendments to the CDCA Plan are from the 2016 DRECP. The Bureau of Land Management’s primary responsibility in regulating locatable mineral exploration and development is the prevention of Unnecessary or Undue Degradation of public lands and their 1 resources. 43 CFR 3809.420 (a)(3) establishes performance standards for conducting locatable mineral exploration and development, and specifically requires that such activities must comply with the applicable BLM land-use plans and activity plans (i.e., the CDCA Plan, as amended by the DRECP). Our comments on the EA for the Panamint Valley Lithium Exploration Project are as follows: 1 In this context, “unnecessary and undue degradation” means “[s]urface disturbance greater than what would normally result when an activity is being accomplished by a prudent operator in usual, customary, and proficient operations of similar character and taking into consideration the effects of operations on other resources and land uses, including those resources and uses outside the area of operations. 1. The Project Description in the EA is Inaccurate. The description of the proposed action fails to include several important facts: State Lands and Mineral Prospecting Permits The EA also fails to describe the State Lands that are within the project footprint of the proposed mining area. EA at 25, Figure 3-1. Mineral prospecting permits were issued by the State Lands Commission for these 2 sites: Parcel 1: Sec. 16, T22S, R44E; Permit , term began January 1, 2017, expired on 12/31/18 Parcel 2: Sec. 16, T23S, R44E: Permit # PRC 9390.2, term began May 1, 2017, will expire 4/30/19 The BLM EA should have also disclosed that the lease on one permit is expired and the other will expire on April 30, 2019. The County of Inyo issued a notice in mid-April regarding a 2 proposal for exploratory drilling on the State land parcel just south of Ballarat, # PRC 9385.2, along with an environmental review document pursuant to CEQA, a Mitigated Negative Declaration. This state CEQA environmental review process should be coordinated with the 3 BLM’s EA process as these are two parts of the same project and the cumulative impacts must be fully addressed. . 2. Inadequate Baseline Environmental Information BLM failed to collect and analyze baseline information necessary to meet its requirements under NEPA, including on the presence/absence of special status plants and animals, groundwater resources, and other imperiled resources. NEPA requires that an agency must establish baseline conditions to facilitate an accurate evaluation of the intensity of impacts from agency decision. See Am. Rivers v. FERC, 201 F.3d 1186, 1195 n.15 (9th Cir. 2000) (environmental baseline is “a practical requirement in environmental analysis employed to identify the environmental consequences of a proposed agency action”); Half Moon Bay Fishermans’ Mktg. Ass’n v. Carlucci, 857 F.2d 505, 510 (9th Cir. 1988) (discussing importance of baseline conditions). Without establishing the baseline conditions which exist in the vicinity before the project begins, “there is simply no way to determine what effect the proposed [project] will have on the environment and, consequently, no way to comply with NEPA. Half Moon Bay, 857 F.2d at 510. BLM’s EA fails to adhere to this NEPA requirement of providing an adequate baseline analysis. A. Special Status Plants In its EA and Biological Assessment, BLM relies on two sources of information in establishing the baseline for special-status species of plants and animals potentially occurring in the area of 2 While the applicant has applied for extensions, any extension is discretionary and may or may not be approved by the State Lands Commission at a future meeting. 3 Available at http://www.inyoplanning.org/projects.htm the proposed activities: a database search and a single field visit by a private contractor. For the reasons discussed below, each of these sources fails for separate reasons. First, BLM cannot reasonably rely on a database search for the presence/absence of special status species to meet its NEPA obligation. While using databases of rare plant locations, such 4 as the Californian Natural Diversity Database, are helpful in determining the species that might occur on a project site this is not a suitable substitute for detailed on the ground surveys. From a botanical perspective, the California desert remains among the least well-documented areas in the state. This is exemplified by the large number of new species that have been described from and the multitude of rare plants that have been added to the CNPS Rare Plant Inventory from this region over the past decade . This underscores the fact that we still have much to 5 learn from desert habitats, and that appropriately-timed, full-floristic surveys are necessary to document and disclose project-level impacts. Moreover, BLM also errs in relying on a one-time survey to establish the environmental baseline. Indeed, BLM even acknowledges that this survey has limited value in establishing the baseline because it was taken too late in the season to identify the presence/absence of native vegetation. Pg.18, Sec 2.1.5 of the EA sites: “The baseline biological survey of the area included surveying for special status plants, however, as stated in the Biological Report, it was not conducted during the appropriate survey season for annual species, therefore a second survey will be completed prior to construction. The surveys for special status plants should be implemented in the spring when conditions are suitable for target species to be present and in bloom.” BLM cannot rely on these two data sets to establish the environmental baseline. Instead, to meet its NEPA obligations, BLM must conduct additional surveys of the affected project area this spring and summer for special status species of annual plants and to submit a written report of the findings before BLM completes the environmental assessment for the proposed activities. This additional survey must occur through the period of peak bloom, and into the summer season, due to the relatively abundant precipitation that has occurred over much of the Mojave Desert during the winter and early spring of 2019 and the relevant flowering periods, outlined below. Suitable habitat for eight special status species (CRPR 1B or 2B) is present on the project site. Five annual taxa, Clokey’s cryptantha (Cryptantha clokeyi), Death Valley round-leaved phacelia (Phacelia mustelina), creamy blazing star (Mentzelia tridentata), Latimer’s woodland gilia (Saltugilia latimeri), and Hoffman’s buckwheat (Eriogonum hoffmanii var. hoffmanii) have the potential to occur on the site. The flowering period for these taxa as reported in the CNPS Rare Plant Inventory is provided in the table below: 6 4 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Rarefind 5 and the California Native Plant Society’s Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS v8-02). 5 [1] https://www.cnps.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/changes_since_6th_ed.pdf 6 http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/ Scientific Name Rank Flowering Period Cryptantha clokeyi 1B.2 April Phacelia mustelina 1B.3 May-July Mentzelia tridentata 1B.3 March-May Saltugilia latimeri 1B.2 March-June Eriogonum hoffmanii var. hoffmanii 1B.3 July-September Only Eriogonum hoffmanii var. hoffmanii would have possibly been detectable during botanical surveys. Appendix C, the Biological Assessment, notes that a “follow up spring survey would be required to determine the presence or absence of the five annual species under suitable seasonal conditions.” We agree fully with this recommendation. The detectability of rare species should be confirmed with visits to reference sites for all taxa for which there is suitable habitat on the project site. Visits to reference sites are necessary to ensure that rare taxa would be detectable on a project site if they are present. This practice is especially important for annual plants in desert habitats that may not be detectable unless the proper conditions for seed germination occur. Sites DDH-1 and RC-5 occur within 1 mile of known locations of desert winged cress (Sibara deserti) desert winged cress and Cooper’s rush (Juncus cooperi), both of which are on CRPR 4.3. While Juncus cooperi is a perennial species Sibara deserti is an annual that flowers in March and April, and could have been missed in surveys. We recommend that additional surveys be conducted to document all rare plant taxa, including those that are on CRPR 3 and 4. Moreover, BLM’s failure to collect adequate information prior to approving the plan of operations also runs afoul of the requirements in the DRECP. Under the DRECP, BLM is required to “[c]onduct properly timed protocol surveys in accordance with the BLM’s most current (at time of activity) survey protocols for plant Focus and BLM Special Status Species. DRECP, LUPA-BIO-PLANT-1. Yet, BLM has failed to adhere to this requirement. B. Special Status Wildlife – Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius nivosus nivosus) The inland breeding population of Western snowy plover is considered a Bird Species of Special Concern by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Inland breeding populations of snowy plovers are potentially present in Panamint Valley at Warm Sulphur Springs and Post Office Springs (Laura Cunningham, personal observations). Snowy plovers have been observed at Warm Sulphur Springs by L. Cunningham. The Ridgecrest Field Office of Bureau of Land Management has undertaken breeding snowy plover surveys at these springs in Panamint valley to survey for snowy plovers. This data should be made available and analyzed in the EA. Snowy plovers breed at Mono Lake, Mono County, and at Owens Lake and Deep Springs Lake, Inyo County. Small numbers nest at Bridgeport Reservoir, Long Valley (Crowley Lake, Little Alkali Lake), and Adobe Valley, Mono County, and at Salt Lake (Saline Valley), and Tinemaha Reservoir, Inyo County. Other breeding sites where plovers have been recorded are Tecopa Marsh, Inyo County; Koehn Lake, Kern County; Rosamond Lake, Kern, and Los Angeles counties; China Lake, Kern and San Bernardino counties; and Searles and Harper lakes, San Bernardino County. More information is needed from Panamint Valley. Snowy plovers nest from March to September. Nests typically occur in flat, open areas with sandy or saline substrates. Nesting sites typically occur on barren to sparsely vegetated flats and along shores of alkaline and saline lakes. Plovers can nest and raise broods even where just a small seep is the only source of water. Adults and broods typically forage near shallow water (1–2 cm deep)—sometimes up to 4 km from their nests—and on dry flats. Nest distance to water ranges from 1 m to 3 km. On alkali flats, plovers usually nest in areas of moderate relief and often cluster near wet or dry channels or depressions sculpted by runoff flowing onto, or pooling on, the playa.7 Loss of nesting habitat and destruction of playa wetlands are a leading cause of snowy plover inland breeding population declines. Human disturbance and vehicle use may cause nest abandonment. Habitat management and changes in water levels, particularly if human-induced, pose the greatest threat to inland-nesting Snowy plovers. Interior alkaline and saline lakes are subject to a high degree of natural seasonal and annual water level and salinity fluctuations, and local plover populations must disperse when conditions are no longer favorable. Groundwater pumping for Lithium exploration and future mining could reduce water flowing to terminal playa lakes and springs, potentially causing Warm Sulphur Spring and Post Office Spring to dry up earlier in the season, or more often on an annual basis than they might if no water diversions occur, or dry up completely. Breeding areas must receive adequate high-quality water and groundwater pumping must not eliminate or degrade nesting habitats. Water impoundments that concentrate brines containing Lithium salts, such as at the commercial Lithium extraction operations such in Clayton Valley in Nevada, do not provide high-quality plover habitat. Brines are too concentrated and could be toxic to waterbirds. This should be analyzed in the EA. C. Vegetation Mapping 7 https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=10398 While Appendix C includes information on the habitat at each of the proposed drilling sites no vegetation map is provided. It is accordingly impossible to determine if rare vegetation types as defined by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife occur on the site. We recommend that an Alliance Level vegetation map, following the National Vegetation Classification Standards (NVCS), be completed for the project site as per DRECP LUPA-BIO-1. This is necessary to ensure that rare vegetation types will not be impacted by the project and that DRECP CMAs for special vegetation features can, if applicable, be implemented appropriately. D. Dune Vegetation If drill sites are relocated within different claim sites other than the ones specified in the EA, a supplemental EA will be required. This is particularly important because of the presence of vegetated dunes within the claim location. These islands of wildlife are host to a variety of species: birds, coyotes, rabbits, bobcats, etc. who find shelter and shade in the dense foliage of the vegetated dunes. During a field visit on April 6, 2019 there were numerous tracks in and out of these vegetated dunes as well as scat and dens that show abundant activity. Birds use the vegetated dunes as well. The noise, lights, and human bustle of drilling should be a safe distance away. E. Wetland Habitats No wetland delineation was completed for the project. Sites DDH-1 and RC-5 contain vegetation stands characterized as Suaeda nigra Shrubland Alliance. Suaeda nigra (formerly Sueda moquinii) is a groundwater dependent and alkali tolerant plant, and is listed as an obligate wetland species in the National Wetland Plant List: 2014 Update of Wetland Ratings . 8 This important and sensitive plant community requires a proper habitat assessment in the form of a vegetation map according to the National Vegetation Classification Standards be completed for the project area, as per DRECP CMA LUPA-BIO-1. Until BLM completes additional surveys and otherwise collects valid data establishing the environmental baseline for these resources, it is improper for BLM to approve the Plan of Operations as submitted. Moreover, BLM’s assertion that further monitoring will be completed prior to exploration is insufficient to cure this defect. BLM’s assurances that the operator will undertake future studies – while admitting that it has not done so in the past – does not meet NEPA’s requirements that federal agencies must undertake “coherent and comprehensive up-front environmental analysis to ensure informed decision making.” See Center for Biological Diversity v. USFS, 349 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2003) (NEPA “prohibits uninformed – rather than unwise – agency action”), citing Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 351 (1989). Thus, as a matter of law, BLM may not rely upon future data collection and studies to skirt its NEPA obligations to make informed decisions. 8 http://www.phytoneuron.net/2014Phytoneuron/41PhytoN-2014NWPLupdate.pdf F. Noise Impacts Are Not Analyzed Noise is not included in the list of resources in Appendix A, the Interdisciplinary Team Analysis Record Checklist. The EA is silent on the subject of noise impacts. Drill rigs can be loud and noisy, for long periods of time, potentially day or night. If noise impacts were not analyzed there should be a valid justification for this provided in the EA. G. Greenhouse Gas Impacts Are Not Analyzed Appendix A, the Interdisciplinary Team Analysis Record Checklist rates GHG Determination as NI. The NI option chosen is unsupported – there is no GHG analysis concluding detailed analysis is not required. The Rationale for Determination talks of requirements for greenhouse gas reporting, not generation. Without analysis of the project’s pollutants, the project’s pollutants are compared to BLM and California requirements. The cited website (https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting) leads to an EPA page discussing GHG reporting, not GHG analysis The EA must include an analysis. Drilling deep holes is energy intensive. GHG emission analysis must be analyzed from not only the drilling but from the transport of supplies, moving equipment and to and from the site, commuting, and all other sources. 3. BLM Failed to Demonstrate Compliance with CMAs. The project must comply with the conditions of the DRECP Land Use Plan Amendment, including relevant Conservation Management Actions (CMAs). The Environmental Assessment (EA) notes (at page 12) that a number of Conservation and Management Actions (CMAs) govern the exploration project, but the EA unfortunately supplies no analysis and little discussion of how those CMAs have been applied by the agency in reaching the EA conclusions. BLM must provide additional details beyond terse conclusory statements on how compliance with the CMAs was determined. Moreover, the EA list of applicable CMAs omits several critical additional CMAs that clearly apply. Both the listed and omitted CMAs will require additional work by the BLM and/or the project applicant before the EA decision record can be issued and project can receive its authorization to proceed. The following CMAs are applicable to this project: Biological Resources LUPA-BIO-PLANT-1: Conduct properly timed protocol surveys in accordance with the BLM’s most current (at time of activity) survey protocols for plant Focus and BLM Special Status Species. LUPA-BIO-PLANT-2: Implement an avoidance setback of 0.25 mile for all Focus and BLM Special Status Species occurrences. Setbacks will be placed strategically adjacent to occurrences to protect ecological processes necessary to support the plant Species (see Appendix Q, Baseline Biology Report, in the Proposed LUPA and Final EIS [2015], or the most recent data and modeling). Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Proposed exploratory drilling activities are located within two Wilderness Inventory Units: CDCA 140 (Panamint Lake) and CDCA 142-1(Slate Range and Southern Panamint Valley). BLM has determined both units to have Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (LWC). More specifically: 1. CDCA 140: There is one proposed exploration project within CDCA 140, which is also the Citizen LWC unit named Wildrose Wash. As acknowledged by BLM, this unit contains “outstanding opportunities for solitude and for primitive and unconfined recreation... within the wetland areas and mesquite bosques in the northeast corner of the unit. Supplemental values include a relatively large expanse of open water and fresh and saltwater marshes emanating from Warm Sulphur Spring and several reported prehistoric sites in the area.” EA at 33. This units is also: a. Composed of federal public land; b. Near four other large roadless areas; c. Primarily affected by the forces of nature; d. Possesses supplemental values, including recreational, scientific, cultural and wildlife values. 2. CDCA 142-1: There are three proposed exploration sites within CDCA 142-1. As stated by the BLM, this unit “provides many outstanding opportunities for solitude and for primitive and unconfined recreation for visitors traveling cross-country on foot or by horse. The unit has many unique supplemental values. It contains an important wildlife corridor, enabling Nelson’s desert bighorn sheep and other upland species, to move without disruption or interference across Panamint Valley between mountainous areas on NAWS lands, in the Slates, Panamints and Argus Ranges.” EA at 32. This project and any future mineral development in these areas will have impacts to all of these characteristics. Although the CDCA Plan, as amended, does not require BLM to manage these lands to retain wilderness characteristics, the following additional CMA, which BLM failed to include in the EA does apply: LUPA-WC-3: For inventoried lands found to have wilderness characteristics but not managed for those characteristics, compensatory mitigation is required if wilderness characteristics are directly impacted. The compensation will be: o 2:1 ratio for impacts from any activities that impact those wilderness characteristics, except in DFAs and transmission corridors. Allowable compensatory mitigation includes restoration of impaired wilderness characteristics in Wilderness, Wilderness Study Areas, and lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics, which is a substitute for acquisition of private land within these areas. BLM must consider all of the valuable wilderness characteristics in the project area and the impacts that exploration and potential mining would have on those characteristics. BLM must also apply the CMA (LUPA-WC-3) for impacts to wilderness characteristics as set out in the DRECP. Groundwater and Surface Water CMAs Including Omitted Provisions The following are some of the CMAs that apply to the exploratory project for lithium mining. If the exploration leads to a commercial venture, many more ground and surface water CMAs would apply. LUPA-SW-6 Requires standard industry construction practices to prevent toxic substances from leaching into the soil. The EA includes this stipulation, but does not discuss or include specific requirements, such as lining waste disposal pits to avoid leaching into groundwater, nor does it discuss the substances that will be potentially released by the exploratory drilling project. The project EA seems to assume that drilling and formation fluids will be allowed to percolate into soils from the sumps. Given a lack of toxicity data for the sump contents, fluids and cuttings should be placed into portable tanks and disposed offsite or impermeable liners should be required to be installed in the sumps. LUPA-SW-10 (omitted) Requires the mapping of specific sensitive soil types, including hydric soils and biologically intact soil crusts, which are likely present on the proposed project site, and should be avoided. There is no mapping of soil types included in the EA. LUPA-SW-16 Requires mapping of floodplain boundaries of surface water features “in the vicinity of the project,” and avoidance of construction or alteration of floodplains unless all other required permits from other agencies are obtained. The EA concludes that no further analysis is required if the exploratory project complies with SW-16; however, there is no evidence that it has met the SW-16 requirements. The EA does not include mapping of floodplain boundaries, nor any hydrologic modeling or analysis, either of which is required. The EA acknowledges that DDH-1, RC-2, and RC-5 are sited in locations designated as Special Flood Hazard Area Subject to Inundation by the 1% Annual Chance Flood (Without Base Flood Floodplains NI Elevation, Zone A) and thus the project must seek California state permits for alteration of intermittent flows associated with these units. Mining CMAs Because the exploratory drilling sites lie both within areas designated as National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) lands and Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), the EA needed but failed to reference or analyze two requisite CMAs. Specifically, for High Potential Mineral Areas, which includes the Panamint Valley , CMA-NLCS-MIN-1 and CMA- ACEC-MIN-1 9 both state: “In California Desert National Conservation Lands and ACECs, determine if reasonable alternatives exist outside of the California Desert National Conservation Lands and ACECs prior to proposing mineral resource development within one of these areas.” The EA fails to identify if this CMA was taken into consideration. The EA is mute on analysis of it. It is unclear if other areas outside of the CDNCL and ACEC designated lands may have similar resources and where development could be a reasonable alternative. Furthermore CMA-NLCS-MIN-1 requires a rigorous environmental review as follows: In California Desert National Conservation Lands, subject to valid existing rights, if mineral resource development is proposed on a parcel of public land administered by the BLM for conservation purposes and designated as part of the NLCS within the CDCA, pursuant to Omnibus Public Land Management Act Section 2002(b)(2)(D): ● Identify, analyze, and consider the resources and values for which that parcel of public land is administered for conservation purposes. ● Determine whether the development of mineral resources is compatible with the BLM’s administration of that parcel of public land for conservation purposes. If development is incompatible, the mineral resource would not be developed, subject to valid existing rights. ● Approve any operation for which valid existing rights have been determined, subject to the applicable CMAs in the DRECP LUPA, including LUPA-MIN-1 through 6. 9 DRECP Proposed LUPA and Final EIS at pg. III.15-12 However, the proposed reclamation for the exploratory drilling (EA at pg. 16) fails to result in a net benefit for CDNCL values. First, as explained above, without appropriate survey data there is no way to assess the likely impacts to plants and soils and therefore no way to ensure a net benefit. Second, while the reclamation provided tries to temporarily safeguard against wildlife impacts from the sumps, it ultimately degrades the exploratory drilling areas, as shown in Figure 2-1 Sample Reclaimed Exploration Site (EA pg. 17). In fact, this type of reclamation may also encourage illegal off-road vehicle trespass which is already a significant problem in the Panamint Valley (see Figures 1 and 2 below). Thus the sump reclamation certainly provides no net benefit to the CDNCL lands in the Panamint Valley. Third, there is no discussion of the risks of cross contamination from the deep brines to the freshwater aquifer and the drill site reclamation practices to not appear to have taken this risk into account. The following CMAs LUPA-BIO-1, LUPA-BIO-2, LUPA-WC-3, LUPA-SW-6, SW-10, SW-16, SW-35, NLCS-MIN-1 and ACEC-MIN-1 as referenced above in Section 3 (pg.10-12) either restrict or require considerable review by the BLM before the exploratory drilling project can move forward. If an industrial scale lithium mine were to come to fruition, an additional review of these CMAs is required. 4. Failure to Adequately Consider Cumulative Impacts NEPA requires agencies to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). If there is a substantial question that a proposed action may be “significant,” then the agency is required to perform an EIS. Anderson v. Evans, 371 F.3d 475, 488 (9th Cir. 2004) (“plaintiffs need not demonstrate that significant effects will occur. A showing that there are substantial questions whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment is sufficient”). “Plaintiffs must show only the potential for cumulative impact” to require an EIS. Te-Moak Tribe v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 608 F.3d 592, 605 (9th Cir. 2010). To determine whether an EIS is necessary, an agency must consider ten “intensity” factors – including potentially significant cumulative impacts. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b). “A cumulatively significant impact is an impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.” Western Watersheds Project v. Bennett, 392 F.Supp.2d 1217, 1223 (D. Id. 2005) (internal quotations and ellipses omitted), quoting Kern v. BLM, 284 F.3d 1062, 1075 (9th Cir. 2002). See also 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7. In considering cumulative impacts, this Court has noted that an agency must provide “some quantified or detailed information” because “[g]eneral statements about possible effects and some risk do not constitute a hard look absent a justification regarding why more definitive information could not be provided.” Bennett, 392 F.Supp.2d at 1223, citing Ocean Advocates v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 402 F.3d 846, 868 (9th Cir. 2005). See also Western Watersheds Project v. Rosenkrance, Case No. 09-CV-298-EJL, 2011 WL 39651 at *11-13 (D. Idaho January 5, 2011) (reversing cumulative impact analysis as arbitrary and capricious). This cumulative analysis “must be more than perfunctory; it must provide a useful analysis of the cumulative impacts of past, present, and future projects.” Bennett, 392 F.Supp.2d at 1223. A. Existing Ground Disturbance According to the CDCA Plan, as amended by the DRECP, “Ground disturbance will be calculated on BLM managed land at the time of an individual proposal, by BLM for a BLM initiated action or by a third party for an activity needing BLM approval or authorization, for analysis in the activity-specific National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document.” Ground disturbance includes, but is not limited to, all routes, trails, etc., authorized and unauthorized; and from wildfire, animals, or other disturbances that can be seen at a 1:10,000 scale using the best available aerial imagery. BLM should include in its inventory of existing disturbance in the ACEC and NCL lands all authorized and unauthorized off-road vehicle tracks. This is particularly important given the existence of extensive unauthorized vehicle tracks on the Panamint Playa and other adjacent areas. Below are two examples: Figure 1 Figure 2 BLM should include in its inventory of existing disturbance in the ACEC and NCL lands all areas impacted by burros. BLM’s amendments to the CDCA Plan in 1982 established a management goal of zero burros throughout Panamint Valley, Panamint Mountains and Argus Mountains. As an example, below is an image of burro disturbance at the Warm Sulfur Spring ACEC. Figure 3 5. BLM Failed to Consider an Adequate Range of Alternatives Under NEPA, all federal agencies must consider a reasonable range of alternative actions. See 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(c)(iii); 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14; Bob Marshall Alliance v. Hodel, 852 F.2d 1223 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1066 (1988). This requirement applies to EAs as well as EISs. See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9(b). Alternatives are indeed the “heart” of the NEPA analysis. See 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14. The range of alternatives should "sharply [define] the issues and [provide] a clear basis for choice among options by the decisionmaker and the public." Id. Under NEPA, alternatives analysis must: (a) Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated. . . . 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14 (a) and (c). See California v. Block, 690 F.2d 753, 765-69 (9th Cir. 1982) (reversing EIS for failure to address reasonable range of alternatives). A “viable but unexamined alternative renders [the environmental analysis] inadequate.” Muckleshoot, 177 F.3d at 814, quoting Citizens for a Better Henderson v. Hodel, 768 F.2d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1985). Despite this well-known NEPA requirement, BLM gave only cursory attention to alternatives analysis in its EA. Indeed, the Panamint Valley Lithium Exploration Project EA identifies a proposed action and a no action alternative to the project. While the no action alternative is our preferred decision for this project, the environmental assessment fails to identify a significant range of alternatives to the proposed action. To avoid limiting the scope under which this project can be executed in a less environmentally damaging way, the BLM should consider additional alternatives to the project, including the following. A. A Drill-on-Road Alternative - A drill-on-road alternative for two of the holes should be included. The KOP pictures show the drill sites adjacent to Wingate Road would have substantial damage to adjacent undisturbed surface. ● Hole DDH1 at KOP#3, a mile or so south of Ballarat. ● Hole RC2 at KOP #4, a few miles south of DDH1. Wingate Road is quite wide in places, with very light traffic. This alternative would use one side of the road for the drilling operation, with traffic control devices before and after the site. Impact to the planned, undisturbed surface adjacent to the road would not occur. This alternative would essentially eliminate the cumulative impact described in 4.1.7.2 (p.40) of the EA. Holes RC4 and RC5: ● Hole RC4 (KOP#1) is on a ‘hardly-ever’ used road, which very closely matches the surrounding non-road surface at the drill site. The drill-on-road concept is inapplicable here. ● Hole RC5 (KOP #2) is at the south side of the western end of the road on the playa leading to Ballarat: A wide spot there, presumed to be the proposed drilling location, is already disturbed, so there would be no reason to drill on the road. B. Reduced Impact and Full Reclamation and Restoration Alternative - Panamint Valley in general, and lands within the designated ACEC and National Conservation Lands, have high scenic quality and are identified as a Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class II designation, the highest rating outside of designated wilderness. We recommend that BLM explore an alternative that requires the following additional stipulations attached to the approval for the exploratory drilling activities in order to further minimize impacts to the visual quality of the affected areas: ● Drilling fluids used in the exploratory drilling operations will be contained in portable sumps and disposed of at an appropriate landfill facility. This stipulation would prevent disturbance caused by using excavated sumps at each drilling site which would be 10-feet wide, 5-feet deep and 20-feet long. ● All vehicle tracks, berms and other physical alteration of the soil at the drill sites should be removed and the sites restored to the same condition as existed prior to the exploratory drilling. We make this recommendation because the EA includes an example of a reclaimed site on Panamint Lake which shows evidence of physical alteration which is avoidable through more stringent site reclamation standards. Below is EA Figure 2-1 Sample Reclaimed Exploration Site, showing residual vehicle tracks, and excavated area and a displaced soil mound. ● All areas with desert pavement (proposed drill sites RC2 and DDH-1) should be protected through avoidance stipulations. Since each of the four mining claims involved in the exploratory drilling are 20 acres, BLM should seek to relocate authorized drill sites to previously disturbed locations. If that is not practicable, then suitable mats designed to prevent disruption of desert pavement should be required, such as military surplus aircraft landing mats, plastic construction mats [e.g., duradek (https://signaturecorp.com/duradeck/)]. ● The EA states that all drill sites are on existing roads. However, the “road” to RC4 is along a 4WD trail that is barely visible as of April 2019 and is in a nearly natural state with washes and hard-packed desert flooring in places. Winter rains have erased previous 4WD tracks. The other drill sites are along graded roads designed for vehicles. They are packed, graded, and wetted. P0929 is not and it is 0.8 miles in from Indian Ranch Road. Heavy vehicles making frequent trips on P0929 (or P3) for nearly a mile will significantly scar and rut the playa and it may not be possible to restore it to its original state. (RC4 is 1.1 miles in from Indian Ranch Road on P3.) Left over scars will make it easy for the public to find it, increasing the use of it. The EA should indicate that this road is significantly more primitive than the roads to the other drill sites and that this project will essentially create a new road. Consider having the employees park along Indian Ranch Road and walk in to this site to minimize traffic along P0929 or P3 and wetting the road if vehicles kick up dust. P3 is representative to what the roads off of Indian Ranch Road near RC4 are like. 6. BLM Must Consider Impacts From The Intended Lithium Brine Mining Project BLM regulations require that cumulative impact analyses include reasonably foreseeable actions. Based on our review of the Haines Technical Report, the EA, and the CMAs of the Panamint/Argus ACEC Lake Unit and Mountain Unit, an industrial scale lithium mine would be impermissible. The operation would have to conform with the NLCS and ACEC disturbance caps (CMA NLCS-DIST-2 and CMA ACEC-DIST-2) which are already exceeded leading to significant compensatory mitigation requirements at a likely ratio of 3:1 as with the exploration activities. The operation would also need to be managed in accordance with Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class II objectives (EA Section 3.6) which include retaining the existing character of the landscape with a low level of change to the characteristic landscape. This would mean the development of a lithium mine that does not attract the attention of the casual observer. Further, given that the site falls within the Panamint Lake ACEC, the operation would also have to be assessed to determine whether it could be accommodated within the ACEC and its management goals, many of which are in conflict. (Panamint/Argus Special Unit Management Plan, Basin and Range Subregion, DRECP Appendix L). Furthermore, BLM must analyze whether the proposed project’s impacts could be contrary to conservation purposes for which these areas were designated. While impacts from the proposed exploration activities may be designed to avoid and/or minimize impacts to resource values in the project area, it is unclear how a future mine development proposal would be permissible given likely impacts to the larger landscape. If a future mine development project is a non-starter, our organizations strongly encourage the BLM to consider foregoing any further exploration activities on this site, and to select the no action alternative. The cumulative impacts analysis presented in the EA is insufficient to gauge the long-term and synergistic effects of the project as a whole on the sustainability of the resource, ecological setting, or sociocultural setting. Therefore, we believe the mitigation and minimization measures identified in the EA fail to protect and disclose impacts to the known public trust resources such as groundwater, special status species, air quality, and the other items listed in this comment letter. BLM cannot segment the NEPA analysis; it must look at the project as a whole and cannot rely on the Plan of Operation (POO) for the exploratory drilling as the sole basis for assessing disturbance. The EA completely fails to identify or analyze the likely effects of a large scale mining expansion that is contemplated for this site. BLM cannot close its eyes to the true purpose of the exploratory drilling. It is clear that the exploratory drilling is intended as the first step towards expanding mining potential lithium brines on claims across tens of thousands of acres of public land. Clearly the company, BMR Inc., contemplates full-scale mining at this site 10 and its website indicates that they have already sampled the brine, which is within the range needed for a commercially viable operation: The Panamint Valley project is an enclosed basin with a salar located in Inyo County, California and 100% owned by BMR. The project has excellent access and regional infrastructure and water sampling at the project returned results as high as 252 ppm Li.11 In addition to above excerpt from the BMR website, the following information leads our organizations to believe that if a positive lithium brine solution above 200 ppm is found in exploration, it will lead to a large scale lithium. Furthermore, information about the likely impacts of full scale brine mining at this site is not speculative even if the proposed size of a full-scale lithium mining proposal in Panamint Valley is currently uncertain. the Haines report | multiple use, resource development, recreation, Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, DRECP, National Conservation Lands, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, project description, baseline, special status plants, survey, habitat, special status wildlife, wildlife, mapping, wetlands, noise, greenhouse gases, Conservation Management Actions, CMA, Lands with Wilderness Characteristics, LWC, groundwater, surface water, cumulative impacts, ground disturbance, alternatives, Visual Resource Management, VRM | Rocky Mtn. Oil & Gas Ass’n v. Watt, 696 F.2d 734, 738 n.4 (10th Cir. 1982); New Mexico ex rel. Richardson, 565 F.3d at 710; Am. Rivers v. FERC, 201 F.3d 1186, 1195 n.15 (9th Cir. 2000); Half Moon Bay Fishermans’ Mktg. Ass’n v. Carlucci, 857 F.2d 505, 510 (9th Cir. 1988); Center for Biological Diversity v. USFS, 349 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2003); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 351 (1989); Western Watersheds Project v. Bennett, 392 F.Supp.2d 1217, 1223 (D. Id. 2005); Ocean Advocates v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 402 F.3d 846, 868 (9th Cir. 2005); California v. Block, 690 F.2d 753, 765-69 (9th Cir. 1982); Save the Yaak Comm. v. Block, 840 F.2d 714, 720 (9th Cir. 1988); Kern v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 284 F.3d 1062, 1075-76 (9th Cir. 2002); City of Davis v. Coleman, 521 F.2d 661, 675 (9th Cir. 1975); Mont. Envtl. Info. Ctr. v. Office of Surface Mining, 274 F. Supp. 3d 1074, 1091-93 (D. Mont. 2017) | 43 USC § 1732(a), 43 USC § 1702(c), 43 USC §1702(l), 43 CFR 3809.420 (a)(3), CMAs, 42 USC § 4332(2)(C), 40 CFR § 1508.27(b), 42 USC § 4332(2)(c)(iii), 40 CFR § 1502.14, 40 CFR § 1508.9(b), 40 CFR § 1508.25(a)(1)(ii), 40 CFR § 1508.8, 40 CFR § 1502.22(b)(4), | N/A | https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/nepa/120541/168863/205513/Panamint_EA_20190308_508.pdf | 35.93 | -117.22 | |
| 2018_ParadiseValley_Extension | Paradise Valley Specific Plan | 2018 | 2015101031 | CEQA | EIR | Extension of Comment Period | Draft | County | Riverside County | Riverside | Riverside-San Bernadino Chapter | State Office | N/A | Commercial/Educational/Industrial, Conservation, Local Planning Action, Recreational, Residential, Water Facilities | Denied | January 11, 2018 Russell Brady, Project Planner Riverside County Planning Department 4080 Lemon St., 12th Floor Riverside, CA 92501 (951) 955-3025 Rbrady@rivco.org Request for a 60-Day Extension of the Comment Period on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Paradise Valley Specific Plan Dear Mr. Brady, I am writing on behalf of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) to request a 60-day extension to the comment period for the draft environmental impact report (EIR) on the Paradise Valley Specific Plan (SCH #2015101031; SP 339; GPA 686; CZ 6195; EIR 506). The scale of the proposed Project amounts to the creation of a new city in a currently unurbanized portion of the California Desert. As proposed, the Project includes the creation of 8,490 residential units and 1.38 million square feet of non-residential development on 1,850 acres of desert habitat. CNPS seeks a 60-day extension of the current public review period for the draft EIR, which currently is 45-days and will end on February 15, 2018. The mission of CNPS is to conserve California native plants and their natural habitats, and increase understanding, appreciation, and horticultural use of native plants. In line with our mission, CNPS requests that the County grant additional time to comprehensively review the draft EIR and evaluate concerns about the Project's environmental impacts. The draft EIR is more 1,200 pages and associated appendices cover many thousands of additional pages. Additionally, the draft EIR and appendices contain complex and technical information that will require substantial time to review. An extension of the comment period will ensure full public participation in the evaluation of the draft EIR and the Project's impacts. In particular, CNPS requests additional time to review multiple issues including, but not limited to, the adequacy of botanical surveys, the mapping of vegetation communities, impacts to desert wash habitats, and proposed mitigation measures. The current 45-day comment period is the minimum required under CEQA, but the scale of this project and the associated draft EIR dictates the need for a longer comment period. Consequently, CNPS respectfully requests an extension to the public review period of the draft EIR of 60-days, until April 16, 2018. Thank you very much for your time and the consideration of this request. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Nicholas Jensen, PhD Southern California Conservation Analyst California Native Plant Society 1500 North College Ave Claremont, CA 91711 (530) 368-7839 njensen@cnps.org | survey, mapping, habitat, mitigation, comment period extension, annexation, Paradise Valley Climate Action Plan | N/A | N/A | N/A | https://planning.rctlma.org/Portals/14/Postings/Paradise%20Valley%20SP%20339%20EIR/FEIR10.26.18/PV_FEIR_Volume_II_2018.10.26.pdf | 33.64 | -115.90 | |
| 2018_ParadiseValley_DraftEIR | Paradise Valley Specific Plan | 2018 | 2015101031 | CEQA | EIR | N/A | Draft | County | Riverside County | Riverside | Riverside-San Bernadino Chapter | State Office | N/A | Commercial/Educational/Industrial, Conservation, Local Planning Action, Recreational, Residential, Water Facilities | Denied | March 19, 2018 Russell Brady, Project Planner Riverside County Planning Department 4080 Lemon St., 12th Floor Riverside, CA 92501 RBrady@rivco.org Re: Paradise Valley Specific Plan SCH #2015101031; SP 339; GPA 686; CZ 6195; EIR 506 and Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Brady, Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Paradise Valley Specific Plan (the Project). The proposed Project amounts to the creation of a new city in a remote and currently undisturbed portion of the California desert. As proposed, the Project includes the creation of 8,490 residential units and 1.38 million square feet of non-residential development on 1,850 acres of desert habitat. The entirety of the Project is located within the boundaries of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP), where it occupies a portion of the Desert Tortoise and Linkage Conservation Area (DTLCA). Importantly, the Project site represents a critically- important biological corridor between Joshua Tree National Park to the north and the Orocopia Mountains, Mecca Hills Wilderness and Box Canyon to the south. The Project is at odds with the conservation goals of the CVMSHCP, and represents leapfrog development that is inconsistent with modern, proactive planning efforts. These facts alone render the Project site unsuitable for development. The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) is a statewide, non-profit organization with 10,000 members distributed across 35 local chapters. The mission of CNPS is to conserve California native plants and their natural habitats, and to increase the understanding, appreciation, and horticultural use of native plants. In line with our mission, our review of the DEIR has focused on understanding potentially significant impacts to native plants and habitats associated with the Project. We have identified several areas of the DEIR that need further attention including, but not limited to insufficient surveys for special status plant species, inadequate mapping of vegetation and washes, and significant impacts to Desert Dry Wash Woodland (DDWW). For the reasons detailed below, the DEIR is incomplete and requires substantial revision. Following this revision, the EIR will need to be made available for another round of public review. Page | 2 I. Botanical surveys are outdated and inadequate The documentation of the botanical resources of the Paradise Valley Specific Plan Study Area relies heavily on historical surveys conducted on the property from 1995- 2002. Although these studies provide important information on the biological resources of the property and study area, they should be considered out of date for the DEIR. More recent surveys, conducted in 2011-2012, including updated vegetation mapping and special status plant surveys are generally poorly documented and incomplete. The more recent surveys provide little information on the composition of plant communities on the project site and are overly reliant on the existing literature. These studies do not appear to comply with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Botanical Survey Guidelines1 for surveying for special status plant species or documenting natural communities within the study area. More specifically: A. Surveys for special status plant species are outdated and/or insufficient Appendix D-5 of the DEIR serves as a primary source of information on the site’s botanical resources. The vast majority of this survey work was done in 2001, nearly 17 years ago. The CDFW Guidelines state that surveys should be conducted within five years of an EIR. As a result, these surveys should be considered outdated. Additionally, the 2001 surveys were completed by four botanists over the course of four days. Appendix D-5 does not mention survey methodology, including whether or not the surveyors walked transects and if they covered the entire project site. Surveys in 2009 are also referenced in Appendix D-5, but appear to only include “field reconnaissance” conducted by a single biologist. No further information is provided about the dates of and the amount of time devoted to this survey is provided. As a result, it is impossible to determine the adequacy of these efforts. Surveys in 2012 were conducted by two biologists walking transects at approximately 300 meter intervals. This spacing is inadequate to ensure full visual coverage of the site. The exact dates of surveys and the total amount of time invested in surveys is not provided. B. It is impossible to properly assess if the timing of surveys for special status plant species was appropriate While surveys in 2001 and 2012 took place in the spring, the information provided makes it impossible to determine if rare plants were detectable during surveys. Weather station data provided in Appendix D-5 for surveys in 2001 indicate that seasonal precipitation was at or near average. However, there is no discussion of the timing of precipitation in the winter/spring of 2000-2001. Research indicates that while the overall amount of precipitation is important for the germination and/or growth of desert plant 1 Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (PDF), Dept. of Fish and Game, 11/2009. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Survey‐ Protocols#377281280‐plants Page | 3 species, the timing of said precipitation is also of primary importance2,3. For the 2012 surveys, there is no reference to the amount or timing of precipitation during the 2011- 2012 water year. The detectability of rare plants during 2012 survey is questionable given drought conditions that prevailed in California during this time period4. This fact should have necessitated visits to reference populations of potential rare plants. Visits to nearby populations of potential rare plants is necessary to determine if a given species is detectable on a project site in a given year (see CDFW Guidelines). None of the botanical surveys that inform the conclusions in the DEIR include information on visits to reference sites. As a result, it is impossible to determine if rare species that are potentially present on the site were detectable during surveys. C. The lists of special status plants with potential to occur on the site were prepared after the completion of botanical surveys The list of potential special status plants generated prior to the initiation of surveys is central to any comprehensive botanical survey. This list enables botanists to decide the timing of surveys and informs the botanists about the habitats on a project site that need to be covered in greater detail. The composition of the lists of potential special status plant species is inconsistent in the DEIR. For example, Appendix D-5, associated with 2001 surveys includes 10 plants, while Appendix D-4 includes 18 plants, and Appendix D-2 includes 24 plants. Appendix D-7, associated with 2012 surveys, does not include a list of potential special status plant species. Appendix D-2, is emphasized as the list of potential special status plant species in the DEIR, but was compiled in March 2015, after the completion of all botanical surveys. While Appendix D-2 contains the most complete list, it did not inform any of the botanical survey work. As a result, surveys in 2001 and 2012 did not focus on numerous species that have potential to occur on the site. D. The DEIR fails to disclose the presence of two special status plant species on the Project site According to the DEIR, no special status plant species were found on the Project site. However, the Consortium of California Herbaria5 documents a single herbarium collection of Hall’s tetracoccus (Tetracoccus hallii [CRPR 4]) on the project site, “just northeast of an unnamed freeway exit at pumping station.” This location is within the northern portion of the Project site and is slated to be impacted by development. Hall’s tetracoccus has high potential to occur on the project site, according to Appendix D-2. In Appendix D-6, foxtail cactus (Coryphantha alversonii [CRPR 4]) was documented during the course of vegetation surveys in the southern portion of the project site. Despite its 2 Beatley, Janice C. "Phenological events and their environmental triggers in Mojave Desert ecosystems." Ecology 55.4 (1974): 856-863. 3 Pavlik, Bruce M. The California deserts: an ecological rediscovery. Univ of California Press, 2008. 4 Seager, Richard, et al. "Causes of the 2011–14 California drought." Journal of Climate 28.18 (2015): 6997-7024. 5 Consortium of California Herbaria. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/new_detail.pl?RSA684335&YF=0 Page | 4 presence on the site, foxtail cactus has a moderate potential to occur on the project site in Appendix D-2. Given that neither of these two special status species is noted as present in the DEIR, the document does not address if potential impacts to either of these species are significant. Also, as impacts to Hall’s tetracoccus and foxtail cactus have not been evaluated no mitigation measures for these species have been proposed. This needs to be corrected. Furthermore, foxtail cactus is a cactus and Hall’s tetracoccus is a shrub. Both of these species are persistent and identifiable on a year- round basis. The fact that neither of these species was noted in the DEIR is evidence of the inadequacy of the botanical survey effort, and the analysis of potential impacts to special status plant species. E. The full species list in Appendix D-5 needs to include additional information The full species list in Appendix D-5 includes “Nemacladus sp.” and “Mentzelia sp.”, indicating that botanists found plants from these two genera that were not identified to species. Slender Nemacladus (Nemacladus gracilis [CRPR 4]) is found nearby in Joshua Tree National Park. It is not included in the list of potential special status plants in Appendix-2. Spiny-hair blazing star (Mentzelia tricuspis [CRPR 2B]) is included Appendix D-2 with low potential to occur on the site. More information is needed to confirm if either of these species is present on the site. II. Vegetation surveys and mapping are inadequate Overall, vegetation mapping is too general and should have been conducted to the Association level, in accordance the Manual of California Vegetation6. Appendices D-5 and D-6 detail mapping based on vegetation classifications that are outdated by more than 20 years. Specifically, the surveys associated with Appendix D-6 were completed in 2011, more than two years following the publication of the Manual of California Vegetation. As a result, there is no justifiable reason for the mapping not to have been completed to current standards. It should be noted that once mapped to the more- detailed, Association level, vegetation types can easily be cross-walked to more general types to allow for compatibility with regional planning efforts, such as the CVMSHCP that were completed prior new standards. The CDFW identifies Sensitive Natural Communities7 that are considered rare in California. Significant impacts to Sensitive Natural Communities need to addressed in projects under CEQA. As the DEIR does not include mapping to current standards it is impossible to determine if significant impacts to Sensitive Natural Communities will occur on the project site. This needs to be corrected. Additional issues related to the documentation of vegetation and habitats on the Project site include: 6 http://vegetation.cnps.org/ 7 https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural‐Communities Page | 5 Vegetation mapping should have been compared to the mapping completed for the Joshua Tree National Park (JTNP)8 and cross walks should have been developed to compare the mapping units between the final project vegetation map and the JTNP mapping. The mapping failed to note any unique cacti assemblages found within the study area. The plant species list notes a high diversity of cacti species and it is likely that stands of these cacti can be found within the project site. Therefore, these stands should have been mapped as unique vegetation features occurring on the project site. Stands of smoke tree (Psorothamnus spinosus) and ironwood (Olneya tesota) are found within the ephemeral washes on the project site. These stands and their associated alliances are considered sensitive communities by CDFW and should have been as separate mapping units within the Desert Dry Wash Woodland (DDWW) mapped on the Project site. The main purpose of the description of the natural resources of the project site, is to provide the reader with an overview of the current condition of these resources at this locality. However, at times, information from the existing literature is mixed with the descriptions of onsite resources (see page 4.4-16) For other communities, such as Sonoran Creosote Bush Scrub Bench, no descriptions of the characteristic plant species of this community are provided. The DEIR notes that DDWW is equivalent to only one alliance, the Blue Palo Verde – Ironwood Woodland. However, based on the plant species list provided for this project (Appendices D-5, D-7), it appears that more alliances may be present in these washes. Specifically, the potential presence of a smoke tree alliance cannot be eliminated. The text should provide more emphasis on the fact that all of the existing natural communities are considered sensitive, and that some alliances found in the dry desert washes are considered very sensitive resources in the region. III. Impacts to biological corridors are not adequately addressed The project site is situated, in its entirety, within the DTLCA, and approximately 3,975 acres of biological corridors are located on the project site. The DTLCA was identified to preserve important linkages between Joshua Tree National Park to the north and the Orocopia Mountains, Box Canyon, and Mecca Hills to the south. The Project, as sited is inconsistent with the very reason for the creation of the DTLCA, and its conservation objectives. In the DTLCA, 26,122 acres of biological corridors are to be preserved, and only 1,572 acres of disturbance are allowed. As proposed, the Project would impact 820 to 860 acres of biological corridors. In the current area of climate change, preserving corridors between mountain ranges and across environmental 8 https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/54528888e4b0d48d9fb034a7 Page | 6 gradients is critical to the conservation of plant and animal species9. On a finer scale, the CVMHSCP (section 4.3.17) states that preserving hydrological processes in the project area are necessary to maintain desert dry wash woodland. For these reasons (and many others), the Project is inconsistent with local and regional conservation objectives. IV. The Project has unmitigable impacts to Desert Dry Wash Woodland Habitats Approximately 13,564 acres of Desert Dry Wash Woodland (DDWW), of which 12,800 must be conserved to satisfy conservation objectives. Central to the conservation of this habitat (CVMHSCHP 10.8.2.1) is the “protection of ecological processes, which may include hydrological regimes, necessary to maintain this natural community.” Given that the conservation of DDWW requires large-scale ecological processes, this habitat is vulnerable to habitat fragmentation. Habitats such as these must be conserved in large tracts, not in isolated fragments. As a result, only 764 acres are subject to impacts under the CVMSHCP. According to the DEIR, the project will directly impact 1,179 to 1,190 acres of this habitat type, thus exceeding the maximum allowable impact by 415 to 426 acres. The DEIR (4.4-42) states that under the CVMSHCP 990 to 4,043 acres of DDWW are open to impacts in the DTLA. Irrefutably, Section 10 of the CVMSHCP states that only 764 acres of this habitat are open to disturbance in the DTLCA. This discrepancy should be corrected in the DEIR. One of the key features of Shavers Valley is the presence of extensive DDWW and associated upland habitats. The extensive nature and intact condition of this habitat is the result of intact hydrological processes and sediment transport regimes. The DEIR has not adequately demonstrated that these processes would be preserved. The project exceeds the allowed acreage of disturbance of this habitat in the DTLCA and is thus inconsistent with the CVMSHCP. Additional issues associated with impacts to DDWW include: A. The Potential Use of Like Exchange to account for exceeding the allowable acres of DDWW disturbance is questionable. The DEIR (4.5-50) states that “it is feasible to provide the required conservation lands through Like Exchange and/or a transfer of Conservation Objectives between conservation areas to create the additional acres of authorized disturbance within the DTLCA.” The CVMSHCP 6.12.2 states that “When a Like Exchange is proposed, the applicable Permittee(s) shall meet and confer with the Wildlife Agencies prior to submittal of Like Exchange analysis to the CVCC. The Permittee will prepare an equivalency analysis. Upon submittal of a completed equivalency analysis, the Wildlife Agencies shall respond in writing within 60 days (of acknowledged receipt) as to their 9 Hodgson, Jenny A., et al. "Climate change, connectivity and conservation decision making: back to basics." Journal of Applied Ecology 46.5 (2009): 964‐969. Page | 7 concurrence with the Like Exchange. If the Wildlife Agencies do not concur the action shall require an Amendment to the MSHCP. Like Exchanges must also be submitted to applicable Permittees for approval.” To our knowledge the procedures outlined for approval of Like Exchanges as outlined in the CVMSCHP have not been completed. The feasibility of Like Exchanges to ameliorate exceedances to the allowable disturbance of DDWW in the DTLCA is unproven. Several specific questions central to this feasibility are not addressed in the DEIR. The DEIR does not adequately assess the quality of DDWW habitats in other conservation areas. Are these areas of similar quality? Is the habitat on private land in other conservation areas available for purchase? Is a table detailing the number of acres available in other conservation areas without any maps or detailed information on these areas provided for review sufficient? B. The potential use of transfer of conservation objectives for DDWW is also questionable The transfer of conservation objectives is detailed in CVMSHCP 6.0. The DEIR (4.4-50) proposes to transfer impacted acreage of DDWW from one conservation area to the DTLCA to compensate for exceeding the maximum allowable take for this habitat type. The CVMSHCP necessitates that the transfer of conservation objectives must not “reduce the conservation value of the lands that will be conserved based on natural community patch size, configuration, and juxtaposition within the matrix of Conserved Habitat and is of greater or equal habitat value.” Furthermore, the transfer must not reduce the conservation of the species or habitat, and cannot result in an increase in take within the plan area. Lastly, transfers must be “within kind,” and be based on species-specific criteria. The DEIR proposes this as a means to compensate for exceeding the maximum acreage of allowed take for DDWW in the DTLCA. Details for this proposed measure are lacking. The DEIR does not demonstrate the availability of potential lands in other conservation areas with similar habitat qualities found on the Project site. In order for this to be a viable measure the DEIR would have to demonstrate the availability of transfer lands where DDWW occurs in large, contiguous stands with intact ecological processes. V. The Project fails to address potential impacts to Sonoran Creosote Bush Scrub Sonoran Creosote Bush Scrub (SCBS) occurs on approximately 3,639 acres of the Project site. In the DTLA, 54,996 out of 58,229 acres is targeted for conservation, leaving only 3,233 acres are subject to impacts. According the DEIR (4.4-13) 1,140 acres of this habitat will be directly impacted. Yet, there is no assessment of the potential impacts to this habitat type in the DEIR. In the CVMSHCP (Section 10.3.2), Sonoran Mixed Woody and Succulent Scrub is a very rare habitat type that has the potential to occur on the project site. Sonoran Mixed Woody and Succulent Scrub Page | 8 occurs within the DTLCA and might be confused with SCBS. The presence of a large number of cacti in the species list in Appendix D-5, and the density of cacti observed in some areas of the project site generate concern that this rare habitat type may have been overlooked in the DEIR. Given that vegetation mapping was done at a very coarse level it is impossible to assess if impacts to this habitat type will occur with the proposed development. VI. The Project will cause potentially significant impacts to Mecca Aster Core Habitat Mecca aster (Xylorhiza cognata) is species covered in the CVMSHCP. Conservation Goal 1 in the CVMSHCP (9.2.1) for Mecca Aster is to “protect Core Habitat areas that include occupied habitat, and associated essential ecological processes, allowing evolutionary processes and natural population fluctuations to occur. Minimize fragmentation, human-caused disturbance, and edge effects to Core Habitat by conserving contiguous Habitat patches and effective Linkages between patches of Core Habitat.” Goal 2 is to, “protect other conserved habitat to provide sufficient area and variety of habitat types to accommodate population fluctuations, allow for genetic diversity, and to conserve the full range of environmental conditions within which this aster is known to occur.” Approximately 353 acres of Mecca Aster Core Habitat occur on the Project Site. The nearest known population of Mecca Aster is known to occur within 1.25 miles from the Project boundary, and 0-5 acres of Core Habitat will be impacted, according to the DEIR. Given the extreme rarity of this species, potential edge effects and indirect threats are of importance to its conservation. These threats are not adequately addressed in the DEIR. For example, the DEIR does not address the potential effects of development upstream on mecca aster including altered hydrology, sediment transport, and the spread of invasive plants from the Project site to adjacent areas. The CVMSHCP and McGlaughlin (200810) both indicate that the primary threat to Mecca Aster are impacts associated with off-highway vehicles (OHVs). The DEIR does not address the potential for increased OHV use of the habitat of Mecca Aster by residents of the proposed development. Adding 16,000+ residents to Shavers Valley will undoubtedly increase use of adjacent lands for recreation purposes. These uses will include OHV use in the Mecca Hills and this will impact Mecca Aster. VII. The assessment of jurisdictional waters/wetlands contains numerous issues that need to be corrected Upon review of the jurisdictional delineation report prepared for Project, we note that critical U.S. Army Corps of Engineers11 guidance references were not cited, and the 10 McGlaughlin, Mitchell. 2008. A conservation plan for mecca aster, Xylorhiza cognata (Asteraceae). Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden Occasional Publications, Number 8. 11 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps Page | 9 procedures for determining the locality of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) may not have been correctly applied with these episodic drainages. In addition, MESA (CEC 201412) procedures do not appear to have been used to determine the areas of these episodic drainages that may be under the jurisdiction of the Calif. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. This may have resulted in the DEIR under reporting the total area of jurisdictional Waters found on the project site. Overall, it appears that only the low flow channels were delineated as the jurisdictional areas of Waters of the United States found on the project site. However, the Corps procedures for determining the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in these episodic drainages documents that the active floodplain defines the Waters of the US, and not the low flow channels. As noted in the field manual, the “OHW zone in low- gradient, alluvial ephemeral/intermittent channel forms in the Arid West is the active floodplain. The dynamics of arid channel forms and the transitory nature of traditional OHWM indicators in arid environments render the limit of the active floodplain the only reliable and repeatable feature in terms of OHW delineation” (Lichvar and McColley 200813). Figure 1: Active Floodplain for Arid West Delineations (from Figure 1 of Curtis and Lichvar 201014) of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). 12 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2014. Methods to Describe and Delineate Episodic Stream Processes on Arid Landscapes for Permitting Utility Scale Solar Power Plants with the Mesa Field Guide. 13 Lichvar, R.W. and S.M. McCooley. 2008. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States, A Delineation Manual. 14 Curtis, K.M. and R.W. Lichvar. 2010. Updated Datasheet for the Identification of Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States. Page | 10 Figure 2: Epidsodic Channel, Hydromorphic Units (From Figure 1 of Curtis et al. 201115) It was noted that a large area of these episodic channels were delineation as potentially jurisdictional for the 1600 agreement from CDFW. However, it is apparent that this study did not use the MESA procedures (CEC 2014) for delineating episodic stream channels, especially Appendix G Mapping Episodic stream activity. The MESA guide notes that the jurisdictional area will be the active watercourse in these episodic channels, which is at a minimum assumed to be the active floodplain of the episodic channel. The definition of the active channel for these delineations will include the 100- year flood plain vs. the Corps procedures which do not include these areas in their concept of the active channel. It does not appear that the entire CDFW jurisdictional areas were included in the CDFW Waters delineation on the project site, and the total jurisdictional CDFW acreage may have been underestimated in the studies performed for this project. As a result, it is highly recommended that the delineation report be revised before the completion of the FEIR. This would potentially provide a more accurate determination of the potentially jurisdictional episodic waters found on the project site. Additionally, we would like to recommend the following: Prepare a detailed methods section for the revised version of this report that would document how the active floodplain within the study area was determined for this study. More details should also be provided on the data collected on each transect across these episodic channels, and the OHWM data sheets should have been included in an Appendix to this document. This section should 15 Curtis, K.M., R.W. Lichvar, and L.E. Dixon. 2011. Ordinary High Flows and the Stage-Discharge Relationship in the Arid West. Page | 11 note the procedures to define the CDFW jurisdictional areas within these washes and why the MESA procedures were not used for the CDFW delineations. The Hydrology section should be expanded to provide more information on the washes within the study area. The known hydrological characteristics, including maximum flood flows and flood flow elevations should be provided, along with the currently known intervals of flooding events in the Pinkham and other washes within the study area. The geomorphology section should provide more details on the characteristics of these episodic channels, and the differences in channel composition as these channels exit the confines of the Cottonwood mountains onto the larger alluvial plain of the Shavers Valley. Representative cross sections could be a useful tool in providing the reader a representative view of the active vs. the 100 year flood plain areas of these channels. The Regulatory Section needs to be updated, to provide the concepts presented in the OHW manuals from the Corps of Engineers. It should note the concept of the delineation of active floodplain to note the area of jurisdictional waters within the study area. In addition, this section should also provide a comprehensive summary of the information presented in the recent Corps publications on the delineation of ephemeral channels based on the OHWM. The information on delineation of these ephemeral channels for the 1602 agreement, needs to be thoroughly updated to present the recent information on the delineation of episodic stream channels that has been developed by CDFW and other state agencies. A detailed overview of the MESA procedures for mapping these channels should be provided to the reader in this section of the report. VIII. The Project should be required to undergo Joint Project Review prior to moving forward The Joint Project Review (JPR) process is designed to ensure that projects within conservation areas are consistent with the CVMSHCP. Section 6.6.1.1 of the CVMSHCP states that, “Consultation with CVCC is needed at this early stage to ensure that alternatives are fully evaluated to achieve Conservation Area Conservation Objectives prior to public release of environmental documents prepared pursuant to CEQA.” It further states that project applications, “will not be deemed complete by the Permittee prior to completion of the Joint Project Review Process.” The “Permittee” in this case is the County of San Bernardino. Section 6.1.1.1 also states that, “CVCC staff shall prepare and distribute comments that address the proposed project's consistency with the Conservation Area Conservation Objectives and Required Measures and delineate the status of Rough Step in the affected Conservation Area. The comments shall be sent to the appropriate Local Permittee, the project applicant, and the Wildlife Agencies. CVCC shall also send the Wildlife Agencies a copy of the project application.” Based on the information provided above, it is clear that the Project applicant should have completed the JPR process prior to the issuance of a DEIR. The DEIR (4.4-63), indicates that, “prior to approval of each project-level entitlement, the Applicant shall | Coachella Valley Multiple Species Conservation Plan, CVMSCP, Desert Tortoise and Linkage Conservation Area, biological corridor, survey, special status plants, mapping, sensitive natural communities, sensitive plants, alliance, habitat, mitigation, jurisdictional waters, jurisdictional wetlands, wetlands, fragmentation, urban decay, annexation, Paradise Valley Climate Action Plan | N/A | Coachella Valley Multiple Species Conservation Plan Section 6.6.1.1 | N/A | https://planning.rctlma.org/Portals/14/Postings/Paradise%20Valley%20SP%20339%20EIR/FEIR10.26.18/PV_FEIR_Volume_II_2018.10.26.pdf | 33.64 | -115.90 | |
| 2019_ParadiseValley_FinalEIR | Paradise Valley Specific Plan | 2019 | 2015101031 | CEQA | EIR | N/A | Final | County | Riverside County | Riverside | Riverside-San Bernadino Chapter | State Office | N/A | Commercial/Educational/Industrial, Conservation, Local Planning Action, Recreational, Residential, Water Facilities | Denied | February 4, 2019 Russell Brady, Project Planner Riverside County Planning Department 4080 Lemon St., 12th Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Submitted electronically to: RBrady@rivco.org Re: Paradise Valley Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Brady, Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on the Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) for the Paradise Valley Specific Plan (“Paradise Valley” or “project”). The California Native Plant Society (“CNPS”) is a non-profit environmental organization with 10,000 members in 35 Chapters across California and Baja California, MX. CNPS’ mission is to protect California's native plant heritage and preserve it for future generations through the application of science, research, education, and conservation. CNPS works closely with decision- makers, scientists, and local planners to advocate for well-informed policies, regulations, and land management practices. In line with our mission, we support planning decisions that promote housing development projects that are close to existing mass transportation infrastructure and job centers. New housing development should be sited within existing communities that would benefit from the construction of affordable housing and the creation of jobs. In November 2018, the California Air Resources Board1 released a report that indicates that the state will fail to meet its ambitious greenhouse gas reduction goals because the number of vehicle miles traveled by Californians continues to increase. This report emphasizes the role that poor planning decisions continue to play in exacerbating this problem. Now is not the time to approve far-flung, exurban communities that promulgate car-reliant lifestyles that lead to myriad health and environmental problems. Fundamentally, Paradise Valley fails at nearly every measure of smart, 21st Century urban planning. This is not a good project that is unfortunately sited in an environmentally sensitive location; it is simply a bad project. We encourage the County to rethink its needs and development priorities, and to ponder if there is a place for projects like Paradise Valley in its future. We have reviewed the County’s response to our comment letter on the Draft EIR, submitted on March 19, 2018. Following that review we have identified significant outstanding issues with the FEIR including inadequate botanical surveys and vegetation mapping, and its failure to complete 1 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2018-11/Final2018Report_SB150_112618_02_Report.pdf a Joint Project Review. These issues should be corrected before the project is considered by the Riverside County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. 1. Lack of Joint Project Review (JPR) The County’s response to our comments relies heavily upon an interpretation that since Paradise Valley is a specific plan it does not need to undergo JPR prior to approval. Instead, the County proposes to complete JPRs in a piecemeal manner, with individual portions of the specific plan ensuring their consistency with the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) as they come up for final approval. In contrast, we contend that it is essential for the Paradise Valley, in its entirety, to ensure its consistency with the CVMSHCP by completing a JPR ahead of it being evaluated by decision makers. This issue is of special concern to CNPS since, as proposed, the project would destroy more acreage of desert dry wash woodland in the Desert Tortoise and Linkage Conservation Area than is allowed under the CVMSHCP. The assertion that Paradise Valley must undergo JPR before proceeding has also been highlighted in comment letters submitted by environmental organizations (e.g. the Sierra Club and Center for Biological Diversity), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and Coachella Valley Conservation Commission (CVCC). These letters emphasize that this approach could have large and long- lasting implications. The letters caution that if the County approves this project without ensuring its consistency with the CVMSHCP the County’s MHSCP permits could be revoked by the USFWS and/or CDFW. This would jeopardize the balance of development and conservation that was carefully crafted in the CVMHSCP. It is hard to conceive why the County would risk such a severe outcome to greenlight the Paradise Valley project. 2. Comments on Botanical Survey and Vegetation Mapping Comment Responses Comment KK-2 We strongly disagree with the claim that Appendix D-7 adequately explains the survey methodology for botanical surveys. The only thing that Appendix D-7 says about survey methodology is that “the project site, south of Interstate-10, was systematically surveyed by walking transects through suitable habitat.” We continue to contend that this does not adequately describe survey methods that comply with CDFW’s Botanical Survey Guidelines2 . The response also applies to KK-3, addressed in more detail below. The map on page 3 of Appendix D-7 shows a total of 17 east-west transect lines walked by 2 botanists covering the entire project area. The spacing of individual transect lines often exceeded 500 ft. Please present a reasonable justification that transect lines separated by this distance are sufficient to ensure 100% visual coverage of the site. Given that many of the rare plants with potential to be found on the project site are small annuals it is entirely possible these were missed during surveys. We stand by our assertion that the vegetation map completed by RBF in 2011 and included in Appendix D-6 is inadequate. Importantly, Appendix D-6 and Map 4.4-4 in 2 https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline the DEIR characterize the site’s vegetation resources in a very coarse manner. Vegetation was mapped to Holland types and subsequently cross-walked to alliances in the Manual of California Vegetation. We contend that while this approach is possibly adequate for assessing impacts to the habitats covered by the CVMSHCP it is wholly inadequate for assessing impacts to Sensitive Natural Communities as identified by CDFW3 . Assessing the impacts to Sensitive Natural Communities is detailed by CDFW4 and requires project proponents to “identify all Natural Communities within the project footprint using the best means possible, for example, keying them out in the Manual of California, Second Edition (Sawyer et al. 2009) or in classification or mapping reports from the region.” Appendix D-6 and the DEIR make no reference to attempts to map vegetation to these current standards. Yes, some early surveys were completed prior to the completion of the MCV, but much of the survey work described in Appendix D-6 was completed well after the release of this publication. Quite clearly, the EIR has taken the wrong approach in attempting to document and assess impacts to Sensitive Natural Communities and is thus in conflict with CEQA. CEQA Guidelines Section 15065 states that a lead agency is required to determine if a project will have a significant effect on the environment, and this includes Sensitive Natural Communities. By not adequately mapping vegetation communities on the project site the County cannot claim to have adequately assessed the projects impacts and cannot claim to have made a mandatory finding of significance. To illustrate this point, a CNPS volunteer used an unmanned aerial vehicle equipped with a camera (or “drone”) to do a reconnaissance survey of a small portion of the site from a public right-of-way. In this survey, we determined that the vegetation resources on the site are much more complex than is presented in the EIR. At the association level we documented extensive areas of Larrea tridentata – Ambrosia dumosa – Psorothamnus schottii Association, which is ranked as S3 by CDFW. We argue that this is ample evidence that the EIR has failed to adequately characterize the vegetation on the site and cannot claim have done a fair job of disclosing potential environmental impacts to the public. Consequently, we advocate that vegetation on the site be remapped at the association level with the project’s impacts on these resources assessed de novo. Comment KK-3 We remain concerned about the dates and nature of the surveys used to assess potential impacts to botanical resources, especially rare plants. In our comment letter on the DEIR, we claimed that botanical surveys are outdated and antiquated. To counter our claim the FEIR lists surveys done in 2011, 2012, and 2014. Work done in 2011 was completed in October and formed the basis for producing a vegetation map in Appendix D-6. These surveys did not conform to CDFW’s Botanical Survey Guidelines. The 2012 surveys are discussed in our response to response KK-2. Based on the transect spacing these surveys also do not conform to guidelines required by CDFW. Table 4.4-1 references botanical surveys completed in 2014. These surveys point to “Envicom Corporation, Flora and Fauna Species Observed within the Project Site (2000 – 2014), Envicom Corporation, May 2016” in Reference Section 7.3. We fail to see any details about the methodology or the results of these surveys in the EIR. 3 https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153398&inline 4 https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities It is important to note that none of these more recent surveys were conducted in the late summer or fall. A number of special status species with the potential to occur on the site bloom exclusively (or nearly so) during the late summer and fall (e.g. Wislizenia refracta subsp. refracta). A recent reconnaissance survey of Paradise Valley from a public right away revealed Pectis papposa, Euphorbia setiloba, and Amaranthus fimbriatus, three fall-flowering native annuals to be quite common on the site. None of these species occur in biological resources report in the EIR. This emphasizes that fact the late-summer and fall-blooming botanical resources have not been well documented in the EIR. It is also important to note that botanical surveys are to be comprehensive in nature. This means that surveyors must document all plants on a site and should target not only the rare species that are known from adjacent areas. This is especially true for desert habitats, which have been surveyed less comprehensively than other places in California. This is to say that the EIR could have completely missed numerous rare species due to inadequate survey timing. The FEIR fails to admit that the Tetracoccus hallii, a shrub that should be detectable year-round, was missed in all surveys and was not included in the DEIR. The fact that this species was missed is ample evidence that botanical surveys were not comprehensive. Thus, the EIR fails to provide the level of detail necessary to fully assess the potential impacts of this project on rare plants. At a minimum, the project proponent should be required to conduct subsequent site-wide botanical surveys in a year with adequate precipitation, with these results analyzed in a revised FEIR. Comment KK-4 We continue to emphasize that the lack of visits to reference populations of rare plants prior to botanical surveys is a major error that needs to be corrected in subsequent surveys. Desert habitats are notoriously prone to interannual variability in site conditions. Annual species will often be undetectable in drought years. Also, many desert plants require specific timing of precipitation in order for them to germinate and flower. Thus, it is not sufficient to determine whether or not a given rare species should be detectable on a site in a given year based on an analysis of weather station data. Blooming times for annual species can also vary interannually, so survey timing should be customized each season. Also, many perennial and shrub species employ dormancy strategies during years with low precipitation, which may render them undetectable during surveys. Essentially, the only way to ensure that a species is detectable in a given year is to visit nearby populations, thus confirming that they should be detectable if present on the site. The information that some surveys in the early 2000s occurred following a “few wet winters” and that 2011 surveys were “conducted during a wet 2011 and the water surplus in 2011 cushioned a dry 2012” does nothing to ensure that rare species were detectable in these surveys. The EIR seems to rely heavily on surveys completed in 2014. Was precipitation in 2014 adequate on the site to ensure that rare plants would be detectable? Broad, climatological observations are next to useless in describing site-specific conditions. This obfuscates the relevant fact that rainfall in desert habitats in notoriously heterogeneous, in that ample precipitation may fall in one area while leaving adjacent areas completely dry. Once again, the only way to ensure that rare plants are detectable during surveys is to visit reference populations. Without this assurance, absence of rare species reported in the EIR is dubious. This is true for spring, as well as fall blooming rare plants. Comment KK-6 It is duly noted that the FEIR includes updated information about the presence of Tetracoccus hallii, which was completely missed during botanical surveys. The FEIR notes that impacts to this species are “less than significant.” However, the FEIR states that Tetracoccus hallii “was observed in low numbers within the project area.” Were subsequent surveys used to confirm that Tetracoccus hallii occurs in low numbers and why weren’t these surveys included in the FEIR? Furthermore, why wasn’t a map of the locations of this species on the project site included in the FEIR? At present, the EIR does not appear to present sufficient information or analysis to confirm that the impact to this species is, indeed, less than significant. Present in low numbers is too vague of a measure to accurately assess the impacts to this species. Specifically, how many individuals are present on the site? With regards to Coryphantha alversonii, it is remarkable that surveyors found the only individual of this species on the project site. However, I think it is reasonable to question whether or not these surveys were sufficient to fully document the abundance of this species on the project site? As has been duly noted, Coryphantha spp. can easily be confused with other cacti. The fact that at least one individual of C. alversonii is present on the Paradise Valley speaks to the possibility that other individuals are likely present and have not been adequately documented. We would like to note that the botanical survey inadequacies highlighted here revolve around persistent, easily detectable shrub/cacti species, and this alone should call into question the adequacy of the documentation of botanical resources in the EIR. Comment KK-8 The discussion on the crosswalk from Holland natural communities to more-specific vegetation alliances and associations in the Manual of California Vegetation (MCV) fails to address serious flaws in this approach. Holland types are very broad in nature and amount to a coarse view of natural communities at the state level. The MCV is a characterization of plant communities at a much more fine-tuned scale. Thus, it would be appropriate to map vegetation using alliances and associations using the MCV and then crosswalk these to Holland types. It is, however, inappropriate to crosswalk from broad Holland types to more fine-tuned MCV types, as was done in the EIR. Of course, it was necessary for the project proponent to present information in terms of Holland to allow for an analysis of impacts to the natural communities included in the CVMSHCP. However, this information is insufficient for analyzing impacts to sensitive natural communities, as is required under CEQA. Consequently, we contend that vegetation needs to be mapped de novo at the alliance/association level with impacts to sensitive natural communities analyzed and presented for public comment in a revised FEIR. We present further comments on the inadequacy of vegetation mapping in the EIR in our “Comment KK-2” section above. Comment KK-10 This is a post hoc interpretation of cactus-dominated plant communities and is not based on observations on the site or interpretation of data. Furthermore, how can the project proponent claim that there are no sensitive natural communities (cactus dominated or not) as classified in the MCV on the site if they did not conduct vegetation mapping to the alliance or association level? Thank you once again for the opportunity to comment on the Paradise Valley Specific Plan. Please don’t hesitate to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Nick Jensen, PhD Southern California Conservation Analyst California Native Plant Society 2707 K Street Suite One Sacramento, CA 95816 njensen@cnps.org 530-368-7839 | survey, mapping, joint project review, sensitive natural communities, alliance, annexation, Paradise Valley Climate Action Plan | N/A | N/A | N/A | https://planning.rctlma.org/Portals/14/Postings/Paradise%20Valley%20SP%20339%20EIR/FEIR10.26.18/PV_FEIR_Volume_I_2018.10.26.pdf | 33.64 | -115.90 | |
| 2016_Picayune_THP | Pre-Harvest Inspection Report for Timber Harvesting Plan 2-16-049-TRI, | 2016 | N/A | CEQA | THP | Pre-Harvest Inspection Report | Draft | State | California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Inland Deserts Region 6 | N/A | North Coast Chapter | State Office, North Coast Chapter | N/A | Timber Harvest Plan | Approved | February 9, 2016 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Charlton Bonham, Director 1416 9th Street, 12th Floor, Sacramento, California 95814 Electronically transmitted 02/09/16 Director@wildlife.ca.gov; Mstjohn@waterboards.ca.gov RE: Substandard Natural Community and Rare Plant Impact Assessment and Deficient Disclosure in Timber Harvest Plans Dear Director Bonham: The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) would like to bring to your attention what we find to be substandard assessment and deficient disclosure of rare plant species and natural communities during Timber Harvesting Plan review. CNPS is a statewide, nonprofit organization of nearly 10,000 amateurs and professionals dedicated to the preservation of California’s diverse native flora. CNPS conducts a variety of conservation efforts focused on long-term protection and preservation of native flora in its natural habitat, and it is the foremost non- governmental organization working to protect rare, threatened, and endangered plants and sensitive plant communities in California. In our area, the North Coast Chapter represents approximately 300 members in Humboldt, Trinity, Del Norte, and western Siskiyou Counties. CNPS is concerned that the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) timber harvesting review program does not adequately address potentially significant impacts on sensitive plants and rare natural communities during their Timber Harvesting Plan (THP) review process. We cite as an example herein, CDFW’s Pre-Harvest Inspection (PHI) Report for Timber Harvesting Plan (THP) 2-16-049-TRI, “Picayune”, dated December 1, 2016. CNPS has three principal concerns regarding the PHI Report’s analysis of the potential impacts of this THP: 1) The CDFW PHI Report makes no mention of the extensive occurrence of the imperiled Darlingtonia californica natural community (California pitcher plant fen) across the THP footprint, nor of the potential for impacts on that community other than brief consideration related to installation of a “corduroy” crossing in harvest unit 8. 2) The majority of Darlingtonia californica natural communities qualify as high quality wetlands, yet while streamside buffers are addressed in the THP and CDFW PHI Report, no meaningful impact analysis to this extensive wetland habitat is conducted and only token protective measures are proposed. 3) The CDFW PHI Report raises no concern that rare plant surveys will be allowed to occur in an unprofessional manner, and after the THP is approved, at which point CDFW, other agencies, and the public have no effective means to assess impacts or comment on the adequacy of the rare plant surveys or 2 potential effectiveness of proposed mitigations. We believe the flawed manner in which the botanical surveys will be performed and disclosure of findings reported for this project is inconsistent with provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). We are further concerned that the inadequate CDFW oversight of this THP is not an isolated case, but indicative of a more widespread failure of THPs, a Certified Regulatory Program, to fulfill fuctionally- equivalent requirements of the CEQA, notably illustrated in this case by the unprofessional standards allowed for the rare plant survey, and its completion after the THP is approved. These issues and further background information were discussed in detail in our recent comments to CalFire regarding THP 2-16-049-TRI, attached for your reference (Attachment 1 - CNPS Letter dated 12/19/16). Disclosure of Impacts to the Vulnerable Darlingtonia californica Alliance CDFW’s Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program (VegCAMP) classifies and maps vegetation throughout the State. CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) assigns a state rank to vegetation types, also known as natural communities, described by VegCAMP, based upon their state- wide rarity and threat. While the THP makes no mention of its presence, the project footprint and several harvest units support extensive areas dominated by vegetation described as the Darlingtonia californica Alliance, a group of wetland natural communities ranked by the CNDDB as S3 “Vulnerable.” A natural community with an S3 ranking is vulnerable in California due to a restricted range, relatively few populations, recent and widespread declines, and other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation from the State. The complete absence of information about this rare community in the THP, and failure to include useful maps or descriptions of the extensive wetlands within the THP footprint prevent any meaningful understanding of the habitats to be impacted by the THP. The Registered Professional Forester (RPF) for the THP subsequently clarified in a response to CalFire dated January 5, 2017 (subsequent to our comment letter of December 19, 2016 – attached), that “Darlingtonia californica is located in the majority of the wet areas, and Class II and Class I watercourses throughout the project footprint...” The RPF response also stated: “There are no occurrences of Darlingtonia seep communities within the project footprint in the California Natural Diversity Database”, which is irrelevant to the requirement for full disclosure under CEQA, and highlights the need for professional botanical input prior to preparation of the THP. Pursuant to CDFW’s mission, and its CEQA roll as the State’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife, the Timber Conservation and Habitat Conservation Programs have a responsibility to protect, restore, and enhance sensitive species populations and rare natural communities. Relative guidance includes the following sources: According to the CNDDB, “For alliances with State ranks of S1-S3, all associations within them are considered to be highly imperiled.” In addition, the CDFW website states “Consulting biologists or responsible agencies encountering high priority natural community elements or vegetation types when assessing a proposed project’s environmental impacts should make project proponents and reviewers aware of their existence” and impacts to these highly 3 imperiled alliances must be disclosed, impacts evaluated, and mitigations proposed, as appropriate. According to the 2009 CDFW Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities: “Special status natural communities are communities that are of limited distribution statewide or within a county or region and are often vulnerable to environmental effects of projects. These communities may or may not contain special status species or their habitat. The most current version of the Department’s List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities indicates which natural communities are of special status given the current state of the California classification.” The Forest Practice Rules are a certified regulatory program pursuant to the CEQA, and a THP is the CEQA equivalent document to an Environmental Impact Report. To help determine if a project many have a significant environmental impact, one of the questions in the CEQA Appendix G checklist is: Will the project “Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or any other sensitive natural community, identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the US Fish and Wildlife Service?” It is troubling that such a deficient THP was accepted initially. It is also troubling that CDFW would attend a THP pre-harvest inspection that has extensive areas of a CNDDB rank S3 “Vulnerable” natural community within or adjacent to areas proposed for a clear-cut silvicultural prescription, and not mention this in its PHI Report. To be clear, neither the THP, nor CalFire discloses, nor asks for disclosure of this Darlingtonia californica Alliance occurrence within the THP impact area. The THP does not assess potential impacts to it, and the only protective measure proposed is an equipment limitation zone (ELZ). Impacts to Wetlands and Waters of the State Darlingtonia californica fens qualify as wetlands under virtually any definition (Sawyer et. al 2009; USACE 2016). While all habitat occupied by Darlingtonia californica itself does not meet the current definition of jurisdictional wetlands under the Clean Water Act (CWA), the topographic and geographic proximity of the THP fens to the Trinity River and its tributaries suggests the majority of wet areas delineated within the THP area would qualify as both “waters of the state”, and CWA jurisdictional wetlands. The California Fish and Game Commission Wetlands Policy includes the following findings: California's remaining wetlands provide significant and essential habitat for a wide variety of important resident and migratory fish and wildlife species. The quantity and quality of the wetlands habitat remaining in California have been significantly reduced; thus, maintenance and restoration are essential to meet the needs of the public for fish and wildlife resources and related beneficial uses. Projects which impact wetlands are damaging to fish and wildlife resources if they result in a net loss of wetland acreage or wetland habitat value. 4 Further, it is the policy of the Fish and Game Commission to strongly discourage development in or conversion of wetlands. It opposes, consistent with its legal authority, any development or conversion which would result in a reduction of wetland acreage or wetland habitat values. This THP identifies extensive wet areas in 12 of the 27 harvest units. Clearcutting is the silvicultural prescription for harvesting units 4, 8, 9, 17, and 21. In these areas, the primary mitigation proposed is an ELZ, which limits the use of ground-based yarding equipment, and directional felling of trees, where feasible, away from wet areas. The THP proposes no canopy retention for trees occurring within or adjacent to wet areas, other than those designated as WLPZ. In other words, in harvesting units 8 and 9, where extensive wet areas are mapped, the THP proposes clearcutting both the wetlands and adjacent upland forest, leaving no canopy retention. Trees harvested in these units may be skidded across the wetlands, including the Darlingtonia californica fens. The THP does not assess the potential impacts of timber operations on shade reduction, change in microclimate (increasing temperatures, reduced moisture), disruption in hydrology of what are essentially headwater streams, erosional impacts, or invasive species introduction, nor does the CDFW PHI raise those issues. The THP proposes constructing a modified spittler crossing (corduroy) through a Darlingtonia californica fen in unit 8, which would involve temporary placement of logs and straw, over which timber would be dragged or hauled offsite. Such a crossing constitutes “fill” under the Clean Water Act, which in other circumstances would clearly be subject to potential mitigation requirements; yet no assessment was provided, nor requested to quantify the temporal loss of wetland values, degree of temporary or permanent alterations of hydrology, enhanced risk of invasive species introduction and erosion, impacts to rare plant species or sensitive amphibians, or potential alternatives to the construction of a road across a sensitive natural community. No evidence or timeline was provided to indicate if, or even when this sensitive wetland community will recover from the multiple impacts of road installation, while personal experience suggests the recovery may require several decades or more. The RPF response to THP comments dated January 5, 2017 asserts that the forest canopy in these forested wetlands is a threat to Darlingtonia californica fens, and its removal would enhance water availability to the fens. The impacts of canopy cover on moisture availability are exceedingly complex, dependent on a variety of variables including cover type and density, climate, soils, topography, and other factors, as well as the existing hydrology of the plant community. We consider the contention that canopy removal will change the hydrology one way or the other is conjectural, and unsubstantiated at this time. We understand that the consequences of removing forest above and surrounding the sensitive Darlingtonia californica fens are often difficult to predict and subject to a range of site variables (see Rare Plant Mitigation section below). Canopy removal could be beneficial in many but not all cases, and impact analyses in such cases require specialist input likely not provided by the RPF or project applicant. Rare Plant Surveys Serpentine outcrops and Darlingtonia californica fens are known to support many rare plants and unusual endemic species (Kruckeberg 1984, CNDDB 2011). Based solely on a CNDDB query (5-mile search radius), Section II of the THP lists some 25 species with a State Rank (SR) of S1, S2, or S3, or California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1B or 2B that could potentially occur on the THP and that will be surveyed for after the THP is approved. 5 The rare plant survey protocol proposed for this THP employs a number of practices in conflict with published professional standards including CDFW’s own Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities [CDFW 2009]). Examples of conflicting standards include; A floristic-based survey identifying all species to a taxonomic level adequate to identify rare species is standard professional conduct for surveys of this nature. This THP proposes a targeted survey for only the rare species identified in the pre-survey screen. Generic mitigations are included in the THP only for the potential species identified by the screen. The scoping phase for potential rare species occurrence within this THP footprint was based on the CNDDB (5-mile radius search) and the company GIS database. This radius is minimal when conducted in conjunction with a floristic-based survey, but is clearly inadequate for the purpose of detecting potential rare species occurrence when not accompanied by a floristic-based survey. This THP proposes only a single rare plant survey, to be conducted not less than 10 days prior to ground operations. Professional standards call for a seasonally-appropriate survey, conducted at multiple times of the year as necessary, timed to enable identification of all potential rare species at a time when they are easily identified. No guarantee that a seasonally-appropriate survey is provided. No minimal professional qualifications are indicated as a requirement, or are even recommended, for those conducting botanical surveys. Allowing the rare plant survey to be completed after THP-approval and any time up to 10 days prior to the onset of ground operations is without any scientific justification on multiple grounds, is a clear departure from CEQA project-level requirements submitted by CDFW staff in other regions of California. (NOTE: Responding to the first of three THP submittals [dated 10/7/16], CalFire actually had to “request” the operator submit the survey results at least 10 days prior to ground operations, along with a map of the botanical survey route, both of which are basic professional standards). The short 10-day notice, and the fact that the survey results are processed as a minor THP amendment by CalFire (thus apparently ministerial, or nondiscretionary), precludes any meaningful input by the trustee agency (CDFW), the public, and by outside botanical expertise, which may be necessary to develop appropriate species-specific mitigations in the event unexpected rare species are encountered. Though meant to be CEQA-equivalent, these examples conflict with CDFW’s own survey protocols, and represent significant departures from survey and disclosure recommendations that CDFW has provided in its capacity as California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources for CEQA projects across the state. Rare Plant Mitigations The THP Section II, as modified by recommendations in the CDFW PHI, outlines two generic mitigation regimes to be followed should any of the potential rare species be encountered. The basic mitigation provisions, with the number of potentially-affected scoping-list species shown in [brackets], are: 6 1) Additional [17] – flagged EEZ at the population boundary; where the EEZ affects proposed new road, landing, or skid trail, the RPF has discretion to implement changes; trees to be felled directionally away from populations; where broadcast burning occurs within the harvest unit, the EEZ shall be avoided; no herbicide applied within 20 feet of the EEZ; In addition, for Arctostaphylos klamathensis (state-listed as Endangered) – forest canopy may be retained for known locations; for Galium serpenticum ssp. Scotticum and Balsamorhiza sericea – no protection provided where they are growing on the maintained cut bank, running surface, or fill slope of existing road prism (NOTE: does not take into account the extent of documented occurrence within the THP area); for Epilobium alpinum and Shepherdia canadensis, no timber removal or herbicides within 20 feet. 2) WLPZ [12] – treated as streamside – lake protection zone (WLPZ) with generally 50 percent canopy retention, except at proposed crossings where surveys will be conducted and the additional measures described above apply to documented rare species. Thus for the majority of potential rare species no tree canopy retention, either overhead or adjacent to the plant population, is proposed. For most species, the RPF has discretion in the application of mitigation measures, depending on their judgement of feasibility. It is unclear what mitigation, if any, will be applied if species are encountered that are not on the scoping list. This is particularly troublesome given the brief period allowed for CalFire and CDFW to review the rare plant survey results. Public input at that point is not possible. This THP’s complete reliance on two programmatic mitigation actions for impacted plant species assumes that enough is known about the autecology of each species to reliably predict its response to habitat manipulation. Rarely is this the case. Rare plant species found on the THP can and will vary in myriad ways, including; degree of rarity, abundance, reproductive biology, habitat, annual versus perennial life form, geophyte or saprophyte, competitive interactions with other native or non-native species, canopy shade preference, and so on. All species differ with respect to optimal conditions for growth and reproduction, and those requirements may differ dramatically depending on the physical location (elevation, aspect, slope, etc.) and current condition of its habitat (e.g., the existing vegetation seral stage directly influences canopy closure, species composition, competitive stress, moisture and temperature regimes, etc.). Each of these attributes and factors can influence how a species may respond to a given mitigation measure. For example, complete canopy removal may be beneficial to most late seral Darlingtonia californica Alliance communities and the majority of species residing in that community, but may pose a significant threat to stands located on south aspects with little or no tree shelter or orographic shading to the south. The seral stage of the natural community may also change which rare species currently occupy the habitat, some of which may not survive complete canopy removal. Basing plant protection measures on a simplistic set of mitigations in the absence of site-specific and species-specific knowledge on which to base the appropriate actions fails to meet a level of analysis to ensure impacts will be less than significant. The situation is compounded in this case, since there is no requirement that those conducting the botanical surveys have the species-related expertise to determine if the mitigation proposed is appropriate, and the flawed methodology/late timing of the botanical surveys exclude any opportunity for expert input on what the appropriate mitigation should be. 7 CEQA Equivalence The Picayune THP area contains extensive potential rare plant habitat for numerous rare species and extensive wetland habitat, much of which supports the Darlingtonia californica fen sensitive natural community. It is our understanding that the results of rare plant surveys are typically processed by CalFire as a minor amendment to the THP, and thus treated as ministerial. As a result, CalFire takes no comments from CEQA Responsible Agencies or the public, and the public is not notified nor does it have any opportunity to comment. A fundamental principle of CEQA is the disclosure of how a project affects a wide range of qualities, including plant species and communities, through a process that allows the public to ask questions and make suggestions regarding project impacts. Certifying a project that allows for rare plant surveys and subsequent analyses and mitigation to be implemented only after approval of the THP represents a clear violation of this fundamental principle of CEQA. How are the CDFW, CNPS, and other members of the public able to evaluate if rare plant surveys were performed by a qualified botanist, at the floristically appropriate time of year, and conducted using professional protocols, all of which are crucial to the likelihood of detecting rare plant occurrences? And how is the public, let alone knowledgeable experts and trustee agency staff, able to comment on the appropriateness of rare plant mitigations? On the basis of this THP, CNPS must question CDFW’s commitment to treating the THP as a CEQA equivalent document, which requires the lead agency (CalFire) provide full disclosure regarding what, if any, sensitive species and natural communities are present, assessment of potential impacts, and adequate mitigations or avoidance measures, as needed, to reduce those impacts to a less than significant level. In our experience, all projects subject to CEQA, with the exception of THPs, are subject to accepted professional protocols, wherein rare plant surveys are conducted and mitigation measures are developed, if needed, prior to project approval. Current THP-related practices deviate in an unprofessional, scientifically unsound manner from the CEQA norms applied to other projects. Summary 1) The Darlingtonia californica sensitive natural community, extensive across the THP footprint, is not documented in the THP, and the potential impacts on it were inadequately disclosed during the THP approval process. CDFW did not request the additional information needed to assess the potential impacts and develop appropriate mitigation measures. 2) This THP does not meet the intent or objectives of the Fish and Game Commission Wetlands Policy, which opposes any development or conversion which would result in a reduction of wetland acreage or wetland habitat values. The CDFW PHI Report is silent on the issue of impacts to wetlands. 3) This THP area contains abundant potential habitat for rare plant species. The protocol for conducting rare plant surveys is inconsistent with professional standards, and severely flawed in that it may easily avoid detection of rare species, fails to provide adequate rare plant mitigation, and does not provide for agency, species expert, and public input prior to implementation of the plan, in violation of CEQA equivalency. The default “mitigations” included in the THP are simplistic, and may not recognize 8 specific needs related to differences in individual species’ autecology, necessary to reduce impacts to all rare plants to less than a significant level. That CDFW did not resolve the above issues during this THP approval process leads us to question whether CDFW is using due diligence in protecting these public trust resources, as it typically does for non-THP CEQA projects. CNPS would appreciate a detailed written response to the issues raised in this letter. Respectfully, Dave Imper David Imper Rare Plant Chair, North Coast Chapter Carol Ralph Carol Ralph President, North Coast Chapter Greg Suba Conservation Program Director California Native Plant Society Ec: California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento Matt St. John, Executive Officer, North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. Santa Rosa, California Citations CDFW. 2009. California Department of Fish and Game. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. CDFW. 2014. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Technical Memorandum: Development, Land Use, and Climate Change Impacts on Wetland and Riparian Habitats—a Summary of Scientifically Supported Conservation Strategies, Mitigation Measures, and Best Management Practices. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Northern Region, Redding, CA. CNDDB. 2011. California Natural Diversity Database. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA. Kruckeberg, A.R. 1984. California Serpentines: Flora, Vegetation, Geology, Soils, and Management Problems. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society Press, Sacramento, CA. USACE. 2016. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Western Mountains, Valleys & Coast 2016 Regional Wetland Plant List. United States Army Corps of Engineers. | survey, mitigation, rare plants, wetlands | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | |
| 2018_RedRock_EIRScoping | Red Rock Canyon State Park General Plan Revision | 2018 | 2008121026 | CEQA | EIR | NOP | Scoping | State | California Department of Parks and Recreation | Kern | Kern Chapter | State Office | N/A | Local Planning Action | Ongoing | November 9, 2018 California Department of Parks and Recreation Attn: Katie Metraux, Acting OHMVR Planning Manager 1725 23rd Street, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95816 Submitted electronically to: info@RedRockGP.com RE: Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Red Rock Canyon State Park General Plan Revision Dear Ms. Metraux, Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide scoping comment on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan (GP) for Red Rock Canyon State Park (RRCSP). According to the California State Parks Planning Handbook1 , the GP: “... is the primary management document for a unit, defining a framework for resource stewardship, interpretation, facilities, visitor use, and operations. General plans define an ultimate purpose, vision, and intent for unit management through goal statements, guidelines, and broad objectives, but stop short of defining specific objectives, methodologies designs, and timelines on how and when to accomplish these goals. General plans are considered a project for the purposes of CEQA, and are required by law (PRC Section 5002.2) before any permanent commitment of the unit resources is made (see Appendix B).” The current GP for RRCSP was completed in 1982, and concludes that the park is an area where “species diversity is great, and speciation is active.” The 1982 GP identifies “allowable uses” that are, “directly related to the enjoyment of scenic, natural, and cultural values.” Furthermore, it identifies specific activities that are consistent with these allowable uses, such as “sightseeing, nature observation, scientific research and educational study, hiking, photography, (and) painting and sketching.” Also, the GP highlights “rock climbing, vehicle recreation, and wayside camping” as inappropriate uses. In the late 1990’s, the GP was amended in conjunction with the addition of land in Last Chance Canyon. However, to date, no comprehensive GP revision has been completed. The Planning Handbook indicates that GPs should be revised at 15-20 year intervals. Consequently, we support the current effort to revise the GP, especially in light of the large amount of new scientific information that has accumulated over the past 30+ years. 1 CA State Parks Planning Handbook The California Native Plant Society (“CNPS”) is a non-profit environmental organization with more than 10,000 members in 35 Chapters across California and Baja California, MX. CNPS’ mission is to protect California's native plant heritage and to preserve it for future generations through the application of science, research, education, and conservation. We work closely with decision-makers, scientists, and local planners to advocate for well-informed policies, regulations, and land management practices. CNPS supports science-based, rational policies and actions, on the local, state, national, and international levels, that lead the continued study and enjoyment of the state’s botanical resources. In line with our mission, we provide the following comments on the NOP for the EIR associated with the RRCSP GP revision. Also, please refer to the comment letter submitted by the Kern County CNPS Chapter on November 1, 2018. 1. Conservation of Botanical Resources Rare Plants Table 1 (below) summarizes the rare plants locations (Element Occurrences [EOs]) within RRCSP that are documented in the October 2018 California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) dataset, and from data obtained from Dr. Naomi Fraga (Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden). Table 1: California Rare Plant Rank2 (CRPR 1B) Plants in RRCSP Scientific Name Common Name CRPR EOs in RRCSP Total EO (in CA) % of all EOs in RRCSP Calochortus striatus alkali mariposa lilly 1B.2 2 113 1.8 Deinandra arida Red Rock tar plant 1B.2 6 6 100 Erythranthe rhodopetra Red Rock Canyon monkeyflower 1B.1 7 8* 87.5 Eschscholzia minutiflora subsp. twisselmannii Red Rock poppy 1B.2 8 27 29.6 Mentzelia tridentata creamy blazing star 1B.3 1 32 3.1 Phacelia nashiana Charlotte's phacelia 1B.2 24 71 33.8 *Includes two new occurrences found by Dr. Naomi Fraga (RSABG) in 2017 2 CNPS Rare Plant Inventory A total of six taxa ranked as CRPR 1B are located in RRCSP. Deinandra arida is only known from RRCSP and should be of primary conservation concern. Additionally, all but one occurrence of Erythranthe rhodopetra, and > 25% of all known occurrences of Eschscholzia minutiflora subsp. twisselmannii and Phacelia nashiana are located within RRCSP. Table 2 (below) contains a summary of the plants on CRPR that are located within RRCSP. The data in this table were obtained from an internal CNPS dataset, derived primarily from records in the Consortium of California Herbaria3 (CCH). Table 2: CRPR 4 Plants in RRCSP Scientific Name Common Name CRPR Observations in RRCSP Camissionia kernensis subsp. kernensis Kern evening primrose 4.3 3 Canbya candida white pygmy poppy 4.2 1 Chorizanthe spinosa Mojave spineflower 4.2 24 Eriogonum gossypinum cottony buchwheat 4.2 2 Euphorbia vallis- mortae Death Valley sanndmat 4.2 2 Mentzelia eremophila solitary blazing star 4.2 34 Muilla coronata crowned muilla 4.2 2 Nemacladus gracilis slender nemacladus 4.2 2 Psorothamnus arborescens var. arborescens Mojave indigo-bush 4.3 1 Sclerocactus polyancistrus Mojave fish- hook cactus 4.2 4 At least 10 plants included on CRPR 4 are located within RRCSP. Of particular concern are Chorizanthe spinosa and Mentzelia eremophila, which have been documented many times within the park. 3 Consortium of California Herbaria Sensitive Natural Communities In California, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) ranks sensitive natural communities (aka rare vegetation types) in accordance with NatureServe’s global and state rankings4 . The list of Sensitive Natural Communities5 contains vegetation alliances ranked as globally (G1-G3) and/or state rare (S1-S3) rare. Under CEQA, an EIR is required if a project threatens “to eliminate a plant or animal community6 .” Table 3 (below) includes the Sensitive Natural Communities that are known to occur in RRCSP. Table 3: Sensitive Natural Communities in RRCSP Alliance Name Common Name State Rank Ericameria paniculata Black-stem rabbitbush scrub S3 Krascheninnikovia lanata Winterfat scrub S3 Lepidospartum squamatum Scalebroom scrub S3 Salix laevigata Red willow thickets S3 Yucca brevifolia Joshua tree woodland S3 Conservation Concerns and Recommendations From a statewide perspective, RRCSP is botanically significant. A unique combination of factors including but not limited to geographic location, geology, and climate have led RRCSP to be evolutionarily noteworthy. The fact alone that two species, Deinandra arida (Red Rock tarplant) and Erythranthe rhodopetra (Red Rock Canyon monkeyflower), are known exclusively (or nearly so) from RRCSP proves that the park’s primary purpose should be for the scientific study, conservation and appreciation of biodiversity. The GP should, first and foremost, highlight the conservation value of RRCSP. The discovery of a new species (Erythranthe rhodopetra) and new populations of rare plants in RRCSP in recent years emphasize the fact that the park’s biodiversity has not been fully documented. Along these lines, there is no published flora (or annotated checklist based on verified herbarium specimens) for the park. A comprehensive inventory of RRCSP’s botanical resources is necessary before any changes that might result in adverse environmental effects are considered in the GP. Based on this conclusion, all changes in management should be contingent upon comprehensive surveys that rule out the presence of sensitive biological resources. During recent surveys, in 2017, Dr. Naomi Fraga discovered numerous new locations of Erythranthe rhodopetra in RRCSP. The fact that Erythranthe rhodopetra was described in 4 CDFW Natural Communities and NatureServe Ranking 5 CDFW Sensitive Natural Communities List 6 Article 5 of CEQA Guidelines 2012, and that new occurrences continue to be found, is evidence that there is still much to learn in RRCSP. The presence of five vegetation types recognized as sensitive natural communities by the CDFW is evidence that RRCSP is important not only for the conservation of individual species, but also for rare habitats. Likewise, comprehensive vegetation surveys have not been completed throughout the park. We recommend that RRCSP complete detailed “Association Level” surveys, as outlined by the CDFW, to help inform management recommendations in the GP. Lastly, in years with adequate precipitation, tens of thousands of Californians flock to the California desert to appreciate the natural beauty of wildflowers. RRCSP is well-known as an excellent place to observe desert wildflowers and this should be considered an important cultural resource. The GP should highlight the park’s role as a location for the appreciation of California’s flora. 2. Management Concerns Vehicular Recreation One of the stated goals of the NOP is to “set the planning context for the park, including its proximity to the new Onyx Ranch SVRA and other surrounding land uses, and address common issues.” Additionally, the map provided in the NOP shows RRCSP in relation to the newly- acquired Onyx State Vehicle Recreation Area (“SVRA”). This leads us to be concerned that the GP could include increased OHV use. We urge state parks to not recommend increased OHV use in the GP. OHV use should be restricted to very limited, highly-regulated locations within RRCSP. Furthermore, the GP should explore alternatives that reduce the number of areas open to OHVs. This might include closing existing roads, repairing damage caused by vehicular travel, and encouraging non-motorized recreation. Many rare plants occur in washes and flat habitats that are especially vulnerable to damage by legal or illegal OHV use. RRCSP is adjacent to the Onyx SVRA and open OHV areas on BLM land including Jawbone Canyon and Dove Springs. The abundance of vehicle-based recreation opportunities in adjacent areas means that increased OHV access within RRCSP is unnecessary. Grazing Increased grazing in some areas of the Western Mojave Desert is a disturbing trend. Grazing causes damage to habitats by disturbing soil, promoting erosion, and harming habitats adjacent to water sources. Non-native herbivores also promote the spread of invasive plants. We encourage the GP to specifically exclude grazing from RRCSP. Invasive Plants Invasive plants pose a significant threat to rare plants and plant communities in the Western Mojave Desert. The GP should include measures to reduce the introduction and spread of invasive species. This should include actions taken to reduce the vectoring of non-native plants by vehicle-based travel, feral herbivores, recreation, and other factors. Likewise, the GP should highlight the need for invasive plant surveys, monitoring, and management. 3. Climate Change The State of California continues to be a leader in combating global climate change. For example, on September 10, 2018, California Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 1007 (De Leon) into law, thus requiring, “100 percent of total retail sales of electricity in California to come from eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources by December 31, 2045.” Transportation (i.e. the burning of fossil fuels) is a primary source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. RRCSP should account for the legally mandated reduction of GHGs (see AB 328 ) in the GP. Additionally, the GP should detail the role that intact desert habitats play in sequestering carbon. Specifically, desert vegetation (especially woodlands and shrub- dominated ecosystems) and soils store vast amounts of carbon9 . Logically, undisturbed habitats sequester carbon, and habitat destruction releases carbon stored above and below the ground. Thus, the GP should emphasize measures to minimize future ground disturbance in RRCSP. Central to our concerns about climate change10 , is that RRCSP is located in a critical transition zone between the Mojave Desert and the southern Sierra Nevada. As a result, numerous species occur at the edge of their natural ranges in the park. Peripheral plant and animal populations are extremely important given the reality of global climate change. Transitional habitats, such as RRCSP, ensure that species have the opportunity to alter their geographic range as climatic conditions change. One example of a species whose range is changing rapidly is Yucca brevifolia (Joshua tree). Populations of Yucca brevifolia in RRCSP occur near the northwestern edge of the range of this species. The GP should emphasize the conservation of Yucca brevifolia and all other species at the edge of their geographic range in RRCSP. Conclusion Red Rock Canyon State Park is an incredibly important place for the conservation and appreciation of California’s biodiversity. Our comments highlight some of the botanical resources that should be prioritized for conservation in the GP revision. As the GP revision process continues, we urge RRCSP to think about the long term impacts that might result from changes in management. In the California desert, there are few other places with such a large 7 SB 100 8 AB 32 9 Carbon Balance in California Deserts 10 CNPS Climate Change Statement concentration of irreplaceable botanical resources in a relatively small area. The precious resources in RRCSP should be managed primarily for their conservation, appreciation, and scientific study. CNPS looks forward to providing further input on the EIR for the RRCSP GP Revision. Thank you very much for considering these comments, and please feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Nicholas Jensen, PhD Southern California Conservation Analyst California Native Plant Society 1500 North College Ave Claremont, CA 91711 (530) 368-7839 njensen@cnps.org | rare plants, sensitive natural communities, survey, conservation, OHV, off highway vehicles, grazing, invasive plants, climate change, carbon sequestration, transitional habitat | N/A | N/A | N/A | https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56d4842f3c44d83b5d49808b/t/5bbbca6024a694bb1f1120e0/1539033698341/Red+Rock_NOP_October+2018_Final_10_5_18.pdf | 35.37 | -117.99 | |
| 2020_ReyesPeak_Scoping | Reyes Peak Forest Health and Fuels Reduction Project | 2020 | N/A | NEPA | Categorical Exclusion | N/A | Scoping | Federal | The United States Forest Service | Ventura | Channel Islands Chapter | State Office | N/A | Vegetation Management | Ongoing | August 14, 2020 Greg Thompson Los Padres National Forest Mt. Pinos Ranger District 34580 Lockwood Valley Rd. Frazier Park, CA 93225 Re: Reyes Peak Forest Health and Fuels Reduction Project Scoping Comments Dear Mr. Thompson: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Reyes Peak Forest Health and Fuels Reduction Project (the “Reyes Peak Project” or “Project”). The California Native Plant Society (“CNPS”) is a non-profit environmental organization with nearly 11,000 members. CNPS’ mission is to protect California's native plant heritage and preserve it for future generations through application of science, research, education, and conservation. CNPS works closely with decision-makers, scientists, and local planners to advocate for well-informed and environmental friendly policies, regulations, and land management practices. The Reyes Peak Project intends to treat 755 acres of the Los Padres National Forest in the Ojai Ranger District and Mt. Pinos Ranger District (between Highway 33 and Reyes Peak in Ventura County) to promote forest resilience to drought, insect and disease, and wildfire. The Forest Service is implementing the Reyes Peak Project pursuant to three categorical exclusions: (1) timber stand and/or wildlife habitat improvement activities which do not include the use of herbicides or do not require more than one mile of low standard road construction (36 CFR § 220.6(e)(6)); (2) projects to reduce the risk or extent of, or increase resilience to, insect or disease infestation in designated areas (Healthy Forests Restoration Act (“HFRA”) § 603); and (3) hazardous fuels reduction projects (HFRA § 605). Sensitive species and habitats on the Project site will be significantly impacted by the Project. At least eleven species of Forest Service-listed sensitive plants are known to occur in the vicinity of the Project area, and 41% of the project is comprised of Inventoried Roadless Area (“IRA”). Additionally, 34% of the project area would be designated as wilderness under the Central Coast Heritage Protection Act (H.R. 2199), a bill that has been passed by the House of Representatives and awaits a vote in the Senate. Because these resources will be significantly impacted by the Project, the Forest Service should prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) in order to determine the full extent of impacts and discuss feasible alternatives. CNPS supports efforts by private property owners and land management agencies to make communities in the wildland-urban urban interface more resilient to the threat of wildfires. 2 CNPS Comment Letter As stated in our Native Plants and Fire Safety Policy1 , CNPS “opposes the unnecessary destruction of California’s native plant heritage for the purpose of wildfire fuel management.” Furthermore, we support “fuel management plans that minimize the risk to human life and property while maximizing protection of native plants and their habitats.” These statements do not preclude the thoughtful application of scientifically-defensible techniques to manage fuels following a thorough review of potential environmental impacts. Preparing an EIS would aid the Forest Service in determining how to implement this Project in the most effective and least destructive manner. The Project gives significant leeway to the Forest Service to thin forest stands and masticate chaparral without following guidelines that will limit the unnecessary destruction of plants and wildlife. The Forest Service should prepare an EIS for the Reyes Peak Project so that more stringent protocols consistent with ecological principles can be implemented. I. Categorical Exclusions Are Not Applicable to the Reyes Peak Project Because Extraordinary Circumstances Are Present. A proposed action may be categorically excluded from further analysis and documentation in an EIS or EA only if there are no extraordinary circumstances related to the proposed action. 36 CFR § 220.6(a). Extraordinary circumstances exist when the project will have a significant effect on certain resource conditions present on the project site. Id. § 220.6(b)(2). Several resources will be significantly impacted by this Project: federally designated critical habitat, Forest Service sensitive species, and inventoried roadless area. Id. § 220.6(b)(1)(i); (iv). In light of the significant effects the Project will have on these resources, extraordinary circumstances exist that require the preparation of an EIS. a. At Least 11 Sensitive Plant Species Occur in the Project’s Vicinity, and Others Are Likely to Occur Within the Project Boundary. According to available data, the following Forest Service sensitive species are known to occur in the vicinity of the Reyes Peak Project site2 : 1 https://www.cnps.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/fire_safety.pdf. 2 See 2013 FS R5 RF Sensitive Plant Species List, available at https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/r5/plants- animals/plants. 3 CNPS Comment Letter Scientific Name Common Name CNPS Ranking State/Global Ranking Acanthoscyphus parishii var. abramsii Abrams' oxytheca 1B.2 S1S2/G4?T1T2 Allium howellii var. clokeyi Mt. Pinos onion 1B.3 S2/G4T2 Calochortus palmeri var. palmeri Palmer's mariposa-lily 1B.2 S2/G3T2 Chorizanthe blakleyi Blakley's spineflower 1B.3 S2/G2 Delphinium parryi ssp. purpureum Mt. Pinos larkspur 4.3 S4/G4T4 Delphinium umbraculorum Umbrella larkspur 1B.3 S3/G3 Layia heterotricha Pale yellow layia 1B.1 S2/G2 Monardella linoides ssp. oblonga Tehachapi monardella 1B.3 S2/G5T2 Nemacladus secundiflorus var. robbinsii Robbins' nemacladus 1B.2 S2/G3T2 Sidalcea neomexicana Salt spring checkerbloom 2B.2 S2/G4 Sidotheca caryophylloides Chickweed oxytheca 4.3 S4/G4 Of these, Sidotheca caryophylloides has been documented within the Project boundary, and based on available data several more are highly likely to occur within the Project boundary, including Monardella linoides subsp. oblonga and Acanthoscyphus parishii var. abramsii. The Project proposal does not mention a single rare or sensitive plant, and yet the Project’s proposed treatments will have a significant effect on these resources. Mastication, mechanical thinning, prescribed fire, and the presence of crews and heavy machinery would likely threaten these species and has the potential to critically alter their habitat. The current design elements proposed for the protection of botanical resources are not sufficient to protect sensitive species from these treatments, and in some instances are counter- productive to the identification and preservation of sensitive species. (Project Proposal, p. 20). First and foremost, surveys of the Project site need to be completed prior to the Project’s implementation. Simply reviewing sensitive species occurrence records from the Forest Service database is not sufficient. Records are often incomplete and not up-to-date. Properly timed, in- person surveys conducted by qualified botanists are the only way to know with certainty that the proposed treatments can move forward without harming or significantly impacting sensitive species. Retroactive consultation with forest personnel in the event that “not yet known” sensitive species are present on the Project site, as proposed in item number 5 of the botanical resources design elements (p. 20), is illogical and ineffective. Unless surveys are completed before the project begins, it is conceivable that sensitive species will be missed completely, leading to irreversible damage to plants/habitats. Finally, the design elements do not state how surveys will be completed, or if they will be completed at all. Item 6 is the only provision that discusses surveys, stating that “[w]hen surveys 4 CNPS Comment Letter for species presence/absence are done for threatened, endangered, and proposed species, use established survey protocols, where such protocols exist.” It does not mandate that surveys be completed, and merely provides that if surveys are done, they will follow established protocols (without specifying which established protocols the surveys will follow). Item 6 also excludes surveys for Forest Service sensitive species. If the Project is to be implemented in a way that truly protects sensitive plants, there must be assurances that surveys will (1) actually be conducted in the first place, (2) include sensitive plants, and (3) clearly articulate the protocols and guidelines that will be followed, including the scope of the surveys, what time of year they will be performed, how many acres they will cover, and other important details. b. Sensitive Wildlife Species and Critical Habitat Occur on the Project Site. The Los Padres National Forest has known occurrences of sensitive animal species and critical habitat for the California condor, some of which is contained within the Project site. 3 Similar to the design elements for botanical resources, the wildlife design elements provide no assurances that surveys will be performed prior to the Project’s implementation. Without proper surveys, the crews performing the proposed treatments will not know whether condor, spotted owl, northern goshawk, or other sensitive wildlife are located in or nesting on the Project site until it is too late to implement protective measures. One of the goals of the proposed treatments is to protect habitat for these species, but the Forest Service must also analyze the potential pitfalls of those treatments resulting from habitat alteration and interference with ecological processes through the preparation of an EIS. c. Sespe-Frazier IRA Will Be Significantly Impacted by the Project. The Reyes Peak Project site encompasses 311 acres of Sespe-Frazier IRA, which amounts to roughly 41% of the entire project site. (Project Proposal, p. 1).4 According to the Los Padres National Forest Land Management Plan, the Sespe-Frazier IRA “is the most rugged, remote repository of wilderness in the southern California ranges.”5 The desired condition for the area is preservation of its “untamed character and the mix of conifer and chaparral.”6 The Project proposal claims that this area has “low wilderness values,” but this characterization is directly at odds with the Land Management Plan and the policies governing the Sespe-Frazier IRA. The Forest Service offers no explanation for why the area should be considered low value, 3 See USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest, Sensitive Animal Species by Forest, available at https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/r5/plants-animals/wildlife; see also Project Proposal, pp. 23-24. 4 Additionally, 34% of the project site is proposed wilderness. The Central Coast Heritage Protection Act, a bill that has passed the House and will be voted on by the Senate shortly, designates 250,000 acres within the Los Padres National Forest and Carizzo Plain National Monument as protected wilderness areas.4 If the bill passes, 34% of the Reyes Peak Project would be designated wilderness. See https://carbajal.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID =604#:~:text=The%20Central%20Coast%20Heritage%20Protection,Los%20Angeles%20to%20Monterey%20Coun ty; http://centralcoastwild.com/. 5 Los Padres National Forest Land Management Plan, p. 80, https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5337817.pdf. 6 Id. at 82. 5 CNPS Comment Letter apart from referencing dozer lines that have been repeatedly reopened during wildfires. Even so, the fact that dozer lines have been installed does not relieve the Forest Service’s obligation to maintain the undeveloped character of the land. The Project proposal gives virtually unlimited discretion to the Forest Service to cut down large trees, which violates the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Rule allows the cutting, sale, or removal of generally small diameter timber if needed "to maintain or restore the characteristics of ecosystem composition and structure, such as to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects, within the range of variability that would be expected to occur under natural disturbance regimes of the current climatic period." (Project Proposal pp. 17-18, citing 36 CFR § 294.13(b)(l)(ii)). This Project proposes to remove much more than “small diameter timber,” including trees as large as 64 inches in diameter, and does not focus on the rule’s main objective of maintaining or restoring the characteristics of ecosystem composition and structure. Within the IRA, the Project proposes to thin small trees up to 23.9 inches in diameter, and retain trees that are 24 inches in diameter or larger “unless removal is needed for safety reasons or dwarf mistletoe infestations.” (Project Proposal, p. 18). This vague standard gives the Forest Service extremely broad discretion to cut down large trees, and provides no clarity for when safety concerns and/or the presence of mistletoe justify cutting down a large tree. There is no definition of “safety reasons,” and dwarf mistletoe can be found in many trees in the Los Padres National Forest. Under these guidelines, countless acres of healthy, non-hazardous trees could be removed, thereby drastically altering the undeveloped and rugged character of the Project site. CNPS understands the importance of fire prevention projects in the wildland-urban interface. But when there are three miles between the Project site and the nearest community, Camp Scheideck, and 41% of the Project area is IRA, the goal of preventing wildfires should be balanced more scrupulously with maintaining existing habitats. The Forest Service should determine through informed, scientifically supported studies whether the ecological consequences of thinning and installation of fuelbreaks are proportionate to the potential fire- prevention benefits. II. An EIS Must Be Prepared Because the Project Will Substantially Alter the Undeveloped Character of Inventoried Roadless Area. In addition to constituting an extraordinary circumstance, the fact that the Project includes an IRA requires preparation of an EIS under Forest Service regulations. A project that “would substantially alter the undeveloped character of an inventoried roadless area or a potential wilderness area” falls within the class of actions that normally require an EIS. 36 CFR § 220.5(a)(2). An example of such a project is one that involves “harvesting timber in an inventoried roadless area where the . . . harvest units impact a substantial part of the inventoried roadless area.” Id. § 220.5(a)(2)(i). This project fits squarely within these criteria. 6 CNPS Comment Letter As discussed above, the undeveloped character of this land will be substantially altered by the Project, through the removal of trees (potentially for commercial sale7 ), mastication of chaparral habitat, and construction of fuelbreaks. An EIS should be prepared in order to fully analyze the potential impacts to the Sespe-Frazier IRA and discuss reasonable alternatives. III. An EIS Is Not Only Required, But Important Because the Project Does Not Currently Balance Ecological Interests with Intended Fuel Reduction Outcomes. The stated purpose of the Project is to “provide safe and effective locations from which to perform fire suppression operations, to slow the spread of a wildland fire at these strategic fuelbreak locations, and to reduce the potential for the loss of life, property, and natural resources.” (Project Proposal, p. 15). These objectives do not justify the proposed action. The Project’s fire-prevention goals need to be contextualized within the reality that the Project site is three miles from the nearest community, and does not encompass wildland-urban interface. Fuel treatments, if timed correctly and designed well, can be beneficial to forest health and some rare species. The Forest Service should provide a detailed analysis of project-level and species-specific impacts and explain how the project is designed to protect those resources. Analyzing the proposed treatments and considering alternatives in an EIS will ensure that the effectiveness of the treatments is balanced against their environmental impacts. The disease management treatments for dwarf mistletoe are also overly broad and do not adequately consider the ecological needs of the forest. Mistletoe is a native species and plays an important role in a balanced forest, providing a food source and nesting sites for birds and small mammals. According to a document prepared by the Forest Service, “[t]here is little doubt that dwarf mistletoes have beneficial as well as damaging effects,” and “the idea that the ‘presence of dwarf mistletoe in a stand means that a portion of the stand is not healthy’ (Smith 1978) is changing.”8 The Project proposal sets no limitation or guidelines for how to determine whether a tree should be cut down due to dwarf mistletoe. In public meetings, the Forest Service has indicated that it intends to follow the “Hazard Tree Guidelines for Forest Service Facilities and Roads in the Pacific Southwest Region.” These standards should be incorporated and referenced in the Project proposal, and should be reviewed and analyzed against scientifically supported protocols that focus on forest health and ecology in mixed conifer forest that is not used for timber harvest. An EIS should be prepared to analyze and rectify the following deficiencies: 7 Protecting Pine Mountain and Reyes Peak,” U.S. Forest Service, Los Padres National Forest, available at https://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/lpnf/home/?cid=FSEPRD764823&width=full. 8 Conklin, David A., “Dwarf Mistletoe Management and Forest Health in the Southwest,” U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southwest Region (April 2000), available at https://www.forestpests.org/acrobat/dwarfmistletoe.pdf. 7 CNPS Comment Letter a. The Project needs more stringent guidelines for cutting down large trees. “Safety reasons” and “impacted by dwarf mistletoe” are not sufficiently specific standards and will lead to unnecessary destruction of healthy and non-hazardous trees. Removal of large trees does not help prevent high-intensity fires, and should not be a component of the project without strict parameters limiting the instances in which large trees may be cut down. CNPS does not object to the thinning of small-diameter trees in non-IRA, and in fact such treatments can be an important part of healthy forest management when supported by detailed studies and scientific research. Nor does CNPS object to the Forest Service using the protocols outlines in the “Hazard Tree Guidelines for Forest Service Facilities and Roads in the Pacific Southwest Region.” However, the Forest Service should prepare a fact-based, scientifically supported EIS that fully analyzes these guidelines to ensure that the final proposed treatments avoid needlessly damaging forest health and ecological processes. b. Adequate surveys need to be conducted before the Project begins. As discussed above, retroactive analysis of sensitive species on the Project site are not sufficient or effective at protecting these species and their habitats. Adequate surveys need to be completed before the Project begins so that appropriate mitigation measures can be put into place before these species are irreparably harmed. c. The Project needs to consider the heterogeneity of the forest and revise the current tree density objectives. The Project imposes a blanket strategy for tree stand density throughout the entire Project area, with no consideration to the natural heterogeneity of forest habitats, likelihood/severity of wildfires, and whether proposed tree densities are appropriate for desired heterogeneity in stand composition. The proposed tree densities should be more nuanced and align with the natural stand densities and desired conditions. d. The risk of type conversion resulting from chaparral mastication needs to be analyzed and mitigated. There are 316 acres of chaparral within the Project site. (Project Proposal, p. 11). While chaparral may burn at a high intensity, the benefits of the proposed mastication treatments may not outweigh harm posed to chaparral habitat health and plant diversity, including type conversion. The Project should consider whether alternative chaparral treatments could effectively achieve the Project’s fire prevention goals while maintaining ecological processes. 8 CNPS Comment Letter IV. Conclusion The totality of the Project’s impacts on the resource conditions described above demonstrates that extraordinary circumstances exist and an EIS must be prepared. The vague and poorly-defined proposed treatments will lead to substantial and detrimental effects to the ecology and health of the forest and chaparral. The consequences of this Project potentially outweigh the intended fire and disease prevention objectives. Thus, an EIS should be prepared to ensure that detrimental and irreversible impacts to the Project area are avoided. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Reyes Peak Project and please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Isabella Langone, J.D. Conservation Analyst California Native Plant Society 2707 K Street, Suite 1 Sacramento, CA 95816 ilangone@cnps.org | categorical exclusion, extraordinary circumstances, sensitive plants, sensitive wildlife, inventoried roadless area, EIS | N/A | 36 CFR §220.5(a)(2), 36 CFR §220.5(a)(2)(i), 36 CFR §220.6(a), 36 CFR §220.6(b)(2), 36 CFR §220.6(b)(1)(i); (iv) | Native Plants and Fire Safety Policy | https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/113561_FSPLT3_5299147.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0HgsXqN7PHF0-INT6O8JjcHkCnX62CXIPHAa5Mq53ILNY8yYLyJJIFewk | 34.64 | -119.33 | |
| 2021_RosamondSolar_EIRScoping | Rosamond South Solar Project by Golden Fields Solar IV, LLC | 2021 | 2021060079 | CEQA | EIR | NOP | Scoping | County | Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department | Kern | Kern Chapter | State Office | N/A | Energy, Local Planning Action | Ongoing | July 2, 2021 Terrance Smalls Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department 2700 M Street, Suite 100 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Sent electronically to: SmallsT@kerncounty.com Re: Scoping Comments on Rosamond South Solar Project Notice of Preparation Dear Mr. Terrance Smalls, Thank you for the opportunity to provide scoping comments on the proposed Rosamond South Solar Project (#19151) (the “Project”) in Kern County, California. The Rosamond South Solar Project consists of four sites of privately-owned desert habitat, totaling approximately 1,292 acres. The sites are located in the Mojave Desert, within unincorporated Kern County. The applicant, Golden Fields Solar IV, LLC, is proposing to develop a photovoltaic solar facility and associated infrastructure to generate up to 154 megawatt-alternating current (MW-AC) of renewable energy, including up to 200 megawatts of energy storage. The California Native Plant Society (“CNPS”) is a statewide, non-profit organization with more than 10,000 members distributed across 35 local chapters. The mission of CNPS is to conserve California native plants and their natural habitats, and to increase the understanding, appreciation, and horticultural use of native plants. CNPS works closely with decision-makers, scientists, and local planners to advocate for well-informed policies, regulations, and land management practices. CNPS supports renewable energy development that is sited and planned to avoid adverse environmental impacts to sensitive biological resources. Our concerns regarding the Project include impacts to rare plants, vegetation, and ecological processes. Importantly, the Project is sited in the western Mojave Desert. The deserts of Western North America represent one of Earth’s last remaining large, intact ecosystems. These habitats are a reservoir of biodiversity, ecosystem services, and evolutionary processes. In the face of climate change, and a myriad of other impacts including renewable energy development, the maintenance of the primary roles of desert habitats is of utmost importance. Renewable energy projects should be sited to avoid direct and indirect impacts to plant species (including transmission lines and roads), such as 2 habitat reduction, alteration, fragmentation, exposure to contaminants or fires, and introduction of non-native species. With that in mind, please consider the following recommendations as the Project is evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”). 1. Complete Full-Floristic Surveys Comprehensive botanical scoping and surveys consistent with CDFW Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities 1 should be performed prior to construction and ground disturbing activities. In line with CDFW guidelines, botanists should conduct inventories of all plants that have potential to occur on the Project site, using databases such as the California Natural Diversity Database and the CNPS Rare Plant Inventory. It should be noted that many areas of the California desert have not been surveyed adequately for the presence of sensitive species. Consequently, the review of existing databases is not a substitute for comprehensive, on-the- ground surveys. Surveys should be “full-floristic” in nature, meaning they should document all plant species that occur on the Project site, and should be conducted by a qualified botanist. This is necessary in order to catalog and assess impacts to all sensitive species, not just those that are predetermined to have a likelihood of occurring on the Project site. Impacts to all plants included on the CDFW Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List2 need to be evaluated, as well as all plants in the CNPS Rare Plant Inventory. For rare plants found on the site, the DEIR must address the cumulative impacts of the large number of already-implemented renewable energy projects in addition to the effects of projects that are expected to be implemented in the future in Kern County. The cumulative impact on ecological processes and biological corridors also needs to be addressed. 2. Conduct Surveys in a Year with Adequate Rainfall Botanical surveys need to be conducted following adequate amounts of precipitation and timed appropriately to ensure that rare plants are detectable. The detectability of special status plants with potential to occur on a project site can be verified by botanists visiting nearby reference populations of rare plants. The timing and details of visits to reference populations of special status plants should be detailed in the DEIR. Lastly, details of the rare plant survey effort should also be documented in the DEIR, including information on the dates of surveys, number of surveyors, names of surveyors, and the survey methods used. 1 https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline 2 https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109383&inline 3 3. Vegetation Communities Must Be Mapped to the Alliance Level Vegetation types and sensitive natural communities on the Project sites should be mapped, at a minimum, to the Alliance level in accordance with CDFW’s Vegetation Classification and Mapping Standards3 . Sensitive communities should be mapped to Alliance and Association according to the Manual of California Vegetation (MCV), Second Edition (Sawyer et al. 2009) and California Sensitive Natural Community List (CDFW 2020), in consultation with a qualified botanist, and the total acres of temporary and permanent impacts associated with each MCV Alliance/Association should be disclosed. High salinity/alkaline wetlands in desert ecosystems are often home to rare plant species. Special care should be taken to delineate any wetlands, riparian areas, and washes that may be impacted by the Project. The conservation of wetlands is essential to maintaining the hydrological function of desert ecosystems and sensitive habitats. The methods used to identify and map wetlands on the Project site should be clearly reported in the DEIR. 4. The EIR Should Consider the Cumulative Impacts of Rosamond South in Combination with Surrounding Solar Projects There are several existing, planned, and permitted solar energy and transmission projects adjacent to the project site, including AVEP, Antelope Valley Solar, Big Beau Solar Project, Kingbird Photovoltaic Project, RE Astoria Solar Project, Raceway Solar Project, Rosamond Solar Array, Antelope Valley Phases 1 & 2, Willow Springs Solar Array, and Clearway’s Rosamond Central Solar Project. Together these projects represent a considerable area of solar development, and the combined impact of these projects will likely be significant. The EIR should consider the cumulative impacts of the Rosamond Solar in light of the numerous other solar projects in the area. 5. Required Mitigation Measures Must Be Sufficient to Fully Compensate for Impacts In the event that the Project has unavoidable impacts to plants, mitigation measures that reduce impacts to less than significant levels should be planned and implemented. The mitigation plan should include a discussion of suitability of off-site mitigation locations and on- and off-site mitigation ratios. Adequate monitoring must be a part of the mitigation plan to fully compensate for significant impacts. An ecosystem-based habitat mitigation and monitoring plan for impacts to sensitive plants and vegetation communities should be developed in consultation with a qualified botanist and restoration specialist. 3 https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=102342&inline 4 Thank you for the opportunity to provide scoping comments on the Rosamond South Solar Project. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Isabella Langone Conservation Analyst California Native Plant Society 2707 K Street, Suite 1 Sacramento, CA 95816 ilangone@cnps.org | survey, mapping, mitigation, cumulative impacts, desert, wetlands | N/A | N/A | N/A | https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2021060079 | 34.84 | -118.36 | |
| 2019_StraussWind_FSEIR | Strauss Wind Energy Project | 2019 | 2018071002 | CEQA | EIR | Final Supplemental EIR | Final | County | Santa Barbara County Planning Commission | Santa Barbara | Channel Islands Chapter | State Office, Channel Islands Chapter | Defenders of Wildlife, Santa Barbara Audubon Society | Energy, Local Planning Action | Settled | November 15, 2019 Santa Barbara County Planning Commission 123 East Anapamu Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Sent electronically to: dvillalo@co.santa-barbara.ca.us, kathypm@co.santa-barbara.ca.us CC: Kelly.Schmoker@wildlife.ca.gov, Randy.Rodriguez@wildlife.ca.gov, Erinn.Wilson@wildlife.ca.gov, mark_elvin@fws.gov, katherine.emery@lifesci.ucsb.edu, kdelfino@cnps.org, kipp.callahan@gmail.com, gsuba@cnps.org Dear Santa Barbara County Planning Commission, Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) for the Strauss Wind Energy Project (SWEP or Project, hereafter). SWEP is located along the Gaviota Coast east of Vandenberg Airforce Base and northwest of the newly-created Jack and Laura Dangermond Preserve. SWEP is a de novo iteration of the previously-approved Lompoc Wind Energy Project (LWEP) and occupies the same project site. The Gaviota Coast is a 76-mile long undeveloped stretch of coastline and adjacent upland habitat that continues to be valued for its sensitive ecological resources, scenic beauty, and cultural resources. SWEP proposes to install 30 wind turbines on 5,887 acres of undeveloped land. The installation of wind turbines and associated infrastructure (e.g. roads, transmission lines) will have direct and indirect impacts to the biological resources on the Project site. One purpose of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is to disclose to the public the potential impacts of discretionary projects like SWEP. Further, CEQA provides a means to identify how these impacts can be mitigated and an explanation why decision makers choose to allow certain projects to go forward even if impacts cannot be avoided. The public plays a central role in helping to ensure that the negative effects of projects, such as SWEP, do not outweigh their benefits. In this context, the following comments are provided on behalf of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), Santa Barbara Audubon Society (SBAS), Defenders of Wildlife (Defenders), and Channel Islands Chapter of CNPS (Conservation Organizations, hereafter). CNPS is a non-profit environmental organization with more than 10,000 members in 35 Chapters across California and Baja California, Mexico. CNPS’s mission is to protect California’s native plant heritage and preserve it for future generations through the application of science, research, education, and conservation. CNPS works closely with decision-makers, scientists, and local planners to advocate for well-informed policies, regulations, and land management practices. SBAS is one of 460+ chapters of the National Audubon Society. Founded in 1963, SBAS serves to create a culture of conservation in our region through education and advocacy, focusing on the conservation of birds and other wildlife and the ecological health of important habitats. We currently have ~1100 members. Defenders is a non-profit environmental organization with more than 1.8 million members and supporters nationwide, including 279,000 members and supporters in California. Defenders works towards protection of wildlife, ecosystems, and landscapes while supporting the timely development of renewable energy resources in California. Achieving a low carbon energy future is critical for California – for our economy, our communities, and the environment. Achieving this future—and how we achieve it—is critical for protecting California’s internationally treasured wildlife, landscapes, productive farmlands, and diverse habitats. Over the past decade plus, the Conservation Organizations have participated actively in the discourse on renewable energy development on natural lands in California. We played a pivotal role in the development of the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan and have engaged in advocacy on a wide variety of wind and solar energy projects statewide. We support renewable energy development where its siting does not cause significant impacts to sensitive biological resources. In the face of climate change, we support new wind and solar energy projects on previously-disturbed lands and within already urbanized areas. We recognize the need to consider a wide range of sites for renewable energy development. However, not all sites that have good potential to support renewable energy development are appropriate due to adverse environmental impacts. We are incredibly concerned about the gravity of the Project’s impacts to Gaviota tarplant (Deinandra increscens subsp. villosa). Our comments below focus primarily on this taxon and other rare plants that will be affected by the Project. We steadfastly assert that Santa Barbara County can, and must, do better to minimize impacts to sensitive biological resources. The impacts to other biota including oaks and rare wildlife has been covered well by SBAS and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) in comments submitted in response to the Draft SEIR. We recommend that the County and Project proponent fully address these comments before rendering a final decision on SWEP. I. Impacts to Gaviota tarplant Gaviota tarplant within SWEP Gaviota tarplant is listed as an endangered species under the California and Federal Endangered Species Acts, and is included on Rank 1B.1 (Plants Rare, Threatened or Endangered in California and Elsewhere) of the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants1 . Gaviota tarplant is endemic to California and has an extremely limited geographic range. The entire distribution of this taxon spans approximately 80 miles from north to south and 60 miles from west to east. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2 has designated three units of critical habitat, Sudden Peak, Conception-Gaviota, and the Santa Ynez Mountains, for the conservation of Gaviota tarplant. As defined by the USFWS, critical habitat units, “contain the physical or 1 http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/ 2 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2002-11-07/pdf/02-27873.pdf#page=2 biological features that are essential to the conservation of endangered and threatened species and that may need special management or protection.” The entirety of the Sudden Peak Unit is located within the Project site. The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)3 currently tracks 22 occurrences of Gaviota tarplant. These occurrences are located within seven populations, as interpreted by the (USFWS) and CDFW. The numbers of Gaviota tarplant at a given location vary on a yearly basis given that it is an annual, but population sizes are generally small. The maximum population sizes at six of seven populations range from 700 at the Santa Ynez Mountains Population to 10,230 at the Point Conception Population. The largest population of Gaviota tarplant, Tranquillion Ridge/Sudden Peak has as many as six million plants, as observed in 2019. The entirety of this population would be impacted directly or indirectly by SWEP. The FSEIR makes it difficult to determine the occupied acreage of Gaviota tarplant on the project site. Biological Resources Addendum 2 (Appendices at pdf pg. 721) documents 4,542,342 individuals over 192 acres of occupied habitat in 2018 surveys. Appendix C-9 (Appendices at pdf pg. 1154) notes that, “the 2019 surveys focused on areas that were not previously surveyed within the impact area or within 100 feet of the impact area. Additionally, potential mitigation areas were surveyed to ensure that active mitigation, such as native grasslands restoration, would not impact a special-status plant species. The 2019 survey area for Gaviota tarplant (Deinandra increscens ssp. villosa) was more expansive, in order to provide a better understanding of the extent of the population in the Project area.” Later, Appendix C-9, Pre-construction Botanical Surveys in 2019, documents 6,039,777 plants over 56.6 acres of occupied habitat (Appendices at pg. 1164 in pdf). Yet, the FSEIR (pdf pgs. 250-1) reports 207 acres of occupied habitat of Gaviota tarplant on the project site. Please explain the discrepancy between the occupied acreage of Gaviota tarplant between 2018 and 2019. The sum of the area occupied by all occurrences of Gaviota tarplant in the CNDDB is 1,356 acres. We provide the following table with observed abundance at each population to place the importance of the SWEP in its proper context. The Tranquillion Mountain/Sudden Peak Population (in bold) is contained almost entirely on the Project site. Population Name Number of Plants Environmental Setting Gaviota 1,200 Coastal terrace Hollister Ranch 1,101 Coastal terrace Lions Head 611 Coastal terrace Point Arguello 750 Coastal terrace 3 https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/About Point Conception 10,230 Coastal terrace Santa Ynez Mountains 700 Higher elevation Tranquillion Mountain/Sudden Peak 6,038,777 Higher elevation From the perspective of population size, SWEP is the most important location for Gaviota tarplant. Remarkably, 99.7 percent of all known individuals of Gaviota tarplant occur on SWEP, and only 0.3 percent of the total population of this taxon occurs off the project site. To put this in perspective, the world’s human population is 7.7 billion and 25 million people (0.33 percent) live in Australia. The small percentage represented by Australia’s population, from a global perspective, is equivalent to the portion of Gaviota tarplant that occurs outside of SWEP. Furthermore, approximately 15 percent of the mapped acreage of Gaviota tarplant occurs on the project site. Consequently, any impacts to Gaviota tarplant on SWEP should be considered an impact to this taxon. The conservation of Gaviota tarplant depends on the conservation of the Tranquillion Ridge/Sudden Peak Population. Direct Impacts The FSEIR fails to report the magnitude of direct impacts to Gaviota tarplant in a transparent manner. First of all, the FSEIR relegates the discussion of the number of individuals that will be directly impacted by the Project to the Appendices. Instead, the FSEIR opts to report the number of acres that will be directly impacted by project actions. These include 10.3 acres of permanent and 22.3 acres of temporary impact for a total of 32.6 acres of direct impact. Has the FSEIR demonstrated that disturbed areas can be adequately restored to previous conditions? If not, all acreage of direct impact should be treated as a permanent loss. The FSEIR makes it challenging to verify the acreage of Gaviota tarplant that will be directly impacted by the project. Specifically, 2019 surveys documented 6,039,777 plants over 56.6 acres. This amounts to a substantially larger number of plants over a significantly smaller area than was reported in 2018 surveys. The FSEIR notes that cumulatively there are 207 acres of occupied habitat for Gaviota tarplant on the site but it is unclear how this was calculated. Surveys in 2018 and 2019 documented plants over 192 acres and 56.6 acres, respectively. How much did these surveys overlap? Figure 3 in Appendix C-3 (Appendices pg. 1172 in pdf) appears to document a 2019 survey area that corresponds to the entire distribution of Gaviota tarplant on the project site, as is shown in FSEIR Figure 4-5-4a. Which map of occupied habitat was used to calculate the total amount of acreage of Gaviota tarplant that will be impacted by SWEP? The amount of acreage that will be impacted by SWEP is important but is only one measure of the project’s magnitude of impact. As stated previously, SWEP contains the vast majority of the overall population of Gaviota tarplant. The number of plants that will be directly impacted, 760,558, is only reported once, in the FSEIR Appendix, Biological Resources Addendum 2 (Appendices at pdf pg. 732). This calculation is based solely on the results of 2018 surveys. Has the number of plants that will be directly impacted by SWEP been calculated using the results of 2019 surveys? The comment letter submitted by CDFW indicates that 1,273,882 individuals of Gaviota tarplant will be directly impacted. Please clarify the number of plants that will lost if the Project is implemented. Regardless, either 760,558 or 1.2+ million plants, is a significant impact to the total population of Gaviota tarplant. Based on the number of plants reported by CDFW in their DSEIR comment letter (pdf at pg. 5), updated to account for the 6,039,777 plants documented on SWEP in 2019 surveys, 21% of the entire population of Gaviota tarplant, a state and federally endangered species, will be eliminated by this project. Also, the FSEIR fails to disclose where the largest numbers of Gaviota tarplant observed in 2019 surveys (as was reported in Biological Resources Addendum 2 in Appendices pdf pgs. 721-4) occur in relation to areas of direct impacts. This makes it challenging to identify where avoidable impacts to large numbers of Gaviota tarplant on SWEP are feasible. Lastly, direct impact will result in the loss of 2.3 percent of the entire occupied acreage of Gaviota tarplant. Furthermore, 4.1 percent of the habitat in the Sudden Peak Unit of critical habitat will be lost as a result of the project. Indirect impacts The FSEIR does not adequately account for indirect impacts to Gaviota tarplant. CDFW, in their DSEIR comment letter, identifies a number of indirect impacts that could affect nearly the entire population of Gaviota tarplant on SWEP. The FSEIR states that “indirect impacts including but not limited to isolation, habitat fragmentation, pollinator impacts” will occur to Gaviota tarplant. However, it concludes that, “these indirect impacts cannot be quantified in terms of acreage but are far less important than direct impacts even immediately adjacent to the Project footprint, and decline in importance over relatively short distances.” The failure to account for the acreage that will be affected by indirect impacts makes it impossible to determine full magnitude of impacts to Gaviota tarplant, which is required to assess if proposed mitigation measures are sufficient. A wealth of scientific literature emphasizes the importance of evaluating the indirect impacts associated with the disturbance of natural habitats. We offer the following comments on selected indirect impacts that are germane to the long-term persistence of Gaviota tarplant on SWEP: Invasive Plants- Invasive plants compete with native species and this can lead to the loss of native plant populations over time (Cronk and Fuller 2001). Invasive plant species are implicated in the extirpation of rare plant species worldwide from Lantana spp., which threatens rare sunflowers in the Galapagos Islands to Passiflora mollissima, which threatens several rare endemic species in Hawaiian rainforests. Closer to home, invasive plants have been implicated as a cause in the extirpation of approximately 100 rare plant occurrences in California (Jensen and Still, manuscript in preparation). Grading for construction and linear disturbances including roads are frequently implicated in the spread of invasive plant species (Spellerberg 1998, Cronk and Fuller 2001, Harrison et al. 2002). Habitats that are closer to areas that have been disturbed are more likely to be invaded by non-native plants. This pattern has been observed worldwide, from tropical India (Prasad 2009) to a variety of arid habitats in California (Knops et al. 1995, Picairn et al. 2006, Craig et al. 2010). For example, in one California study (Gelbard and Harrison 2003), the cover of native species and percentage of species that are native was greatest >1000 m from roads and was lowest 10 m from roads. Elsewhere, in the Glacier National Park, Tyser and Worley (1992) found, “unexpectedly high levels of alien species richness 100 m from the trailside.” In any case, the conclusion is clear that disturbances like those that would be caused by SWEP usher in the spread of invasive plants, which compete with and can lead to the extirpation of rare species. Microclimatic changes- A growing body of research measures the effect of wind energy sites on local climate. For example, Armstrong et al. (2016) found that overall nighttime temperature and humidity increased while variability in air, surface, and soil temperatures increased during the daytime at distances up to 200 m and greater from wind turbines. Another study (Cevarich et al. 2013) hypothesized that changes in nighttime temperature in wind farms is related to the fact that, “turbulence in wind turbine wakes increase downward transport of heat in the nocturnal stable environment.” Research from San Gorgonio Pass, California concludes that wind farms may be beneficial in some agricultural settings in that increased nighttime temperatures “may prove to be beneficial, such as the nocturnal warming under stable conditions can protect crops from frosts” (Roy and Traiteu 2010). However, they conclude that as “wind farms become larger and more ubiquitous, it is essential that their possible environmental costs and benefits are assessed and properly addressed to ensure the long-term sustainability of wind power.” Microclimatic change can have a strong effect of plant phenology (when a plant is reproductively active) and physiology (Jones 2013). The types of environmental change documented in wind farms and their effect on rare and common plant species is a central conservation. Researchers continue to model and document the effects that changes in local climatic conditions will have on the ranges of rare and common species (Anacker et al. 2013, Ackerly et al. 2010, Still et al. 2015). We recognize that how individual species will respond to microclimatic change is complicated. Nonetheless, the effect that microclimatic changes to the climate on SWEP may have on Gaviota tarplant and other species needs to be fully understood before this Project is allowed to proceed. Effects on pollinators- Gaviota tarplant is self-incompatible and seed set requires pollen transferred mediated by insect pollinators (Bruce Baldwin, personal communication 2019). Consequently, any environmental changes on SWEP that affect pollinators may have an adverse effect on Gaviota tarplant. One recent study (Trieb 2018) documented the killing of large numbers of flying insects in a German wind farm. They concluded that over a 30-year operation period, “the large number of species throughout all taxa together with the high insect densities found at critical rotor heights, and visible evidence of an uncounted number of insects being killed by wind rotor blades... call for in-depth assessment of all possible interactions involved and for empirical verification of the theoretical estimate of about a trillion per year lost.” Has SWEP taken into account the impact that the project will have on local insect populations and the effect that this will have on Gaviota tarplant? The scale of insect loss documented in (Trieb 2018) and the effect this likely has on pollinator services should potentially be considered a direct impact for outcrossing taxa such as Gaviota tarplant. Likewise, has SWEP evaluated the potential direct and indirect impacts that turbines will have on the endangered El Segundo blue butterfly? Lastly, has the project considered the synergistic effect that microclimatic change and killing of insects will have on local populations of pollinators? Hybridization- Natural hybridization can result in rapid evolutionary change, and can “occur over a short time due to the extreme genotypic and phenotypic novelty upon which natural selection can then act” (Todesco et al. 2016). However, hybridization as a source of evolutionary novelty can be a liability in systems that are affected by human action. The scientific literature is filled with examples of human-mediated plant dispersal causing effects on the genetic integrity of native species including Cercocarpus traskiae (Riesberg and Gerber 1995), Acmispon scoparius (Montalvo et al. 2001), and Helianthus spp. (Owens et al. 2016). According to Bruce Baldwin (personal communication, 2019) the presence of other, more common species of Deinandra in the proximity of SWEP poses a risk to Gaviota tarplant. Much like invasive, non- native plants, native plants are transported into newly-disturbed areas via roads and other forms of disturbance. Within 10 km of SWEP there are collections of three closely related taxa in the genus Deinandra, Deinandra increscens subsp. increscens, Deinandra fasciculata, and Deinandra paniculata (Consortium of California Herbaria 20194 ). These taxa, if introduced onto SWEP could hybridize with Gaviota tarplant (Bruce Baldwin, personal communication 2019). Has the project accounted for the threat to Gaviota tarplant from hybridization and the subsequent negative effects of genetic introgression? The points discussed above and those addressed in the CDFW’s DSEIR comment letter lead us to conclude that indirect effects on Gaviota tarplant are significant, quantifiable and cannot be ignored in the FSEIR. Prior to approval, SWEP must provide a detailed study of indirect effects on Gaviota tarplant in order to identify setbacks that are necessary to avoid severe adverse effects (the 2001 report on San Fernando spineflower prepared by Conservation Biology Institute could serve as a model for this study, see Attachment 1). Unless otherwise supported, we recommend that at least 200 meters adjacent to all ground disturbance be set aside for indirect impacts and excluded from use as onsite mitigation. Impacts to Gaviota tarplant must be considered significant and unavoidable The FSEIR makes the determination that impacts to Gaviota tarplant are “Class II: Significant impact. A Class II impact is a significant adverse effect that can be reduced to a less-than- significant level through the application of feasible mitigation measures presented in this SEIR.” We fail to see how directly impacting 21 percent of the total population of an endangered plant can possibly be mitigated to less-than-significant. The assertion that direct impacts to Gaviota tarplant can be adequately mitigated is speculative (see our discussion of mitigation measures below). The Class II determination ignores comments submitted by the CDFW that indirect impacts must also be accounted for in the EIR. What measurable thresholds did the County employ to determine that these impacts can be mitigated to less-than-significant? 4 http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/ Inadequate mitigation measures The FSEIR identifies several measures to minimize impacts to Gaviota tarplant. The determination of Class II impacts to Gaviota tarplant rely upon mitigation measures that compensate for impacts. Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-6 requires the issuance of an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) by CDFW. CDFW determined that, “when taking into account habitat fragmentation, edge effects, invasive species proliferation, and loss of pollinator ability, the impact acreage is substantially greater than that currently disclosed in the SEIR.” They also note that the project “will directly or indirectly impact all but 5 percent of the Tranquillion/Sudden Peak Gaviota tarplant population.” These points underscore our concerns about the interpretation of occupied acreage of Gaviota tarplant on the project site (see above). The County chose essentially to dismiss CDFW’s comments about impacted acreage despite the fact that these comments were written by scientists employed by a trustee agency whose findings are supported by best available scientific literature. The County concludes that CDFW’s, “estimate of indirect impact area, especially as to the implied severity and distance of these indirect effects from the actual project activities, may cause readers to misunderstand the environmental effects of the proposed Project.” Clearly, the interpretation of how much acreage of Gaviota tarplant is to impacted by SWEP is central to the feasibility of the mitigation measures. How can the FSEIR claim to have mitigated the impacts to this taxon to less-than-significant if the amount of impacted acreage has not yet been agreed upon in consultation with responsible agencies? Mitigation Measure BIO-6 requires that permanent impacts to Gaviota tarplant be mitigated at a 3:1 ratio. Additionally, areas of temporary impact must be restored to pre-project conditions and mitigated at a 3:1 ratio. These measures and others will be implemented in a Gaviota Tarplant Mitigation Plan in coordination with the County, CDFW, and USFWS. Once again, given the serious concerns raised by CDFW, we contend that the approval/adoption of such a plan is speculative. CDFW recommends, “conserving a buffer of 1,000 meters around any population that is proposed as mitigation or identified as ‘avoided’ until site-specific studies on Gaviota tarplant pollinators have been conducted.” In response to this comment the FSEIR provides no evidence from scientific studies that assuages CDFW’s concerns and makes no commitment to initiating any such studies. The statement in FSEIR response 4.8 that “proposed Project features (roads and turbine sites) are smaller than these pollinator flight distances and would not interrupt insect movement” is speculative and not supported by scientific studies. Additionally, in order to fully understand the meta-population dynamics of gene flow within Gaviota tarplant on SWEP the project owner should be required to commission population genetic studies for the entire taxon. This would enable an informed conservation reserve design that takes into account gene flow between and within populations of Gaviota tarplant. Studies such as this are necessary in order to understand how the size of patches and sub-populations within larger populations affects gene flow. This type of information is also crucial for informing restoration actions, including those listed in MM BIO-6. The FSEIR assumes that a mitigating for the loss of 1,273,882 plants at a ratio of 3:1will be possible onsite. Does the Project proponent contend that habitat for 3,821,646 Gaviota tarplant can be created onsite, as would be required by the proposed ratio? What does this look like? Onsite mitigation, as identified in MM BIO-6 should be considered speculative as it relies upon using occupied habitat that is subject to indirect impacts discussed herein and in CDFW’s comment letter. MM BIO-6 indicates that this could also include “offsite preservation of existing occurrences.” This platitude fails to mention if occurrences of Gaviota tarplant outside of SWEP are available for mitigation actions. Also, given that the project site represents the largest population of this taxon it is highly unlikely that offsite preservation can feasibly mitigate for the quality of habitat of this state and federally listed endangered species that will be lost on SWEP. Our concerns are echoed by CDFW’s comment letter, which states that, “of the seven populations of Gaviota tarplant recognized [USFWS, 2011], five occur on coastal terraces, which are at risk of erosion due to predicted sea level rise from climate change. The population on the Project site is the largest of two known populations that are not subject to sea level rise and are located at the species’ higher elevations.” Offsite mitigation cannot be relied upon by this project. If the project is required to apply a setback of 200 m (or greater) between areas of disturbance and areas that will be used for onsite mitigation is there enough occupied habitat on SWEP to achieve a mitigation ratio of 3:1? Has the Project proponent prepared an onsite mitigation reserve design that incorporates a setback distance to account for indirect impacts? Mitigation Measure BIO-6 uses acres of impacts to Gaviota tarplant as the quantity that must be mitigated for at the proposed ratio of 3:1. MM BIO-6 makes no mention of the quality of habitat that can be used for mitigation. Area of occupancy is not necessarily an accurate measure of impact to a rare species. The number of plants that will be directly impacted should also be mitigated at a minimum ratio of 3:1. The project must compensate for acreage of occupancy, habitat quality, and number of plants that will be lost in its Gaviota Tarplant Mitigation Plan. We would also like to contend that a mitigation ratio of 3:1 for impacts to Gaviota tarplant is insufficient. The FSEIR proposes a ratio of 10:1 for damage to oak trees on the project site. We support this mitigation ratio for the loss of oaks, but assert that Gaviota tarplant should also be mitigated at a higher level. Specifically, unlike Gaviota tarplant, the native oaks on the site are neither globally rare nor listed as endangered by the federal and state governments. If a ratio of 10:1 is appropriate for damage to oak trees an equivalent or even greater ratio (plant for plant, acre for acre) ought to be adopted for impacts to Gaviota tarplant. It is also essential that mitigation measures intended to compensate for the loss of other biota on the Project site not jeopardize conserved locations of Gaviota tarplant. For example, MM BIO-13 calls for the establishment of, “mature coast buckwheat plants with other Central coast scrub species on areas having sandy soils.” While this action is reasonable, the FSEIR should ensure that actions to conserve one species do not adversely affect other species. If implemented, the Project will result in the loss of approximately 1,273,882 individuals of Gaviota tarplant. This loss is more than 87 times the entire population of Gaviota tarplant that occurs outside of the Project site. As both a California and federally endangered species, Gaviotta tarplant has been recognized as requiring the highest level of conservation that both our state and federal governments can provide. The Project must do a better job of mitigating for this loss. Need for better analysis of project alternatives/redesign The FSEIR fails to provide a Project Alternative (excluding the No Project Alternative) that minimizes impacts to sensitive biological resources, specifically Gaviota tarplant. For example, the Modified Project Layout, while providing for reduced impacts to woodland and forest, only results in a “slightly reduced” impact to Gaviota tarplant. Why doesn’t the FSEIR include a modified construction design that reduces impacts to this taxon? It seems reasonable that wind turbines and associated construction activities could be relocated with significantly reduced impacts to Gaviota tarplant. For example, an analysis that looks at construction impacts in relation to polygons of Gaviota tarplant could identify key areas of conflict that could be modified to avoid impacts to this taxon. The CDFW DSEIR comment letter identifies turbines W-8, W-7, N-7, and E-1 that if relocated would result in the direct avoidance of “entire occurrences” of Gaviota tarplant. The response that due to, “the complexity and multiple considerations involved in designing WTG layout design, the County’s belief that a balance is needed between environmental impact and wind generation capacity, and the SEIR’s focus on reducing significant environmental impacts through mitigation” is disappointing. The Project, as proposed will eliminate 21 percent of the entire population of a state and federally endangered species. The County and the Project proponent must do better to avoid impacts to Gaviota tarplant. II. Impact to other rare plants The following table details other rare plants present on the Project site and reported impacts: Scientific name Common Name Rank Acreage (2019) Population (2019) Acreage of Impact (2018) Population Impact (2018) Arctostaphylos purissima La Purisima manzanita 1B.1 n/a 1 0 0 Horkelia cuneata var. puberula mesa horkelia 1B.1 4.1 27859 0.02 84 Horkelia cuneata var. sericea Kellogg's horkelia 1B.1 11.1 78123 0.74 4648 Juglans hindsii Southern California black walnut 4.2 0.06 5 0.003 2 Lilium humboldtii subsp. ocellatum ocellated Humboldt lily 4.2 0.8 75 not reported not reported Phacelia ramosissima var. austrolitoralis South Coast branching phacelia 3.2 0.2 258 not reported not reported Scrophularia atrata black- flowered figwort 1B.2 0.4 1552 0.003 61 Project impacts to rare plants extend well beyond Gaviota tarplant. The FSEIR makes it impossible to analyze the significance of impacts to the taxa in the above table. Specifically, the number of acres and individuals that will be directly impacted by the Project is only provided in the Appendices (pg. 732 in pdf) based on 2018 surveys. However, the FSEIR reports numbers of plants and occupied acreage that were observed in 2019, and these quantities differ significantly. Have impacts to these taxa been updated based on the latest survey efforts? Also, the indirect impacts to these other rare species are likely to be significant on the Project site. Has the FSEIR taken into account indirect impacts to these seven taxa? Indirect impacts to these species should be incorporated into assessments of project impacts and appropriate mitigation measures must be applied. Furthermore, the FSEIR appears to provide no justification for the determination that impacts to these species will be mitigated to less-than-significant. Specifically, the FSEIR does not provide for an adequate mitigation ratio (e.g. a minimum of 3:1) for the impacts to taxa that are globally rare including mesa horkelia, Kellogg’s horkelia, and black-flowered figwort. MM BIO-7 calls for the use of salvage and restoration efforts to compensate for the loss of mesa horkelia and Kellogg’s horkelia. Has the success of these proposed restoration methods been verified in published scientific studies? If not, they should be considered speculative. The presence of three varieties of Horkelia cuneata indicates that the Project site is incredibly important from an evolutionary context. Locations where the ranges of taxa come together create a fertile ground for processes like hybridization (Soltis and Soltis 2009). These processes can lead to the formation of new taxa via hybrid speciation, and can also be a crucial source of novel genetic variation that can help a species adapt to change. The importance of the Project site as a living laboratory of evolution in Horkelia cuneata must be adequately addressed in the EIR. The FSEIR provides no meaningful mitigation measures for impacts to black-flowered figwort and Southern California black walnut. We do not consider MM BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-3, and BIO-5 adequate to mitigate for the impacts to these species. At a minimum, restoration efforts similar to those proposed for Kellog’s horkelia and mesa horkelia also be applied for Southern California black walnut and black-flowered figwort. Losses to these species should also be mitigated at a minimum ratio of 3:1. Lastly, we are concerned that indirect impacts will affect locations of La Purisima manzanita, South Coast branching phacelia and ocellated Humboldt lily. Specifically, the single individual of La Purisima manzanita that occurs on the Project site is within feet of an area that will be directly impacted by grading (see Figure 4.5-4a). La Purisima manzanita is highly likely to be directly or indirectly impacted by the Project and this needs to be taken into account in the assessment of impacts and subsequently-proposed mitigation measures. III. Impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) The FSEIR identifies that there is a likelihood of the presence of Crotch’s bumble bee on the site and provides a mitigation measure of planting of food plants for this species. However, the FSEIR provides for no preconstruction surveys to determine if there is direct take of this species and, if such take occurs, provides no measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate for that take. We propose that since this species is now a candidate for listing under the California Endangered Species Act, the level of measures in the FSEIR to avoid a significant impact to a special status species is inadequate. IV. Additional Environmental Permitting In its previous iteration, Pacific Renewable Energy Generation LLC, a subsidiary of the LWEP, completed the “Low Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for Geotechnical Borings” (see Attachment 2). This Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) was submitted along with an ITP pursuant to Section 10 of the Federal ESA for impacts to Gaviota tarplant and El Segundo Blue Butterfly. According to this document, the HCP was required, “pursuant to the requirements of section 7, consider impacts on the Gaviota Tarplant.” The application for the HCP states that, “the impacts and mitigation measures associated with the LWEP will be addressed in a subsequent application (Section 7 or HCP) with appropriate NEPA documentation. In this request for a Section 10(a) Take Permit, we intend to limit, differentiate, and define the ‘Project’ as only the specific boring activities for which this Take Permit is being sought, while the larger wind energy project as a whole, and for which another, separate request for a Take Permit will be sought, will be referred to as ‘LWEP’.” The permit was requested for October 2010 with a duration of 1 year for project completion. The SWEP FSEIR mentions the need for a Biological Opinion from the USFWS for the mitigation of impacts to Gaviota tarplant, and notes that the Project will require a Section 404 permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for impacts to waters of the U.S. We fully expect that the Project developer will obtain the appropriate federal permitting under the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act prior to construction, and the project will receive full review under the National Environmental Policy Act. In particular, we expect that the project developer obtain coverage for take of endangered and threatened species for the entire project footprint, including and beyond any impacted federal jurisdictional waters. Finally, as noted in the FSEIR, the Project developer must also obtain the appropriate permit under the California Endangered Species Act through either a consistency determination or Section 2081 permit. Once again, thank you very much for the opportunity to provide comments on SWEP. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Nicholas Jensen, PhD Southern California Conservation Analyst California Native Plant Society (530) 368-7839 njensen@cnps.org Katherine Emery, PhD Executive Director Santa Barbara Audubon Society 805-259-7255 Director@SantaBarbaraAudubon.org Kim Delfino California Program Director Defenders of Wildlife (916) 201-8277 kdelfino@defenders.org Kipp Callahan President Channel Islands Chapter California Native Plant Society kipp.callahan@gmail.com Literature Cited Ackerly, D. D., Loarie, S. R., Cornwell, W. K., Weiss, S. B., Hamilton, H., Branciforte, R., & Kraft, N. J. B. 2010. The geography of climate change: implications for conservation biogeography. Diversity and Distributions 16(3): 476-487. Anacker, Brian L., Melanie Gogol-Prokurat, Krystal Leidholm, and Steve Schoenig. 2013. Climate change vulnerability assessment of rare plants in California. Madroño 60 (3): 193-211. Armstrong, Alona, Ralph R. Burton, Susan E. Lee, Stephen Mobbs, Nicholas Ostle, Victoria Smith, Susan Waldron, and Jeanette Whitaker. 2016. Ground-level climate at a peatland wind farm in Scotland is affected by wind turbine operation. Environmental Research Letters 11(4): 044024. Craig, Donovan J., Jill E. Craig, Scott R. Abella, and Cheryl H. Vanier. 2010. Factors affecting exotic annual plant cover and richness along roadsides in the eastern Mojave Desert, USA. Journal of Arid Environments 74 (6): 702-707. Cronk, Quentin C.B. and Janice B. Fuller. 2001. Plant invaders: the threat to natural ecosystems. Chapman and Hal, London. Gelbard, Jonathan L., and Susan Harrison. 2003. Roadless habitats as refuges for native grasslands: interactions with soil, aspect, and grazing. Ecological applications 13(2): 404-415. Harrison, Susan, Charles Hohn, and Sarah Ratay. "Distribution of exotic plants along roads in a peninsular nature reserve." Biological Invasions 4.4 (2002): 425-430. Jones, Hamlyn G. 2013. Plants and microclimate: a quantitative approach to environmental plant physiology. Cambridge University Press, London. Knops, Johannes MH, James R. Griffin, and Anne C. Royalty. 1995. Introduced and native plants of the Hastings Reservation, central coastal California: a comparison. Biological Conservation 71(2): 115-123. Montalvo, Arlee M., and Norman C. Ellstrand. 2001. Nonlocal transplantation and outbreeding depression in the subshrub Lotus scoparius (Fabaceae). American Journal of Botany 88(2): 258- 269. Owens, Gregory L., Gregory J. Baute, and Loren H. Rieseberg. 2016. Revisiting a classic case of introgression: hybridization and gene flow in Californian sunflowers. Molecular Ecology 25(11): 2630-2643. Pitcairn, M., Schoenig, S., Yacoub, R., & Gendron, J. 2006. Yellow starthistle continues its spread in California. California Agriculture 60(2): 83-90. Prasad, Ayesha E. 2009. Tree community change in a tropical dry forest: the role of roads and exotic plant invasion. Environmental Conservation 36(3): 201-207. Rieseberg, Loren H., and Daniel Gerber. Hybridization in the Catalina Island mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus traskiae): RAPD evidence. 1995. Conservation Biology 9.(1): 199-203. Roy, Somnath Baidya, and Justin J. Traiteur. 2010. Impacts of wind farms on surface air temperatures." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(42): 17899-17904. Soltis, Pamela S., and Douglas E. Soltis. 2009. The role of hybridization in plant speciation. Annual review of plant biology 60: 561-588. Still, Shannon M., Anne L. Frances, Amanda C. Treher, and Leah Oliver. 2015. Using two climate change vulnerability assessment methods to prioritize and manage rare plants: a case study. Natural Areas Journal 35(1): 106-122. Spellerberg, Ian F. 1998. Ecological effects of roads and traffic: a literature review. Global Ecology and Biology Letters 7(5): 317-333. Todesco, Marco, Mariana A. Pascual, Gregory L. Owens, Katherine L. Ostevik, Brook T. Moyers, Sariel Hübner, Sylvia M. Heredia et al. 2016. Hybridization and extinction. Evolutionary Applications 9(7): 892-908. Trieb, Franz. 2018. Interference of flying insects and wind parks. www.dlr.de/tt/fluginsekten. Accessed November 12, 2019. Tyser, Robin W., and Christopher A. Worley. 1992. Alien flora in grasslands adjacent to road and trail corridors in Glacier National Park, Montana (USA). Conservation Biology 6(2): 253- 262. | rare plants, endangered species | N/A | N/A | N/A | https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2018071002/3 | 34.57 | -120.52 | |
| 2018_TecuyaCuddy_CatExNEPA | Tecuya Ridge Shaded Fuelbreak Project and the Cuddy Valley Forest Health/Fuels Reduction Project | 2018 | N/A | NEPA | Categorical Exclusion | N/A | Scoping | Federal | The United States Forest Service | Ventura, Kern | Channel Islands Chapter, Kern Chapter | State Office | N/A | Commercial/Educational/Industrial, Vegetation Management | Approved | April 19, 2018 Los Padres National Forest Mt. Pinos Ranger District Attn: Gregory Thompson, Project Team Leader 34580 Lockwood Valley Rd, Frazier Park, CA 93225 gsthompson@fs.fed.us RE: Tecuya Ridge and Cuddy Valley Projects Dear Mr. Thompson, Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide scoping comments on the Tecuya Ridge Shaded Fuelbreak Project (“Tecuya Ridge Project”) and the Cuddy Valley Forest Health/Fuels Reduction Project (“Cuddy Valley Project”). Combined these two projects would modify fuels on nearly 3,000 acres of the Mt. Pinos Ranger District of the Los Padres National Forest. Proposed actions range from commercial logging to hand thinning and mechanical mastication of shrub habitat. The Forest Service proposes to implement the projects under a categorical exclusion, which precludes the documentation of impacts in an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Approximately 1,100 acres of the Tecuya Ridge Project is located in the Antimony Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA). Additionally, numerous rare plant species classified as Forest Service Sensitive Species have the potential to occur or are known to occur in the project areas. For these reasons we recommend that the Forest Service completes an EA or EIS for the Tecuya Ridge and Cuddy Valley Projects. The California Native Plant Society (“CNPS”) is a non-profit environmental organization with nearly 10,000 members. CNPS’ mission is to protect California's native plant heritage and preserve it for future generations through application of science, research, education, and conservation. CNPS works closely with decision-makers, scientists, and local planners to advocate for well-informed and environmental friendly policies, regulations, and land management practices. CNPS supports efforts by private property owners and land management agencies to make communities in the wildland-urban urban interface more resilient to the threat of wildfires. As drafted in our Native Plants and Fire Safety Policy1 , CNPS “opposes the unnecessary destruction of California’s native plant heritage for the purpose of wildfire fuel management.” Furthermore, we support, “fuel management plans that minimize the risk to human life and property while maximizing protection of native plants and their habitats.” These statements do not preclude the thoughtful application of scientifically-defensible techniques to manage fuels following a thorough review of potential environmental impacts. 1 https://www.cnps.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/fire_safety.pdf The U.S. Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act Handbook (FSH 1909.15) indicates that a project may only be categorically excluded from “further analysis and documentation in an EIS or EA only if there are no extraordinary circumstances related to the proposed action.” For the Cuddy Valley and Tecuya Ridge Projects, the Los Padres National Forest proposes to use a categorical exclusion detailed in 36 CFR 220.6 (e)(6): “Category 6: Timber stand and/or wildlife improvement activities that do not include the use of herbicides or do not require more than 1 mile of low standard road construction.” It is unclear, based on the Project Proposals, whether or not the Tecuya Ridge and Cuddy Valley Projects qualify for categorical exclusion under Category 6. While the two projects are clearly geared at improving forest health and reducing fuel load, they are also heavily centered on commercial timber harvest. Extraordinary circumstances that may eliminate the applicability of categorical exclusions include, but are not limited to the presence of “federally listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat, species proposed for Federal listing or proposed critical habitat, or Forest Service sensitive species,” and/or, “inventoried roadless areas or potential wilderness areas” (FSH 1909.15 section 31.2). Based on the presence of the extraordinary circumstances, detailed below, both the Tecuya Ridge and Cuddy Valley Projects should undergo a thorough review in the form of an EA or EIS. The Tecuya Ridge Project is located in the Antimony IRA The Tecuya Project has the potential to adversely affect 1,100 acres of the Antimony IRA by the harvesting of timber and the removal of sagebrush-scrub habitats. The primary purpose of the Roadless Rule (66 Federal Register 3244-3272) is to ensure that “inventoried roadless areas sustain their values for this and future generations.” According to the 2001 Roadless Rule timber cutting, sale, and removal of timber in IRAs is prohibited. The Rule allows for the removal of small-diameter timber in a select number of circumstances, including to reduce the risk of “uncharacteristic wildfire.” A thorough analysis of project impacts should balance the need of the proposed action with the potential impacts to the wilderness characteristics of the Antimony IRA. These types of analyses, including potential project alternatives, should be completed under the scope of an EA or EIS. The Tecuya Ridge and Cuddy Valley Projects are habitat for Forest Service Sensitive plants Based on a review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)2 , CNPS Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants (CNPS Inventory)3 , and records in the Consortium of California Herbaria (CCH)4 , the Tecuya Ridge and Cuddy Valley Projects contain habitat for the following Forest Service Sensitive Species. 2 https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/data/cnddb 3 http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/ 4 http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/ Scientific Name Common Name CRPR Ranking State/Global Rank Allium howellii var. clokeyi Mt. Pinos onion 1B.3 S2/G4T2 Caulanthus lemmonii Lemmon's jewelflower 1B.3 S3/G3 Layia heterotricha pale-yellow layia 1B.1 S2/G2 Monardella linoides subsp. oblonga Tehachapi monardella 1B.3 S2/G5T2 Navarretia peninsularis Baja navarretia 1B.2 S2/G3 Sidalcea neomexicana salt spring checkerbloom 2B.2 S2/G4 Symphyotrichum defoliatum San Bernardino aster 1B.2 S2/G2 Monardella linoides subsp. oblonga has been documented from the Cuddy Valley Project area. In addition, the seven plants in the table above have the potential to occur on both of the project sites. This conclusion is based on their documented presence on adjacent lands with similar habitats. It should be noted that Tecuya Ridge has not been thoroughly surveyed by botanists (see the CCH), making it challenging to analyze the potential of rare species to occur in this area. The sole mention of botanical resources in the Project Proposals states that, “sensitive plant surveys/monitoring would occur prior to project activities.” This sentence does not adequately describe efforts that should be employed to survey for rare plants. The Project Proposals, at a minimum, should detail a list of rare species with the potential to occur in the project areas, along with details about the proposed timing of surveys and the survey methodology. We recommend that the surveys be conducted in line with the Forest Service’s Threatened and Endangered, and Sensitive Plants Survey Field Guide5 and CNPS Botanical Survey Guidelines6 . The potential impacts to rare plants found on the Project sites should be detailed in an EA or EIS. These potential impacts need to be evaluated on a species by species basis given the proposed actions. For example, Monardella linoides subsp. oblonga, occurs in forest openings and is threatened by erosion and road construction and maintenance (see CNDDB). How this species will be affected by the proposed actions in the Cuddy Valley Project should be detailed an EA or EIS. In contrast, the CNDDB lists hydrological changes as a threat to occurrences of Navarretia peninsularis, which occurs in close proximity to the boundary of the Cuddy Valley Project. Impacts resulting in erosion, changes to hydrology, and alteration of microhabitat characteristics will occur during the Cuddy Valley and Tecuya Ridge Projects. At present, it is impossible to determine if the Cuddy Valley and Tecuya Ridge Projects will significantly impact rare plant species, because we lack the information needed to make these determinations. Botanical surveys should first focus on locating populations of rare plant species. If (when) botanical surveys locate populations of rare plants, the potential impacts to these species should be discussed in an EA or EIS. Furthermore, the EA and EIS should discuss the measures that will be taken to avoid and/or minimize impacts to rare species. 5 https://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/.../inv-sp-tesp-survey-field-guide-2005-03.doc 6 https://cnps.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/cnps_survey_guidelines.pdf Lastly, the Cuddy Valley and Tecuya Ridge Projects have the potential to impact sensitive habitats that are included on the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) Sensitive Natural Communities List7 . For example, stands of Pseudotsuga macrocarpa (bigcone Douglas fir) Alliance are ranked as G3/S3 by CDFW, and have been observed in the proximity of the project sites. Vegetation types should, at a minimum, be mapped to the alliance level in accordance with CDFW guidelines8 . The potential impacts to sensitive natural communities should be detailed in an EA or EIS. Additionally, the Tecuya Ridge Project area is routinely used as roosting habitat by California Condors, a species listed under the California and Federal Endangered Species Acts as Endangered. As is often the case, suitable habitat for species like the California Condor is driven by the combination of plant species composition and habitat structure-in this case the presence of tall live or dead trees. This fact alone emphasizes the interconnectedness of plants and animals. The mere presence of California Condors on this site is evidence that this is a functioning ecosystem that may be vulnerable to the proposed actions. Consequently, any potential impacts to the Cuddy Valley and Tecuya Ridge Project sites should be analyzed comprehensively. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Nicholas Jensen, PhD Southern California Conservation Analyst California Native Plant Society 1500 North College Ave Claremont, CA 91711 (530) 368-7839 njensen@cnps.org 7 https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153609&inline 8 https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities#environmental%20review | IRA, inventoried roadless area, categorical exclusion, sensitive species, survey, rare plants, sensitive habitat, habitat, fuelbreak | N/A | 66 FR 3244-3272 | N/A | https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/107658_FSPLT3_4274599.pdf, https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=52502 | 34.83 | -119.15 | |
| 2018_WestMojaveRNP_DraftSEIS | West Mojave Route Network Project | 2018 | N/A | NEPA | EIS | Supplemental EIS | Draft | Federal | Bureau of Land Management | San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Riverside, Kern, Inyo | Mojave Chapter, Riverside-San Bernardino Chapter, Birstlecone Chapter, Kern Chapter, San Gabriel Mountains Chapter | State Office | N/A | Local Planning Action, Recreational | Approved | June 14, 2018 Bureau of Land Management California Desert District Attn: WMRNP Plan Amendment 22835 Calle San Juan de Los Lagos Moreno Valley, CA 92553 Submitted via email to: blm_ca_wemo_project@blm.gov Comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the West Mojave Route Network Project (DOI-BLM-CA-D080-2018-0008-EIS) Dear Mr. Toedtli and the West Mojave Route Network Project team, Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for the West Mojave Route Network Project (WMRNP). The West Mojave Planning Area (WEMO) covers more than 9 million acres of land in California’s Mojave Desert. Within this area the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers more than 3.1 million acres of land, which is managed for a multitude of uses. These uses range from extraction of resources (e.g. mining) to recreation to the preservation of biodiversity. BLM must manage these lands to accommodate a variety of interests. The current inventory of routes in the DSEIS indicates that more than 16,000 miles of roads and linear disturbances exist in the WEMO planning area. The WMRNP proposes to designate between 5,231 and 10,864 miles of roads primarily for vehicular use, depending on the selected alternative, while closing the remainder of existing routes. The WMRNP does not propose to create any new routes. However, the creation of routes in the WEMO planning area is an ongoing process, not by BLM but by off highway vehicle (OHV) users themselves. Indeed, potentially thousands of miles of routes inventoried as part of the WMRNP have not been planned or created by BLM, and have been created illegally by OHV users. BLM is legally mandated to manage for vehicular travel by designating existing routes as either open or closed, and by preventing the creation of new roads. The Western Mojave Desert has been identified by scientists as an important place for the conservation of biodiversity (see Pavlik 20081 ). The large number of rare and/or endangered species addressed in the DSEIS is proof that the planning area provides irreplaceable habitats for globally important biodiversity and ecosystem services. The Mojave Desert is one of Earth’s last living landscapes, in which biological and ecological processes remain intact. Given the reality of global climate change, habitat fragmentation, and degradation, these landscapes should be managed primarily for the conservation of biodiversity. 1 https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520251458/the-california-deserts The California Native Plant Society (“CNPS”) is a non-profit environmental organization with nearly 10,000 members in 35 local chapters. CNPS’ mission is to protect California's native plant heritage and preserve it for future generations through the application of science, research, education, and conservation. CNPS works closely with decision-makers, scientists, and local planners to advocate for well-informed and environmentally friendly policies, regulations, and land management practices. In line with our mission we provide the following comments on the DSEIS for the WMRNP. 1. We recommend that BLM adopts Alternative 2 in the DSEIS instead of the preferred Alternative 4 Alternative 2 is the superior alternative. Alternative 4 features 6,313 miles of designated routes, more than 1,000 miles more than are proposed in Alternative 2. We support the adoption of Alternative 2 for the reasons that it contains the following: The lowest mileage of designated motorized routes, 5,231 miles, and the highest number of closed routes, resulting in the closure of 10,781 miles of existing routes The largest reduction of fugitive dust emissions compared to other alternatives The lowest number or routes adjacent to washes, springs, riparian habitats, and areas prone to erosion The lowest direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to vegetation The lowest level of impacts caused by grazing including discontinued grazing on three active allotments located in sensitive habitats The lowest direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to wildlife and plant resources The lowest amount of mileage in conflict with cultural resources The lowest level of adverse effects to visual resources The lowest impacts to environmentally and culturally important lands designated as California Desert National Conservation Lands (CDNCLs), Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs), Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (LWCs), National Monuments (NMs), Unusual Plant Assemblages (UPAs), and Wilderness Areas (WAs) The lowest impact on paleontological resources 2. We recommend that the BLM conducts route-specific analyses informed by on-the- ground surveys of impacts on sensitive biological resources for each proposed route in each alternative As currently drafted the DSEIS does not adequately address the environmental impacts associated with each route. This is true for all of the proposed alternatives. According to the DSEIS (1-1), the WMRNP “has been determined to be a major federal action that requires preparation of an EIS pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).” As currently presented the DSEIS fails to adequately disclose the impacts associated with the designation of routes in WEMO. We recognize that fully disclosing the specific impacts of each proposed route would require a significant dedication of time and resources. That said the lack of specific information in the DSEIS makes it impossible to determine the impacts that route designation will have on sensitive biological resources. BLM has had more than a decade to rectify inadequacies in the 2005 WEMO FEIS, and has failed to do so. Instead of providing information on how each special status species will be affected by each of the proposed alternatives, the DSEIS includes very general information on the biology and threats to sensitive biological resources. For example, Astragalus albens (Big Bear Valley woolypod, California Rare Plant Rank [CRPR] 1B), is a BLM Sensitive species that was not evaluated in the 2005 FEIS. Instead of actually assessing the impacts of proposed routes on this rare species, the DSEIS (3.4-32) resorts to a vague reporting of the acreage of this species that occurs within the WEMO planning area and an assessment of threats based on a review of the CNPS Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants (CNPS Inventory2 ). One of the listed threats to this species is “vehicles.” This alone should have triggered a thorough analysis of where proposed routes intersect with known populations of this species. Even more appropriate would be an on-the-ground analysis that surveys for Astragalus albens along proposed routes and evaluates the impacts of these routes on this species. This example is emblematic of the gross inadequacies of the disclosure of impacts to sensitive biological resources in the DSEIS. We recommend the following measures to remedy these shortcomings: 1. BLM should conduct surveys for all biological resources including but not limited to rare plants, rare animals, and vegetation communities along all proposed routes in the WMRNP 2. The results of these surveys should be reported in detail and provided for public comment 3. The direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of proposed routes should be detailed and provided for public comment 4. The information from surveys and the analysis of impacts should inform the range of alternatives presented to the public The current DSEIS remains insufficient until the above four actions are completed. 3. Future survey efforts and the analysis of potential impacts on sensitive botanical resources might be assisted by the following analysis conducted by CNPS. The results of the analysis are provided in Appendix 1 To begin to address measures 1-4 listed above in Section 2, we conducted our own analysis as part of our DSEIS review. This analysis used the following GIS data layers: California Natural Diversity Database3 (CNDDB) polygon dataset from April 2018 Point data for California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 4 taxa obtained from the Consortium of California Herbaria4 and Calflora5 Unusual Plant Assemblages polygons, points, and linear features identified in the California Desert Conservation Act (CDCA) Polygons for sensitive natural communities (aka vegetation types) ranked G1-G3 and/or S1-S3 by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife6 2 http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/ 3 https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/data/cnddb/maps-and-data 4 http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/ 5 http://www.calflora.org/ GIS layers of routes proposed in the DSEIS provided by BLM in April 2018 The analysis included the following steps all conducted using ArcMap 10.5.1: 1. We split the entire CDCA into a 1 square kilometer grid (1000 m by 1000 m) using the “Create Fishnet” tool 2. All of the above data layers were then added to the map 3. We created a weighting scheme to allow for the analysis of botanical resources in each grid cell according to the following table: Category Rank Weight Used in Analysis Rare Plants CRPR7 1B, 1A 4 Rare Plants CRPR 2B, 2A 3 Rare Plants CRPR 3 2 Rare Plants CRPR 4 1 Vegetation CDFW8 S1/G1 3 Vegetation CDFW S2/G2 2 Vegetation CDFW S3/G3 1 Unusual Plant Assemblages n/a 2 The weighting scheme (above) gives the highest score to the resources with the highest values based on their rarity rank (e.g. plants ranked as CRPR 1A, 1B were weighted with the highest value of 4, while rare plants with a rank of CRPR 4 were given a weight of 1). Unusual Plant Assemblages were given a weight of 2. In some cases, the weight of some botanical resources (e.g. a limited number of rare plant element occurrences in CNDDB) with low mapping precision (e.g. they were mapped as 5-km radius circles due to imprecise location information) were adjusted by a factor of 0.5. 4. We used spatial joining to attribute the values associated with each botanical resource to each grid cell. For example, if, hypothetically two CRPR 1B plant occurrences, one S2 vegetation polygon, and one Unusual Plant Assemblage polygon were located within a grid cell, this grid cell would be attributed with the following values: 2 X 4 (CRPR 1B) = 8 1 X 2 (S2 Vegetation) = 2 1 X 2 (UPA) = 2Botanical Resources Total = 12 Based on the combination of these resource values the Botanical Resources Total would be 12. 6 https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities 7 http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/ 8 https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities 5. The Botanical Resources Total (See Step 4) value and the individual values for each category (rare plants, vegetation, UPA) were attributed to each of the route segments from Alternative 4 occurring in each grid cell. For route segments that span more than one grid cell, the combined botanical resource values for the cells was averaged to avoid “double counting” these values. Results of Analysis (see Appendix 1) We visualized the botanical resources in the WEMO planning area spatially in 1 km square grid cells (see B below) and them with these values attributed to the routes (see C) that occur each grid cell (the figures below contains an example of the analysis/results) A. Botanical resources in an example area within WEMO B. Heat map of botanical resources within grid cells C. Botanical resources attributed to routes in Alternative 4 D. Area used in this example denoted by a red star More than 46,000 route segments spanning more than 2,800 miles of routes designated for motorized vehicle travel in Alternative 4 occur in grid cells where sensitive botanical resources are present More than 4,200 route segments spanning 200 miles of routes designated for motorized vehicle travel occur in grid cells with either moderate (Botanical Resource Value > 5) or high (Botanical Resource Value > 10) levels of botanical resources More than 64,000 route segments covering more than 3,200 miles of routes designated for motorized vehicle travel occur in grid cells with no known sensitive botanical resources Conclusions More than 3,000 miles of routes designated for motorized vehicle travel (approximately one-half of the designate routes in Alternative 4) occur in areas where they are possibly in conflict with sensitive botanical resources. Field surveys should focus on determining the extent to which these routes present threats to rare plants, rare vegetation types, and Unusual Plant Assemblages. Routes that present threats to sensitive botanical resources should be designated for closure. As presented, the DSEIS does not adequately analyze the actual threats to known botanical resources in the WEMO planning area. This should be rectified before the approval of the FSEIS. We present the results of this analysis as Appendix 1. These results should be considered route specific comments. Just because 3,200 miles of designated routes occur where no documented sensitive botanical resources are known does not mean that there are no sensitive botanical resources present in these location. That is to say, the absence of botanical resource data in a given grid cell does not confirm that botanical resources including rare plants and vegetation types are absent. Vast portions of the WEMO planning area have yet to be surveyed comprehensively by botanists. Areas with no documented sensitive botanical resources should be prioritized for surveys prior to route designation. If following surveys, routes are shown not to be in conflict with sensitive biological resources then BLM could consider designating these routes for motorized vehicle travel. 4. The DSEIS does not adequately assess direct impacts to documented occurrences of rare plants A spatial query using ArcMap 10.5.1 of the CNDDB April Dataset indicated than 339 rare plant occurrences are located within 100 meters of routes designated for motorized vehicle travel in Alternative 4. We chose to use a buffer of 100 meters for this analysis in order to account for the indirect impacts to proposed routes. This analysis shows that 65 minimum rank taxa are likely to be impacted by motorized routes proposed in Alternative 4. Forty of these taxa are on CRPR 1B (Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere), 21 are on CRPR 2B (Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere), 1 is on Rank 3 (Plants about which more information is needed), and 3 are on Rank 4 (Plants of limited distribution). We offer this analysis to highlight the potential for proposed routes to impact BLM sensitive plant species and other rare desert botanical resources. We advocate that the impacts of the proposed actions be evaluated with on-the-ground survey work. The results of our analysis are presented in the table below. Scientific Name CA Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) Total # of Occurrences (CNDDB Apr 2018) WEMO Intersect Analysis (# Occurrences) Percent Potentially Affected Abronia villosa var. aurita 1B.1 95 1 1.05 Aliciella ripleyi 2B.3 19 2 10.53 Androstephium breviflorum 2B.2 108 28 25.93 Asclepias nyctaginifolia 2B.1 67 1 1.49 Astragalus albens 1B.1 22 6 27.27 Astragalus bernardinus 1B.2 42 7 16.67 Astragalus hornii var. hornii 1B.1 14 1 7.14 Astragalus insularis var. harwoodii 2B.2 120 1 0.83 Astragalus jaegerianus 1B.1 22 7 31.82 Astragalus leucolobus 1B.2 94 1 1.06 Astragalus mohavensis var. hemigyrus 1B.1 2 1 50.00 Astragalus tidestromii 2B.2 72 1 1.39 Astragalus tricarinatus 1B.2 37 2 5.41 Boechera dispar 2B.3 68 4 5.88 Boechera lincolnensis 2B.3 14 4 28.57 Boechera shockleyi 2B.2 58 2 3.45 Calochortus palmeri var. palmeri 1B.2 84 1 1.19 Camissonia integrifolia 1B.3 4 1 25.00 Canbya candida 4.2 30 14 46.67 Castela emoryi 2B.2 55 9 16.36 Chorizanthe xanti var. leucotheca 1B.2 52 4 7.69 Clarkia xantiana ssp. parviflora 4.2 21 2 9.52 Coryphantha alversonii 4.3 55 4 7.27 Cryptantha clokeyi 1B.2 18 3 16.67 Cymopterus deserticola 1B.2 82 10 12.20 Cymopterus multinervatus 2B.2 31 3 9.68 Cymopterus ripleyi var. saniculoides 1B.2 6 2 33.33 Deinandra mohavensis 1B.3 77 2 2.60 Diplacus mohavensis 1B.2 60 31 51.67 Eremothera boothii ssp. boothii 2B.3 35 5 14.29 Eriastrum tracyi 3.2 119 4 3.36 Erigeron parishii 1B.1 44 7 15.91 Eriogonum kennedyi var. pinicola 1B.1 4 2 50.00 Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum 1B.1 36 6 16.67 Eriophyllum mohavense 1B.2 67 27 40.30 Erythranthe rhodopetra 1B.1 6 1 16.67 Erythranthe shevockii 1B.2 11 6 54.55 Eschscholzia minutiflora ssp. twisselmannii 1B.2 27 15 55.56 Euphorbia abramsiana 2B.2 109 1 0.92 Layia heterotricha 1B.1 123 1 0.81 Linanthus maculatus ssp. maculatus 1B.2 48 11 22.92 Lupinus pusillus var. intermontanus 2B.3 19 1 5.26 Matelea parvifolia 2B.3 26 1 3.85 Menodora spinescens var. mohavensis 1B.2 13 12 92.31 Mentzelia puberula 2B.2 11 1 9.09 Mentzelia tricuspis 2B.1 16 1 6.25 Mentzelia tridentata 1B.3 32 20 62.50 Monardella boydii 1B.2 3 2 66.67 Monardella linoides ssp. oblonga 1B.3 57 1 1.75 Opuntia basilaris var. brachyclada 1B.2 131 1 0.76 Pediomelum castoreum 1B.2 23 14 60.87 Penstemon albomarginatus 1B.1 23 12 52.17 Penstemon pseudospectabilis ssp. pseudospectabilis 2B.2 25 1 4.00 Petalonyx thurberi ssp. gilmanii 1B.3 18 1 5.56 Phacelia nashiana 1B.2 68 16 23.53 Phacelia novenmillensis 1B.2 30 1 3.33 Phacelia parishii 1B.1 9 4 44.44 Polygala acanthoclada 2B.3 27 1 3.70 Puccinellia simplex 1B.2 71 1 1.41 Saltugilia latimeri 1B.2 60 2 3.33 Sarcobatus baileyi 2B.3 3 1 33.33 Schoenus nigricans 2B.2 13 1 7.69 Sidalcea covillei 1B.1 42 1 2.38 Viola pinetorum ssp. grisea 1B.3 90 1 1.11 Wislizenia refracta ssp. refracta 2B.2 6 1 16.67 Shockingly, more than 25% of the known occurrences of 20 rare plants are occur within 100 meters of routes designated for vehicular travel in Alternative 4. Importantly, more than 50% of all known occurrences of the following globally rare taxa (CRPR 1B) occur within 100 meters of designated routes: Menodora spinescens var. mohavensis Monardella boydii Mentzelia tridentata Pediomelum castoreum Eschscholzia minutiflora ssp. twisselmannii Erythranthe shevockii Penstemon albomarginatus Diplacus mohavensis Astragalus mohavensis var. hemigyrus Eriogonum kennedyi var. pinicola Why weren’t the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to rare plants fully evaluated on a species by species basis in the DSEIS? While the tables presented in section 4.4 of the DESIS provide information on the amount of impacted acreage for rare plant species, it does not address the specific impacts of proposed routes. One of the basic tenets of NEPA is to disclose the effects of proposed actions (in this case the WMRNP) and to determine if these effects are significant. Furthermore, one of the implied goals of NEPA is to ensure that the effects of proposed actions are minimized such that species need not be listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA). In the case of Menodora spinescens var. mohavensis, 92% of known occurrences are within 100 meters of routes designated for motorized travel in Alternative 4. How does this taxon respond to vehicular disturbance, and is this plant vulnerable to the ongoing impacts associated with Alternative 4 in the WMRNP? The DSEIS does not include a specific analysis of the effects of designated routes on this species, or any other species for that matter. How will the species in the table above be affected (or are already being affected) by the designation of motorized routes in the WMRNP? Are these species (and others?) being pushed toward listing under FESA as a result of the proposed actions in the WMRNP? Furthermore, how are the effects to each of these species different in each of proposed alternatives? Why did BLM not choose to include an alternative that minimizes or eliminates the impacts of motorized routes on rare species of plants and animals? Lastly, given that the land covered by the WMRNP must comply with the DRECP Land Use Plan Amendment (LUPA), why have potential impacts not been analyzed for their consistency with this law? Specifically, DRECP-LUPA-BIO-PLANT-2 states that an avoidance setback of 0.25 mile is required for all Focus and BLM Special Status Species occurrences. Also, DRECP- LUPA-BIO-PLANT-3 states that impacts to suitable habitat for Focus and BLM Special Status Species are “limited [capped] to a maximum of 1% of their suitable habitat throughout the entire LUPA Decision Area.” The table above implies that impacts associated with the designation of vehicle routes may exceed those allowed under the DRECP LUPA. Table 3.4-4 provides the acreage of potential habitat for rare plant species in WEMO subregions. How were these data generated? Furthermore, the Tables in section 4.4 provide the “Acreage and Mileage of Routes Within Range or Other Protected Habitat for Special Status Plant Species.” These data might provide the ability to analyze the consistency of the WMRNP with the DRECP with regard to rare plant impacts. Why hasn’t BLM calculated the percentage suitable habitat for each species that will be impacted by proposed route designations conducted? 5. As an example, to better quantify the impacts of proposed routes CNPS conducted an on-the-ground analysis of rare plants in the Middle Knob ACEC in May 2018 These surveys: Were conducted by 10 professional botanists along MK-10, MK-14, and MK 118 on May 19 and 20, 2018. Included a qualitative assessment of the impacts of exiting routes on known rare plant populations and the documentation of new populations of rare species. Evaluated the presence of trails that are in use that are not currently inventoried Key findings include: The observation and documentation of vehicular impacts to Element Occurrence #2 of Eriogonum kennedyi var. pinicola (Kern buckwheat, CRPR 1B) and a previously undocumented population of Phacelia exilis (Transverse Range phacelia, CRPR 4), which occurs in the same general vicinity. At this location, vehicle tracks have strayed south of MK10 to the top of a hill that once contained a more extensive population Eriogonum kennedyi var. pinicola. According to Dr. Ed Kentner (personal observation from 2013), this taxon previously occurred on this hill, and as a result of vehicle use a significant portion of this population has been eliminated. Given the global rarity of Eriogonum kennedyi var. pinicola (it is only known from 4 locations in the world) this represents a significant impact to this taxon. Photo (above): Habitat of Eriogonum kennedyi var. pinicola disturbed by illegal OHV travel is shown in the foreground of this photo taken at Latitude/Longitude: 35.156353, -118.240745 on May 19, 2018. Photo by Linda Castro The documentation of non-inventoried, user-created motorcycle tracks including those documented in the photo below. Photo (above): An uninventoried, illegal, user created motorcycle track taken at Latitude/Longitude: 35.15578, -118.24780 on May 19, 2018. Photo by Ed Kentner Recommendations: BLM should conduct detailed field surveys for rare plants along proposed routes in the WEMO planning area. It should be noted that the survey efforts by CNPS were not sufficient to determine the extent of rare plants in the Middle Knob ACEC. Surveys, while timed to maximize the phenology for rare plants known from the region, were only conducted over the course of a single weekend in a year with rainfall that was below normal. As a result, rare plants that may be present earlier in the growing season or only present in years with normal or above normal rainfall were not detected. Also, the surveys conducted were opportunistic in nature and should not be substituted for surveys conducted in accordance with CDFW Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities9 and USFWS Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants10 . BLM should analyze the effect of proposed routes in the Middle Knob ACEC and all other areas in the WEMO planning area on rare plant populations. Specifically, the impacts of illegal vehicle travel adjacent to MK10 on Element Occurrence (EO) #2 of Eriogonum kennedyi var. pinicola should have been disclosed in the DSEIS. More importantly, we recommend that MK10 be permanently closed to motorized vehicle travel at least 500 meters east of the extent of Eriogonum kennedyi var. pinicola EO #2. 9 https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline 10 https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/Survey-Protocols- Guidelines/Documents/Listed_plant_survey_guidelines.PDF Furthermore, we recommend that BLM takes actions to restore habitat that has been damaged as a result of illegal vehicle travel. BLM should conduct an on-the-ground analysis to document illegal, user-created motorcycle trails within WEMO. The types of user-create disturbances that we documented during our limited surveys of the Middle Knob ACEC have been documented by others in many locations in the WEMO planning area. Given that one of the goals of the WMRNP is to determine which roads/trails should be designated open and which ones should be permanently closed, the DSEIS is limited by a lack of on-the- ground survey work. How can BLM adequately designate open and closed routes without a detailed survey of baseline conditions? For more detailed comments on the Middle Knob ACEC please see the letter prepared by the California Wilderness Coalition and other organizations submitted on June 13, 2018. 6. The WMRNP should provide a more detailed analysis of the impacts of routes that occur in lands with special designations including Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs), California Desert National Conservation Lands (CDNCLs), Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (LWCs), Unusual Plant Assemblages, National Monuments (NMs), and Wilderness Areas (WAs) Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) More than 83,000 route segments spanning more than 5,000 miles of roads are designated for motorized vehicle travel within ACECs in Alternative 4. These routes are located in 58 separate ACECs, which were designated to protect and manage some of the Mojave Desert’s most important biological and cultural resources. ACEC’s represent some of the most precious and vulnerable lands in the WEMO planning area. According to BLM’s website11, ACEC “designations highlight areas where special management attention is needed to protect important historical, cultural, and scenic values, or fish and wildlife or other natural resources.” The very nature of ACECs necessitates site-specific planning and resource management actions must be specified for ACEC unit (see, for example, DRECP LUPA Appendix B). For each ACEC, provisions for vehicle-based recreation have been specified, including the signs required to identify open and closed routes, the designation of areas for parking, and the selection of dispersed camping areas, etc. Did BLM incorporate these ACEC-specific management actions into the WMRNP? Furthermore, are the route designations in the WMRNP consistent with the site-specific resource management goals that are associated with each ACEC? We contend that these well-intentioned ACEC-specific provisions should not be superseded by more general provisions in plans such as the WMRNP. The descriptions of the resources in the DSEIS (starting on 3.11-8) to be protected and managed in each ACEC and to be affected by the WMRNP are inadequately brief and uninformative. The DSEIS should be updated to indicate how the designation of routes in each ACEC is consistent or inconsistent with the management actions specific for each ACEC. 11 https://www.blm.gov/programs/planning-and-nepa/planning-101/special-planning-designations/acec The DRECP LUPA specifies a maximum amount of acreage that can be disturbed in each ACEC, and OHV routes are included in these calculations. The DRECP LUPA states that the “ground disturbance cap functions as an objective, triggering a specific disturbance mitigation requirement if the ground disturbance condition of the California Desert National Conservation Lands and/or ACEC is at or above its designated cap. The disturbance mitigation requirement remains in effect until the unit drops below its specified cap, at which time the disturbance cap becomes a limitation.” Furthermore, section DRECP LUPA Section II.2.1 indicates that, “if the ground disturbance condition of the California Desert National Conservation Lands and/or ACEC is at or above its designated cap, the cap functions as an objective, triggering the specific ground disturbance mitigation requirement. Ground disturbance mitigation is unique to ground disturbance cap implementation and a discrete form of compensatory mitigation, separate from other required mitigation in the DRECP LUPA (see Glossary of Terms). The ground disturbance mitigation requirement remains in effect for all (see exceptions below) activities until which time the California Desert National Conservation Lands and/or ACEC drops below the cap, at which time the cap becomes a limitation.” DSEIS Table 3.11-3 reports the disturbance caps for each ACEC in the WEMO planning area. Section 3.11.8, titled “Disturbance Cap Calculations”, provides very little information on how disturbance caps were calculated. Astonishingly, the disturbance cap for many ACECs has already been reached (see bolded numbers in the “Percent Disturbed Preliminary” column). Is the percent disturbed presented in this table primarily the result of disturbance associated with the proliferation of vehicle routes on BLM lands? If so, why wasn’t this taken into account when disturbance caps were set in place in the DRECP LUPA? It goes without saying that disturbance caps that are already exceeded when a law is signed into action are illogical and useless. If the disturbance caps have been exceeded by the designation of routes in the WMRNP, why hasn’t BLM proposed lower route mileage designations in ACECs in order to bring the number of disturbed acres below the maximum disturbance cap thresholds? Lastly, given their sensitivity, we advocate that the impacts of proposed route designations be evaluated on a route-by-route basis within each ACEC. Our analyses (see Sections 2 and 3 above) indicate that BLM has not conducted an analysis of the route specific impacts to sensitive biological resources. This lack of analysis is inconsistent with the management actions specified for each ACEC. Also, disturbance caps have not been calculated for Horse Canyon and Sierra Canyon ACECs, both of which contain a significant number of proposed motorized routes in Alternative 4. This should be addressed in subsequent versions of the SEIS. Given that the impacts associated with each designated route are ongoing, we contend that the disturbance caps may apply to all of the proposed routes. As a result, BLM should be required to implement ground disturbance mitigation for all routes in ACECs where disturbance cap limitations have been exceeded. California Desert National Conservation Lands (CDNCLs) More than 34,000 route segments spanning nearly 2,000 miles of routes are proposed for motorized vehicle travel in CDNCLS in Alternative 4 of the WMRNP. The DRECP LUPA defines CDNCLs as “nationally significant landscapes within the CDCA with outstanding cultural, ecological, and scientific values.” CDNCLs and ACEC’s are not mutually exclusive, such that many ACECs also occur in CDNCLs. The DRECP LUPA establishes CMAs to conserve, protect, and restore these landscapes. CMAs specify disturbance caps that trigger ground disturbance mitigation once they have been exceeded. Please see the discussion above on ACECs for our concerns regarding disturbance caps and CDNCLs, as the same comments apply to CDNCLs. The DSEIS indicates that the disturbance caps have already been exceeded in a portion of the Mojave and Silurian Valley, Western Desert and Eastern Slopes, and South Mojave-Amboy CDNCLs. How were disturbance caps calculated for each CDNCL? Is the percent disturbed presented in this table primarily the result of disturbance associated with the proliferation of vehicle routes on BLM lands? If so, why wasn’t this taken into account when disturbance caps were set in place in the DRECP LUPA? If the disturbance caps have been exceeded by the designation of routes in the WMRNP, why hasn’t BLM proposed lower route mileage in CDNCLs in order to bring the number of disturbed acres below the cap? Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (LWCs) Alternative 4 includes more than 2,700 route segments spanning more than 156 miles designated for motorized vehicle travel within LWCs. In the simplest sense LWCs are defined by BLM12 as lands that “possess sufficient size, naturalness, and outstanding opportunities for either solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation.” These lands could and should be formally protected as Wilderness Areas as specified in the Wilderness Act of 196413 . With very limited exceptions, the Wilderness Act prohibits vehicular travel in designated wilderness areas. Based on our interpretation of LWCs in relation to the Wilderness Act we argue that the designation of motorized vehicle routes within LWCs is wholeheartedly illogical. BLM has provided no rationale for doing so in the DSEIS. We recommend that all proposed routes within LWCs be recommended for closure and restoration to natural conditions. Existing roads within LWCs also provide an excellent opportunity for non-motorized recreation, a feature that is sorely lacking in the WMRNP. Please see Section 8 below for a discussion on the need for balanced recreation options in the WEMO planning area. Wilderness Areas (WAs) More than 1,800 route segments totaling nearly 80 miles of roads are designated for motorized vehicle travel within WAs in Alternative 4. Motorized vehicle travel is prohibited in WAs, in accordance with the Wilderness Act of 1964 (see above). BLM has provided no defensible rationale for the inclusion of motorized vehicle routes in WAs. We recommend that all existing routes in WAs be designated for closure and the restoration of habitat to natural conditions. Existing roads within WAs would also provide an excellent opportunity for non-motorized recreation. Please see Section 8 below for a discussion on the need for balanced recreation options in the WEMO planning area. National Monuments (NMs) 12 https://www.blm.gov/programs/planning-and-nepa/planning-101/special-planning-designations/lands-with- wilderness-characteristics 13 https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-78/pdf/STATUTE-78-Pg890.pdf The Antiquities Act of 190614 authorizes the President of the United States to “declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be national monuments.” The utmost importance of some land in the WEMO Planning for the conservation of cultural and biological resources is exemplified by President Obama’s designation of Mojave Trails and Sand to Snow NMs in 2016. The WMRNP proposes to designate more than 7,000 route segments totaling more than 402 miles of roads for motorized vehicle travel in these NMs. More than 27 miles of routes are designated for vehicular travel in Sand to Snow NM and 375 miles of routes have been designated for vehicular travel in Mojave Trails NM. We recommend that all routes in the two NMs be prioritized for non-motorized travel or designated for closure and restoration to natural conditions. Please see Section 8 below for a discussion on the need for balanced recreation options in the WEMO planning area. Unusual Plant Assemblages (UPAs) The 1980 CDCA Plan15 “identified a number of unusual plant assemblages (UPAs) and established goals to preserve their habitat and ensure the continued existence of the plant assemblage. These UPAs include areas which are unique in the desert because of size, unusual age, areas associated with water (like riparian forests, mesquite bosques and marshes) and other unique vegetation areas. The CDCA Plan states that all UPAs will be taken into account when conducting site-specific NEPA analyses. The CDCA Plan also identified the need to conduct inventory to identify additional UPAs.” Under this direction, the BLM, as required, has continued to inventory and identify UPAs. Furthermore, the CDCA Plan states that, “all UPAs will be taken into account when conducting all site-specific environmental impact analyses. Where possible, impacts on these UPAs will be avoided; where impacts cannot be avoided, every effort will be made to achieve the least degree of impact and to mitigate the areas through rehabilitation to stable conditions.” More than 1,400 miles of routes designated for motorized vehicle travel in Alternative 4 occur within UPAs. Has BLM conducted site-specific environmental analyses of route designations on UPAs, as is mandated by the CDCA? The DSEIS states that the, “the Court’s evaluation of the impact of OHV use on Unusual Plant Assemblages (UPAs) concluded that there was no discussion of the impact on OHVs on specific UPA areas.” Tables presented in Section 4.4 present the amount of disturbed acreage in a number of UPAs associated with each plan alternative. While this provides some information on the impacts of route designation of a whole this does little to assess the actual impacts on the sensitive biological resources in UPAs and should be deemed inadequate. 7. The DSEIS should include more detailed information on route closures and rehabilitation, and a timeline for doing so. The preferred alternative includes the designation of nearly 6,300 miles of motorized vehicle routes. This will require to closure or nearly 10,000 miles of existing roads and linear disturbances. How does BLM propose to execute this task in an expedient manner? As the 14 https://www.nps.gov/subjects/legal/the-antiquities-act-of-1906.htm 15Link to CDCA text on UPAs DSEIS aptly states, “posting a “closed” sign may not be adequate to affect user behavior in all cases.” We agree with this assessment and urge the BLM to draft a timeline of how they will effectively close 10,000 miles of routes. Even if, Alternative 4 is adopted how will the BLM ensure that closed routes actually remain closed? Other federal agencies have managed for OHV use and associated environmental impacts in their jurisdictions. For example, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) continues to manage for OHV use under their Travel Management Rule16. This rule has resulted in the closure of entire networks of roads to vehicle travel using locked gates and/or immovable barriers. Decisions to close specific roads and networks of roads were made following on-the-ground surveys of existing routes and an evaluation of their environmental impact. Why hasn’t the BLM included a similar specific, route-based assessment in the current WMRNP? If the closure of individual routes as detailed in the DSEIS is not feasible or enforceable, perhaps BLM should consider closing networks of routes with gates and/or immoveable barriers? Furthermore, BLM only cursorily deals with the large future task of restoring more than 10,000 miles of illegally created routes to natural conditions. Desert habitats are notoriously difficult to restore, and if left alone can take decades to return to natural conditions. If left alone, these scars on the landscape will continue to contribute to erosion and the spread of invasive plant species. The BLM should detail a plan to systematically restore these damaged habitats, starting with the most degraded habitats first. Given the legacy of decades of mismanagement and neglect on BLM lands in the WEMO planning area with regards to vehicle-based recreation “doing nothing” is no longer an option. 8. The BLM should adopt a more balanced recreation plan that does not favor motorized recreation over non-motorized recreation In Alternative 4, the WMRNP specifies 182 miles of roads for non-motorized recreation. The 6,313 miles of motorized routes proposed in the preferred Alternative 4 amounts to 34.7 miles of vehicle-based travel for every mile of non-motorized recreation. Existing routes that are located in ACECs, LWCs, CDNCLs, LWCs, UPAs, WAs, and NMs provide excellent opportunities for non-motorized recreation. A mileage ratio of 1:1, motorized to non-motorized routes for recreation would be a balanced and fair proposal. Why has the BLM prioritized motorized recreation over other forms of recreation? Furthermore, non-motorized recreation is more consistent with the management of BLM lands for a multitude of uses, especially the preservation of our precious biological resources. The BLM should not favor one use over another. Once again, thank you very much for the opportunity to provide comments on the West Mojave Route Network Program. It should be noted that CNPS, along with a number of partner organizations and members of the public, asked BLM for an extension of the 90-day comment period to give us more time to analyze this comprehensive and complicated plan. We only received the GIS layers of the proposed routes on April 24th, leaving us a little more than a 16 https://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/final.pdf month to conduct the analyses necessary to review the plan, and to perform field-based reconnaissance. In the future, BLM can expect more constructive and informative comments on large, complex projects such as this if reasonable requests for the extension of the comment period are granted. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Nicholas Jensen, PhD Southern California Conservation Analyst California Native Plant Society 1500 North College Ave Claremont, CA 91711 (530) 368-7839 njensen@cnps.org | off highway vehicles, OHV, roads, biodiversity, habitat, rare species, endangered species, alternatives, riparian habitat, erosion, dust pollution, visual resources, grazing, paleontological resources, special status species, sensitive species, survey, illegal trails, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, ACEC, California Desert National Conservation Lands, CDNCL, Lands with Wilderness Characteristics, LWC, unusual plant assemblages, national monuments, Wilderness Areas, WA, route closure, timeline | N/A | N/A | N/A | https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/93521/570 | 35.12 | -117.10 | |
| 2021_LAZoo_DraftEIR | Los Angeles Zoo and Botanical Gardens Vision Plan | 2021 | 2019011053 | CEQA | EIR | N/A | Draft | City | City of Los Angeles | Los Angeles | Los Angeles-Santa Monica Mountains Chapter | Los Angeles-Santa Monica Mountains Chapter | N/A | Local Planning Action, Recreational | Ongoing | California Native Plant Society, Los Angeles, Santa Monica Mountains Chapter 15811 Leadwell St., Van Nuys, CA 91406 February 14, 2021 Norman Mundy, Environmental Supervisor II Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering, Environmental Management Group 1149 S. Broadway, Suite 600, Mail Stop 939 Los Angeles, CA 90015 Via email Norman.Mundy@lacity.org RE: Los Angeles Zoo Vision Plan Draft EIR Dear Norman Mundy: On behalf of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), Los Angeles/Santa Monica Mountains Chapter, I am writing to give input to the LA Zoo Vision Plan Draft EIR (DEIR). Specifically, we are asking that Alternative 1 be adopted by the Zoo and the City as it is the “environmentally superior alternative” called out in the DEIR. Specifically, we do not support the proposed expansion into the California and African planning areas as that would result in the destruction of the removal or substantial disturbance of the majority of the native vegetation i.e., 100s of native trees, shrubs and other plants with their resident animals. We would like to state upfront that our Chapter advocates for preserving all possible open natural space within the City. Such spaces and their resident native flora provide the necessary habitat and food to sustain the native animals we are so lucky to have in our midst. They are also prime centers of carbon sequestration and are part of the wildlife corridors that are key to the safe travel/migration of our urban fauna. The heart of Griffith Park in its wild state creates frontline protection for creatures such as P-22 and their habitat in the Santa Monica Mountains within our City limits. Removing wildland acreage to expand the current Zoo footprint would do irreparable harm. Coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and oak and black walnut woodlands are a great rarity in our urban ecology. The destruction these natural habitats cannot be undone and will have unintended, adverse ecological consequences for our City's environmental future. Each native plant is an ecology in and of itself supporting hundreds of plants, animals, and microorganisms. We cannot afford this loss of diversity in view of the climate change pressures we are facing. We question the thoroughness of the DEIR's rare plant survey. The Griffity Park Rare Plant Survey conducted by Cooper in 2010 suggests a more robust array of botanical rarity in Griffith Park than is indicated in the DEIR document. The Griffith Park Wildlife Management Plan submitted to LA City Recreation and Parks in January 2009 provides further documentation on the extensive ecological value of the wildland areas of Griffith Park. And the City's own study The Visions for Griffith Park adopted in 2014 calls for the preservation of wildlife, wildlife corridors, native flora and fauna and park biodiversity. Regarding the modifications proposed for the core Zoo footprint, we urge that all native plants on the City's Protected Tree list be preserved. We further request that the Zoo not remove any non-native trees that are serving as habitat and refugia for our native fauna such as bats and other mammals, birds, butterflies, bees, wasps, and other insects, reptiles, amphibians, etc. We question whether City agencies and entities involved with urban forestry – the Urban Forestry Division and the City Forester and the Community Forest Advisory Committee (CFAC) - were consulted as the Zoo formulated its Vision Plan ATIVE P OLANT RNIAN LIFORN Dedicated to the preservation of California native flora Draft EIR. These are organizations charged with protecting our City's urban forests and should have been in the loop from the very beginning. The CNPS is a non-profit organization of 10,000 laypersons and professional botanists with 35 statewide chapters. Our mission is to increase the understanding and appreciation of California's native plants and to conserve them in their natural habitats through education, science, advocacy, horticulture, and stewardship. For many years, we have worked tirelessly to protect the native flora of our area and oppose efforts to enable unsustainable development in the region. We recognize that public resources such as the LA Zoo must evolve and grow to stay relevant. However, such change cannot be made if it leads to the loss of the environmental health of our City. Sincerely, PM Snowdy Dodson, Chapter Co-President Email: snowdy.dodson@csun.edu Ph: 818-782-9346 CC: G. Hans (Friends of Griffith Park) Councilmember Nithya Raman Mayor Eric Garcetti R. Malarich (LA City Forester) S. Billik (CFAC) M. Shull (LA Rec & Parks) References: Cooper, Daniel S. “Rare Plants of Griffith Park” Fremontia, 38:4/39:1 Oct. 2010/Jan. 2011, p. 18-24. FremontiaV38.4 39.1.pdf (cnps.org) Cooper, Daniel S. & Paul Mathewson. “Griffith Park Wildlife Management Plan: Final” Los Angeles, CA : Cooper Ecological Monitoring, Inc., Jan. 22, 2009 https://www.friendsofgriffithpark.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/GP-WMP-Final.pdf City of Los Angeles. Dept. of Recreation and Parks. "A Vision for Griffith Park : Urban Wilderness Identity" [2010?] https://www.laparks.org/sites/default/files/griffith/pdf/agenda/visionPk.pdf | alternatives, open space, biological corridor, carbon sequestration, survey, rare plants, urban forestry | N/A | N/A | N/A | https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2019011053/2 | 34.15 | -118.28 | |
| 2021_LaJollaReservoir_DraftEIR | La Jolla View Reservoir CDP/SDP | 2021 | 2018041020 | CEQA | EIR | N/A | Draft | City | City of San Diego | San Diego | San Diego Chapter | San Diego Chapter | N/A | Local Planning Action, Water Facilities | Ongoing | February 15, 2021 Rachael Ferrell City of San Diego Development Services Center 1222 First Avenue, MS 501 San Diego, CA 92101 By e-mail to DSDEAS@sandiego.gov RE: La Jolla View Reservoir, Project No. 331101 / SCH No. 2018041020 Dear Ms. Ferrell, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this draft of the La Jolla View Reservoir ("Project") draft environmental impact report ("DEIR"). CNPS promotes sound plant science as the backbone of effective natural areas protection. We work closely with decision-makers, scientists, and local planners to advocate for well informed and environmentally friendly policies, regulations, and land management practices. Our focus is on California's native plants, the vegetation they form, on keeping both plants and people safe from damaging fires, and on climate change as it affects both. . There are flaws in the DEIR, as detailed below. We also have a number of questions. These are highlighted in bold, not because we believe these are more important than the comments, but to make them easier to find and answer. "We" in this context, is the opinion of CNPSSD on this project. "I" represents the experience of the author of this letter, Frank Landis. Native Plant Issues Sensitive Plan Survey Several CNPSSD members who are extremely knowledgeable about the local flora surveyed the site. We found sensitive species not on listed in the EIR. Specifically, we saw at least three summer holly (Comaristaphylis diversifolia ssp. diversifolia, CRPR List 1B.2) visible from the trail within the impact site. The most accessible is at approximately (32.843071°, -117.260025°). The failure to locate these plants is understandable, but the species must be surveyed for properly. In the Project area, there are a few summer hollies, but these are vastly outnumbered by toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) and mission manzanita (Xylococcus bicolor), which have very similar leaves, and by chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), which has similar bark to summer holly. As in the example given above, these mimic species grow intertwined with the summer holly, so careful observation is required to identify the summer hollies on this site. The solution is basically to check every Page 2 of 4 putative toyon and mission manzanita within the Project site to get a firm identification, and to count and map the summer hollies. We are also concerned about Dudleya brevifolia, as there is an old record (SDNHM Number 129816) from about 3,000 feet south, roughly between Nautilus St. and Fairway Road. Dudleya variegata is also reported from the Nautilus site in an old record. With regard to the dudleyas, Appendix E of the biotech report notes that these species are unlikely to grow on the site, as there are purportedly not gaps in the chaparral. However, there are a large number of gaps in the chaparral, due to social trails that have been there for over a decade (per historical imagery on Google Earth). There are a substantial number of lance-leaved dudleyas (Dudleya lanceolata) growing these manmade gaps, as well as a number of barrel cacti as noted in the EIR. These gaps are not visible from the main road, but do show up on Google Earth. The solution to both issues is straightforward: perform a focused survey for summer holly and dudleyas within the project site. The site is a small enough that this should only take about a day, but plant impacts on the Project site need to be properly documented, and their take needs to be properly mitigated. Proposed Vegetation Mitigation The proposed mitigation is problematic. It does not seek to restore maritime chaparral. Worse, the site chosen for restoration is a weedy field (which I visited) where successful restoration of anything native will take a very expensive and sustained weed control effort. As current chair of the Los Penasquitos Canyon Preserve Citizens’ Advisory Committee (LPCPCAC), I was also unable to find any existing program or plan that calls for restoring this site, and this came from talking with both knowledgeable park personnel and with experts who routinely work in the Penasquitos watershed. The Project proponents can and must do better. The City currently faces over $100 million in delayed Park and Recreation expenditures, and adding yet another badly maintained, weed-filled restoration site within MHPA parkland is a waste of money, planning, and time. We strongly urge the some combination of the following: Re-examine the need for so much disturbance. For example, why isn’t the new 30-inch water pipeline being placed with current infrastructure under Encelia Drive instead of in undisturbed MHPA habitat? Salvage as many native plants as possible (not just barrel cactus, but also dudleyas), maintain them, and replant them onsite after the project is complete. Find other areas of maritime chaparral to purchase or preserve. Work with Parks and Recreation open space biologists, wildlife agency staff, and others (such as CNPSSD) to find areas of maritime chaparral and coastal sage scrub that need care, instead of planting natives in a weedy field. This is not hard. Parks throughout the City have seen perhaps double the number of visitors due to the pandemic, while park volunteer work groups have been eliminated by City mandate, again due to the pandemic. There is a huge burden in the parks of new unauthorized trails, recently disturbed sensitive species and vegetation, proliferating weeds, and the like in every open space in the City. If the Project must seek off-site mitigation, we urge Project proponents to work with City Parks and stakeholder groups to identify suitable damaged areas that can be successfully rehabilitated or restored, to mitigate the loss of maritime chaparral and coastal sage scrub. Page 3 of 4 There are unmet needs for help to maritime chaparral and coastal sage scrub throughout the area, and the proposed mitigation site is very, very low on that list. In this time of budget deficits and belt tightening, please do mitigation that is necessary, cost-effective, and likely to succeed. Ideally, try to avoid as much damage as possible first, and mitigate as little as possible. Invasive Species Given City Park’s eternal struggle against weeds introduced into parks by adjacent construction projects, why did the EIR erroneously conclude that the Project would not introduce invasive species to the site? Of course it will, and this finding must be changed to reflect the normal awareness that weed seeds come in on equipment and in soil imported from other sites. What measures will the Project proponents take to keep equipment clean and to remove weeds before they establish on the Project site or in the adjacent park? What guarantees will be given that non-toxic weed control methods will be used, so additional impacts to the parkland from broadcast herbicides, runoff, fencing and the like will be avoided? Second, brush clearance inevitably makes space for weeds. Given that this is MHPA parkland, what will be done to control invasive non-natives in areas cleared for brush management? After all, weeds are more flammable than chaparral, so this is an issue of safety. Third, remember always that the Project site is uphill and upstream from MHPA lands set aside for conservation. Therefore, broadcast herbicide spraying and lethal pest control are completely inappropriate. What more targeted and less destructive methods will the Project use to meet its needs without damaging the park or the native species that live within it? Waters of the United States and Erosion While we have no major issue with the wetland delineation performed, we are concerned that the engineering problem presented by this feature has gone unappreciated. Specifically, the project proposes to pile earth in a gully to form a temporary bridge to access the site. Simultaneously, the wetland delineation strongly suggests that water flows in that gully during heavy rains. Furthermore, there is a park land immediately downstream of where the dirt would be washed away. What kind of culvert the City would put under the dirt fill to keep it from being washed away during a heavy winter? What measures will the City take to keep the fill in place and not damage everything downhill from it if it does erode? Greenhouse Gas Issues To point out something that is now obvious, but was not obvious when the EIR was written, California Executive Order B-55-18 mandates California become carbon neutral no later than 2045, while the County’s emerging Sustainability Plan mandates that San Diego County go carbon neutral no later than 2035. The City of San Diego is within both the County of San Diego and the State of California, and it needs to up its game. We can only afford so many billion dollar wildfires, multi-year droughts, storms that wreck coastal infrastructure before San Diego becomes unlivable. To that end, do the Project proponents truly want to limit themselves to the City CAP checklist? One obvious item is that the Project proposes to use 4,500 truck trips to carry 22,000 cubic yards of fill off site. Can some of this fill be retained onsite, for use in closing the access road or other uses? This would serve two potential uses: limiting greenhouse gas emissions by moving less soil, and limiting invasive species spread by moving less seed-bearing Page 4 of 4 soil around. Can the Project be designed to meet its objectives while moving less soil and emitting less greenhouse gas? Can the Project be designed so that normal maintenance can be done in a carbon neutral manner, to comply with B-55-18? Thank you for taking these comments. Please keep CNPSSD informed of all developments with this project and associated documents and meetings, at conservation@cnpssd.org and franklandis03@yahoo.com. Sincerely, Frank Landis, PhD Conservation Chair California Native Plant Society, San Diego Chapter | sensitive species, survey, mitigation, invasive species, greenhouse gases, coastal permit | N/A | N/A | N/A | https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2018041020/2 | 32.84 | -117.26 | |
| 2018_NewlandSierra_FinalEIR_BoardOpposition | Newland Sierra | 2018 | 2015021036 | CEQA | EIR | N/A | Final | County | San Diego County | San Diego | San Diego Chapter | San Diego Chapter | N/A | Commercial/Educational/Industrial, Recreational, Residential | Approved | September 24, 2018 San Diego County Board of Supervisors Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 1600 Pacific Highway, Room 402 San Diego, California 92101 Mr. Mark Wardlaw, Director County of San Diego Department of Planning and Development Services 5510 Overland Avenue San Diego, CA 92123 Ms. Sarah Aghassi, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer County of San Diego Land Use and Environment Group 1600 Pacific Highway Room 212 San Diego, CA 92101 Via e-mail (David.Hall@sdcounty.ca.gov; mark.wardlaw@sdcounty.ca.gov; Sarah.Aghassi@sdcounty.ca.gov) RE: Newland Sierra, Agenda Item 1, September 26, 2018 Board of Supervisors Hearing Dear Honorable Supervisors, Mr. Wardlaw, and Ms. Aghassi, Thank you for taking our input. The San Diego Chapter of the California Native Plant Society (CNPSSD) works to protect California's native plant heritage and natural ecology to preserve precious and often threatened resources for future generations. We work closely with decision-makers, scientists, and local planners to advocate for well informed and environmentally friendly policies, regulations and land management practices. Our focus is on California's native plants, the vegetation they form, and wildfire and climate change as they affects both. We urge you NOT TO APPROVE the Newland Sierra Project, due to issues with native plants, fire, and greenhouse gases. Native Plants There are errors of omission and commission in the EIR, and they have not been fixed. One problem is that the surveys were sloppy, misidentifying a common scrub oak (the report called it Quercus berberidifolia instead of Quercus acutidens), and failing to do proper surveys for at least three sensitive plants. Did the Project Proponents do a reasonable job? Not really, because these problems could have been solved by 2-3 days of additional surveys. At Page 2 of 4 perhaps $2000/day for several trained botanists out in the field, this is a trivial expense. And it was not done. Then there is the problem of mitigating for loss of Engelmann oak (Quercus engelmannii, CRPR list 4). While this is not a listed species, it was the only tree everyone agreed should be in the North County MSCP, as a way to protect oak woodlands in the undeveloped County. Even though the Project EIR pays lip service to the NCMSCP, it fails to mitigate for loss of these oaks. Loss of Englemann oaks is a serious issue. Even more serious is the unmitigated take of over three acres of wetlands and over 15 acres of wetland buffer. How does the County plan to comply with the national mandate of No Net Loss of wetlands? Finally, there is the mitigation of Ramona horkelia (Horkelia truncata, CRPR list 1B.3). This is a poorly known plant, as can be readily confirmed by Google searches. The lack of information is unsurprising, as the plant is not commercially grown, nor is it listed and subject to a management plan. Unfortunately, the EIR assumes that adequate mitigation for the take of this species is to defer development of a mitigation plan until after the Project is approved. This is a problem, because it is not clear whether a successful mitigation program can be created, and there is no backup plan (such as banking seeds at Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden) to mitigate the risk of failure. The project proponents need to develop an actual mitigation for the take of Ramona horkelia, laying out what they do know and what they will do in the face of lack of information or failed mitigation. Alternatively, they need to record it as an unmitigated impact. Because of these issues alone, the Newland Sierra EIR should not be certified in its current form. Wildfire CNPS advocates both for protection of native plants from loss due to inappropriate wildfire regimes (too much or too little fire), and for the protection of people from wildfires, especially when those people are put in harm’s way through inappropriate development on the Wildland Urban Interface. Both of these issues apply to Newland Sierra. The Newland Sierra site contains a mix of chaparral types that ideally burn less than once per century. However, the southern mixed chaparral benefits from fires every 50-100 years, while the scrub oak chaparral needs fire gaps of at least 50 years for the scrub oaks to reproduce. What will happen with development is that more fires will be introduced into the larger northern area, largely by the carelessness of dropped cigarettes and the like. Too many fires and the vegetation will type convert, as well as burning down quite a few homes. The southern, presumably chamise-dominated chaparral will be fragmented into little patches by the development. Unless it burns (thereby threatening houses) it will type convert into something else, due to fire suppression. Both too-frequent burning and lack of fire are problematic. Unfortunately the EIR failed to adequately even describe the vegetation, let alone deal with the totally predictable problems of altering a complex fire regime by putting thousands of people in the middle of this area. With regards to the fire risk to property and people, the relevant CEQA question is “Hazards and Hazardous Materials G. Would the project...Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?” The answer for Page 3 of 4 the Project is that there are unmitigated risks, as the primary analysis was about human evacuation, not about the risk to structures of loss. Where is the analysis of the risk of losing these million-dollar homes? Moreover, the Fire Evacuation Plan for the Project estimates it will take 2-6 hours to get people out based on the models, but concludes that everybody can get “safely” out in 1.5 hours. In this case, safely out seems to be moved onto Deer Springs Road, not out of harms’ way. Thousands of people in a traffic jam, waiting to try to get onto the highway or racing down the road to San Marcos are not safe, as cars are horrible vehicles for Shelter in Place tactics, and the resulting traffic jam will impede firefighters and sheriffs from getting in to fight the fire and set up staged evacuations. None of this is included in the EIR. Worse, the EIR only considers the residents of Newland Sierra. Notice the question again at the top: “Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?” The EIR’s analysis totally fails, because it analyzes only impacts to the Project residents, not what happens to the people in the surrounding area. If Newland Sierra residents clog the roads and makes it impossible for fire fighters to get in and other residents to get out, they are responsible for the loss, injury, or death to people outside the Project. This was not analyzed. The best the County has is the 2010 Deer Springs Fire Safe Council evacuation maps,1 and for obvious reasons, they do not include the thousands of Project residents at all. And this plan was not incorporated in or analyzed by the EIR, only mentioned at the last second by County Planning as a sop to their failure to insist that this be included in the EIR. This is not to disparage the Deer Springs Fire Safe Council, who are protecting their community as it is constituted in the General Plan. It is on the County Planning that they failed to consider the totally obvious consequences of Newland Sierra. Planning is their job. Because of these issues alone, the Newland Sierra EIR should not be certified in its current form. Climate Change The fundamental problem underlying the County Climate Action Plan is Mitigation GHG-1, and its assumption that there is effectively a bottomless pool of carbon offsets available on the market to offset greenhouse gas emissions. Speaking as someone who has done a small bit of informal research on climate change (see my book Hot Earth Dreams2 ), I would simply point out that if it was that easy to offset carbon emissions, we would not have a climate change problem in the first place. The problem with carbon offsets is that the supply is limited, just as the supply of coastal sage scrub for mitigation is limited. It is unconscionable to think that the carbon offsets needed by Newland Sierra or any other big development will be so readily available on demand that no attempt needs to be made to secure them prior to approval of the project. As with any other limited mitigation, like coastal sage scrub suitable for gnatcatchers, carbon offsets need to be identified and secured prior to the approval of the Project, simply to insure that the mitigation takes place. Could County Planning even stop a mostly-built Project if it suddenly turned out that they couldn’t purchase the offsets they had pledged to do? 1 https://www.deerspringsfiresafecouncil.com/dsfsc_2018_006.htm 2 https://www.amazon.com/Hot-Earth-Dreams-climate-happens-ebook/dp/B017S5NDK8/ Page 4 of 4 In a project such as Newland Sierra, that relies so heavily on offsite carbon offsets to mitigate its very real impacts, at a minimum they needed to secure carbon offsets for their predicted emissions, and I do not believe they did so. Because of these issues alone, the Newland Sierra EIR should not be certified in its current form. Thank you for taking these comments. Please keep CNPSSD informed of all developments with this project and associated documents and meetings, at conservation@cnpssd.org and franklandis03@yahoo.com. Sincerely, Frank Landis, PhD Conservation Chair California Native Plant Society, San Diego Chapter | survey, native plants, rare plants, sensitive species, mitigation, wetlands, wildfire, fire risk, greenhouse gases, climate change, carbon offsets | N/A | N/A | N/A | https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2015021036/2 | 33.21 | -117.15 | |
| 2021_NorthCountyEastCounty_MSCP | North County Multiple Species Conservation Program and the East County Multiple Species Conservation Program | 2021 | N/A | CEQA | MSCP | NOA | Scoping | State | California Department of Fish and Wildlife | San Diego | San Diego Chapter | San Diego Chapter | N/A | Conservation, Local Planning Action | UNSURE | January 21, 2021 Karen Weiss California Department of Fish and Wildlife P.O. Box 944209 Sacramento, CA 94244-2090 By email to sara.kern@wildlife.ca.gov RE: Notice of Public Availability of Proposed Restated and Amended Planning Agreement Dear Ms. Weiss and Ms. Kern, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Proposed Restated and Amended Planning Agreement (“Agreement”) for the North County Multiple Species Conservation Program (“ncMSCP,” “MSCP”) and the East County MSCP (“ecMSCP”). CNPS promotes sound plant science as the backbone of effective natural areas protection. We work closely with decision-makers, scientists, and local planners to advocate for well informed and environmentally friendly policies, regulations, and land management practices. Our focus is on California's native plants, the vegetation they form, on keeping both plants and people safe from damaging fires, and on climate change as it affects both. Here we offer comments on the proposed Agreement. As background, the author of this letter (Dr. Frank Landis), is a member of the County Steering Committee, who reviewed the last draft of the ncMSCP. He was involved in the effort to start this new round of MSCP creation. We support the creation of North County and East County MSCPs. Some of the details of the proposed Agreement are concerning, so we suggest changes to deal with predictable issues and to bring them more in line with existing science. We appreciate the return to the 2015 list of proposed species. During the last round of ncMSCP development, the exclusion of slow-growing, long-lived plants like Nuttall’s scrub oak (Quercus dumosa) and summer holly (Comarostaphylis diversifolia) appeared to be a substantial problem. These species need decades after fires for seeds to germinate and decades for seedlings to reach reproductive maturity, so if they start disappearing from the landscape due to increased fires and climate change, it will take decades for them to recover. It is far better to monitor them with the MSCP to catch problems early. This is the argument for including them in the nc MSCP, even though they mostly grow in isolated fragments that do not have as good landscape connectivity as do more inland parcels. Waiting until they are endangered may be too late. This approach should be extended to all slow-growing, slow-reproducing species in both planning areas, following the logic that it is better to monitor these species, because problems with them will be difficult to solve. This is especially true if the problems are caught late. Page 2 of 3 Along this line, and also given that the notion of “no surprises” is part of the agreement, we strongly suggest including language for rapidly adding additional species to both MSCPs, especially trees like coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and black oak (Quercus kelloggii). Both of these species are currently common, but both are killed by gold spotted oak borer (Agrilus auroguttatus) and shothole borers (Euwallacea spp.), as well as affected by drought, fire, and Phytophthora species. Since I (Landis) earned my PhD at the University of Wisconsin, I was drilled in the stories of the decline of the American elm and American chestnut, and my friends are dealing with the Emerald Ash Borer in the east and Sudden Oak death in northern California. We have ample evidence that pests, pathogens, and changing climate can kill huge numbers of specific trees. We need to accept the possibility that massive diebacks can hit biological and cultural keystones like the oaks, and prepare against that possibility. The specific suggestion is not to include them immediately in either MSCP, unless the preparation drags on another 20 years. Rather, it is to include language suitable to all stakeholders that if important species go through population crashes, it is reasonable to add them to the MSCP rapidly, rather than wait until they get protection through an Endangered Species Act. This is, again, because trees are slow-growing, so rapid response to crises is necessary. A third issue is that the ncMSCP should consider including species that require biological soil crusts, specifically Campbell’s liverwort (Geothallus tuberosus) and bottle liverwort (Sphaerocarpos drewei). These are both CRPR List 1B.1 whose range includes the ncMSCP plan area, although it is not clear whether they occur within it. They are extreme habitat specialists, and CNPS is working toward submitting Campbell’s liverwort for CESA listing in the next few years. In 2017, the entire surveyed population covered less than 500 m2 , and all populations face threats to their continued survival. CNPS will be happy to provide information to the wildlife agencies to help with these two species. A fourth issue is the statement on Page 5, section 2.6 that “These assurances include the “no surprises” rule that the USFWS will not request additional money, land, or water for the Covered Species if circumstances change beyond those already anticipated in the Plans.” There are three problems with this, as listed below: Climate change will need to be considered in great detail, so that new science and crises like a 1000 year storm or decade-long drought, do not mean that an MSCP will die for lack of natural resources. Alternatively, the “no surprises” rule should be modified to deal with specific, high probability disasters that would require renegotiation and new resources. Note that these crises affect humans as badly as native species, so everyone may need to renegotiate if one or more of them happen. Wildfires, pest, and pathogen issues are an area of increasing concern for everyone, as well as increasing science, policy, and government involvement at all levels. The “no surprises” rule should include foreseeable fire issues. But it should also include language to renegotiate an MSCP in case any of these (including impacts to humans from fire, novel pests, or pathogens) present unforeseen and critical problems to the MSCP and its stakeholders. Decarbonization. California is trying to become carbon neutral by 2045, per governor executive order. No one knows quite what a carbon neutral California should look like. Therefore, if the agencies are required to provide a “no surprises” assurance, the building industry also needs to provide a “no surprises” assurance that they will not require additional money, land, or water to meet County housing goals. This is only fair, if they ask for similar assurances from the wildlife agencies. Alternatively, there needs to be a mechanism to renegotiate the MSCP to take the impacts of these issues into account. After all, conserved Page 3 of 3 land is supposed to be conserved in perpetuity, not just stockpiled for future wind, solar, or other development. A fifth issue is on page 9, section 6.2.1: “6.2.1. Data layers were and will continue to be developed ... natural communities (using a classification system based on Holland 1986).” If one actually reads Holland 1986 as currently stored on the CDFW website, the first page includes: “This copy of “Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California” is presented for reference and historic perspective only, as the classification represented is no longer supported by the State of California. It has been replaced by the National Vegetation Classification System and its California expression, The Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (Sawyer, Keeler-Wolf and Evens 2009) under Section 1940 of the Fish and Game Code. The Manual should be used when describing existing conditions in environmental documents, assessing impacts, and mapping vegetation. “Please see: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/vegcamp/ for more information on the current California vegetation classification system.” And every page of the online copy is watermarked “Superseded.” Furthermore, The MCV2 is freely available and searchable online (https://vegetation.cnps.org/). The Holland categories are all cross-walked with the MCV2 categories both in the book and online, and most of the County has already been mapped with MCV2. Therefore, there is no need for any party in this work to continue to use an obsolete, 35 year- old system. All the mitigation ratios can be readily determined via the crosswalk. The MCV2 provides an up-to-date standard which will allow San Diego County to interface with state efforts (MCV2) and with Riverside County NCCPs (also using MCV2), and it forces vegetation surveys to actually report what they find, rather than repeating boilerplate based on the Holland codes. This is a update that is over a decade in the making, and there is no reason not to push for it. Thank you for taking these comments. Please keep CNPSSD informed of all developments with this project and associated documents and meetings, at conservation@cnpssd.org and franklandis03@yahoo.com. Sincerely, Frank Landis, PhD Conservation Chair California Native Plant Society, San Diego Chapter | sensitive species, trees, climate change, greenhouse gases, wildfire, mitigation ratios, mitigation, survey | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 32.90 | -116.91 | |
| 2012_NorthTable_MND | North Table Mountain Trail Project | 2012 | 2012102056 | CEQA | MND | N/A | Draft | State | California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 2 | Butte | Mount Lassen Chapter | Mount Lassen Chapter | N/A | Recreational | Approved | Bruce Forman California Department of Fish and Game 1701 Nimbus Rd Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 Subject: North Table Mountain Trail Project – Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration: October 2012 Dear Bruce: The proposed project would improve public access to the North Table Mountain Ecological Reserve (NTMER) and particularly to one of the primary attractions, Phantom Falls. The Proposed project would provide 1.2 miles of pedestrian trail, including 0.8 mile of a direct US Access Board compliant accessible trail, from the Cherokee Road parking area to Phantom Falls. The construction of an additional pedestrian trail, that would provide a loop trail when linked to the accessible trail, is also proposed. This additional pedestrian loop trail would not meet accessible standards, but would be obstacle free and usable by visitors with mild mobility impairments or with visual impairments. (Botanical Survey Report for the Proposed North Table Mountain Trail Project, August 2012) Please consider the following concerns about the statement of facts and analysis in subject CEQA Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration: Pg. 3.1-2: While portions of the trail would be visible from the parking lot and other high points, the rolling hills would limit the amount of trail seen from single vantage points. The contours would also give the trail a more natural appearance. Pg. 3.1-3: The trail would be placed on, and could be viewed from approximately 75 acres of the NTMER. These statements justified the conclusion of Less Than Significant Impact for (a.) Scenic Vistas and (c.) Visual Character, respectively. A five (5) foot wide trail bed carved from the hillside above 50 percent of the existing informal trail will have a more or less adverse visual impact depending on the aesthetics of the individual viewer. An analysis of the proposed trail’s visual impact by editing panoramic photos of the trail’s route or other means should be done before making such conclusions. Page 2 of 2 Pg. 3.16-2: The Proposed project is intended to provide protection of the natural sensitive environment at the NTMER. ..... with incorporation of Mitigation Measures (see Section 2.7 of the project description), all potentially significant impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant. However, no assessment has been made of the impacts of pedestrian impacts along the existing, informal trail to Phantom Fall and the spider web of trails adjacent to this fall. These existing impacts need to be compared with the project's stated impacts to determine whether or not the project will lessen the pedestrian impact of future visitors. And this determination is contingent on the amount the proposed trail reduces impacts caused by continual use of the informal trail. Otherwise the stated conclusion on Pg. 3.16-3: implementation of the Proposed project would not have an adverse effect on the environment, cannot be made. Pg. 3.16-5: Although the overflow parking area to be developed in the livestock loading area may reduce existing parking congestion on the shoulders of Cherokee Rd during spring weekends, significant parking congestion will still occur. To lesson density of vehicle traffic and parked vehicles at the existing, solitary access to NTMER, dispersed visitor access by development of additional access points to NTMER, i.e., its south plateau, should be evaluated. (For a staging / parking area and connectivity to the south plateau, private land along Cherokee Road (APN: 410-260-018) would need to be purchased.) The Mount Lassen Chapter – CNPS appreciates the efforts of the California Department of Fish & Game (Wildlife) to protect the natural resources of NTMER and to increase their appreciation by visitors. We encourage installation of colorful interpretive signs at the existing parking lot and other key points within the Reserve frequented by visitors, i.e. Phantom Fall. And we encourage the State to expedite its purchase of the private land between Cherokee Road toward the boundary of NTMER’s boundary at Beatson Canyon, including Phantom Fall. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this subject document. Your response to our comments is welcome. Sincerely, /signed Woody Elliott Chair – Conservation Committee Cc: MtLC Board | visual resources, significant impacts, pedestrian impacts, illegal trails, parking | N/A | N/A | N/A | https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2012102056 | 39.60 | -121.54 | |
| 2015_EastParkReservoir_EA | Recreational Improvements at East Park Reservoir - Orland Project | 2015 | N/A | NEPA | EA | N/A | Draft | Federal | Bureau of Reclamation | Colusa | Mount Lassen Chapter | Mount Lassen Chapter | N/A | Recreational | Approved | DRAFT Environmental Assessment (EA): East Park Reservoir Recreational Improvements Comments 3 messages Woody Elliott <woody.elliott@gmail.com> Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 11:31 AM To: pzedonis@usbr.gov Cc: Linnea Hanson <juniper4@comcast.net>, Barbara Castro <barbcastro@hotmail.com>, Lawrence Janeway <ljaneway@csuchico.edu>, Greg Suba |
golf, landing zone, survey, sensitive plants, language, rare species, EIS | N/A | N/A | N/A | https://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/includes/documentShow.php?Doc_ID=26099 | 39.31 | -122.49 | |
| 2021_ChicoVFMP_DraftEIR | City of Chico Vegetative Fuels Management Plan | 2021 | 2020090170 | CEQA | EIR | Program EIR | Draft | City | City of Chico | Butte | Mount Lassen Chapter | Mount Lassen Chapter | N/A | Local Planning Action, Vegetation Management | Approved | To: Linda Herman, P&NRM City of Chico Park Division P.O. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95927 From: Woody Elliott, Conservation Chair Mount Lassen Chapter – CNPS PO Box 4067 Chico, CA 95927-4067 February 2, 2021 Re: DRAFT Programmatic Environmental Impact Report and DRAFT Vegetation Fuels Management Plan for the City of Chico Vegetative Fuels Management Plan – December 2020 SCH Number: 2020090170 Note: Questions and comments follow referenced “quote” from page number (Pg. #) of respective documents. DRAFT Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (DPEIR): Pg. 4: "The Plan approval is the first is (sic) a sequence of contemplated actions, followed by subsequent approvals to implement the proposed Projects and other future activities consistent with the VFMP." What are the subsequent approvals necessary to implement the proposed Projects and when and how will they be available for review by the Bidwell Park and Playground Commission (BPPC) and the public? Pg. 4: "To determine whether a future activity/project is entirely or partially within the scope of this PEIR or not, the City will use the Project Consistency Checklist attached in Appendix A." How will the BPPC and the public be able to review the Project Consistency Checklist prior to implementation of the activity/project in time to review and potentially object to its findings to the BPPC and/or the court? Pg. 5. "As a deliverable of the CAL FIRE grant, the Plan also contains seven key Projects which are high priorities for the City and stakeholders. Making these projects “shovel-ready” (i.e., fully reviewed and permitted) was one of the goals of the grant." Why are these key Projects not "shovel-ready" with field surveys done, SPRs (Standard Project Requirements) and mitigation measures assigned with documentation for each project usefully in a draft Project Consistency Checklist? Pg. 5: "the Project Consistency Checklist would then serve as an Initial Study to determine the appropriate environmental documentation the City would need to prepare." Mount Lassen Chapter – CNPS Page 2 of 9 When would this Project Consistency Checklist / Initial Study be available for review by the BPPC and the public in time to review and potentially object to its findings to the BPPC and/or the court? Pg. 6. “1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS 1.3.1 Less than significant impacts "Air quality – emission related impacts associated with vegetation management (e.g., chain saws, chippers, smoke) would be minor, temporary, and less than significant." Would smoke emissions from prescribed burns be made less than significant by conforming to project specific permit requirements from the Butte County Air Quality Management District or is the statement merely an assumption based on what? Pg. 7: "a framework for compensatory mitigation has been developed (MM-BIO-1) that would (with CDFW and/or USFWS concurrence) reduce these impacts to below a level of significance." When would such concurrences with CDFW and / or USFWS be available for review and comment by the BPPC and the public? Pg. 8: "Because streamside work needs to be carried out under the terms of a 1600 permit from CDFW (SPR BIO-10) as well as potentially an encroachment permit from CVFPB, this mitigation measure would still need to be reviewed by CDFW and potentially CVFPB." When will this review occur and be available for review by BPPC and the public? Pg. 26 "If the City determines the future activity is entirely within the scope of this PEIR, no new environmental document is needed (CEQA Guidelines §15168(c)(1) and (2)).” Documentation of no potential adverse environmental effects per Project Consistency Checklist / initial study checklist must be done and filed for public review upon request or furnished to BPPC in a staff report. A Notice of Determination for such future activity / project needs to be filed with the Butte County Clerk and immediately announced to the BPPC and public who have requested notification of all projects by the City of Chico’s Park Division. Will these transparent notifications be done by the City of Chico? Pg. 26 "To determine whether a future activity is entirely or partially within the scope of this PEIR or not, the City will use the project consistency checklist attached in Appendix A." How and when will a project’s completed "project consistency checklist" be made available to BPPC and public review and comment? Pg. 26 "CAL FIRE or the Wildlife Conservation Board might fund a future vegetation management program in Chico parklands; both these State agencies may serve as lead agency on the projects they fund, so they could utilize the Project Consistency Checklist to finalize review for these projects (with City assistance).” Mount Lassen Chapter – CNPS Page 3 of 9 Why would the City of Chico relinquish its role as lead agency that oversees the adequacy of the analysis of a project’s environmental effects and resulting Environmental Determination? Other agencies as lead agency may not be as sensitive to input from local citizens or protective of the City’s natural and cultural resources. Pg. 28: "As noted above, it is not possible to fully evaluate certain impacts today because the nature and extent of the proposed vegetation management actions at a specific work site are not sufficiently defined, and/or information about site-specific resources is lacking. For these situations, the EIR identifies the appropriate subsequent environmental analysis and/or documentation that may be required to ensure consistency with the EIR findings. (See Project Consistency Checklist, Appendix A.)" Why have the proposed vegetation management actions for key projects not been sufficiently defined and information about site-specific resources not been gathered from previous or up-to-date field surveys? How and when will the BPPC and the public be able to review a subsequent environmental analysis / consistency finding of a proposed vegetative management action for its adequacy of relevant and topical information, e.g. field and literature surveys? Pg. 29: "The VFMP contains seven “Key Projects,” sometimes called "the shovel-ready projects," which have received and/or will receive an elevated level of environmental review using the CAL FIRE grant funding." What projects have yet to receive an elevated level of environmental review using the CAL FIRE grant funding and when will this occur? Pg. 29: "All have project boundaries and descriptions; in some cases, botanical and cultural resource surveys have been completed." What Key Projects have had botanical and cultural resource surveys completed and where are they available for public review? Pg. 54, 55: "SPR BIO-2: Biological Surveyor Qualifications. All field survey professionals/biological technicians conducting surveys under SPR BIO- 1 and SPR BIO-4 should demonstrate regionally appropriate knowledge of species and protocols. Statewide or national certifications or degrees are not a substitute for Butte County-specific biological expertise." How will surveyors demonstrate to the City of Chico regionally appropriate knowledge of species and (survey) protocols? Will a list of qualified field survey professionals/biological technicians conducting surveys be maintained by the City? Is a State of California Registered Professional Forester (RPF) automatically considered qualified? Email from David Magney, Jan 21, 2021, 2:04 PM Woody, Mount Lassen Chapter – CNPS Page 4 of 9 Thanks for bringing this to my attention. It is quite disappointing that the City of Chico is taking this position. While I agree that requiring ONLY Certified Botanists work on City impact assessments because the California Certified Botanist program is still young, the objections made for requiring a California Certified Botanist simply because they are required to know the entire California flora and not required to know the Butte County flora is absurd. Every Certified Botanist has the expertise and experience to be able to survey for any plant in Butte County and conduct a high quality assessment. The Board of Certification stands behind every botanist certified since they have demonstrated their knowledge through rigorous examination, something that I am certain the City of Chico nor the County of Butte has done. My years of experience reviewing the work of "Qualified Biologists" as determined by city and county planning departments have found many to be sorely lacking in their abilities, based on their written reports and assessments. IF the city or county actually determined the botanists' qualifications through examination, then I might agree. In discussions with several planning agency staff/managers, they have been quite frustrated with the poor quality of work from the consultants' work they have received. Let me know if I can be of further assistance with this issue. Cheers, David L. Magney, CCB-0001 Rare Plant Program Manager Chair, Board of Certification California Native Plant Society 2707 K Street, Suite 1 Sacramento, CA 95816 916/447-CNPS ext. 205 530/273-1799 (home office during pandemic) www.cnps.org dmagney@cnps.org Email from Kelly Holland, Thu, Jan 21, 2021 Good morning, Woody, Thank you for the opportunity to provide our comment and perspective on the concern you raised. TWS’ certifications include Certified Wildlife Biologist (CWB) and Associate Wildlife Biologist (AWB). “The Wildlife Society supports the development and advancement of wildlife professionals throughout their careers. Certification constitutes recognition by TWS that, to its best knowledge, a member meets the minimum educational, experience, and ethical standards adopted by the Society for professional wildlife Mount Lassen Chapter – CNPS Page 5 of 9 biologists.” A CWB is an “individual with the educational background and demonstrated expertise in the art and science of applying the principles of ecology to the conservation and management of wildlife and its habitats, and is judged able to represent the profession as an ethical practitioner, will be designated as a Certified Wildlife Biologist®.” Our position is that being a CWB/AWB should not be a sole qualification, but it should be recognized or considered. This can be a rather difficult certification to obtain, and all CWBs are vetted by TWS. We believe a CWB/AWB would be well qualified to do the work, and we appreciate that established area experts and student experts provide a critical skill set to completing survey work. We believe that it would be beneficial to have a CWB/AWB partner with and/or supervisor student-based teams of surveyors. In conclusion, while the Western Section supports and encourages certification within the profession, it has not taken the position that a person who is not certified is unqualified to serve as a biologist. Kelly Holland, CWB President, Western Section of The Wildlife Society Pg. 59 "No native tree shall be removed (a “tree” is defined for the purposes of this section as larger than 8” DBH) unless marked beforehand by a qualified arborist, botanist, Registered Professional Forester, or City staff member with adequate training." This stipulation implies that trees smaller than 8” DBH can be removed by persons without adequate training. This section needs to be reworded to insure that adequately trained individuals do such work. Pg. 60 "SPR BIO-15: Grazing Plans. A grazing plan shall be prepared for each grazing activity." These Grazing Plans need to apply to all livestock in addition to cattle that have or could be used to implement projects of the VFMP’s PEIR or under its scope, e.g. goats, sheep. DRAFT Vegetation Fuels Management Plan (DVFMP) Pg. 6 “1.2 Scope After plan is complete, City will complete an EIR on the Plan" Why was the DPEIR prepared for a Draft VFMP prior to its approval by the BPPC? The Draft VFMP states on page 6: “After this Plan is complete, the City will complete an Environmental Impact Report, or EIR, on the Plan.” If the DRAFT VFMP is significantly changed and approved by the BPPC, then does the DRAFT PEIR need to be amended to consider the approved version and recirculated for agency and public review then BPPC approval? Mount Lassen Chapter – CNPS Page 6 of 9 Pg. 62 "The project will thin from below to create open understory conditions under mature black oak trees, remove decadent understory vegetation in the margins of the black oak stands, and create conditions which may allow future understory burns to be used to maintain open conditions in the black oaks" How will other over-story species in the area of 5.1 “Ten Mile House” Oak Restoration and Wildfire Resilience Project be managed, e.g. interior live oak, canyon oak, gray pine? Pg. 71 "7. If needed to maintain the health of the willows/native plantings, follow up with suitable maintenance techniques like goat grazing, cultural fire, or hand work." Will the techniques for application of "cultural fires” be incorporated into prescriptive burn plans required for review of an activity or project’s environmental effects in a Consistency Checklist and agency permits e.g. Butte County Air Quality Management District? Pg. 72. "-Reduce ladder fuels, especially invasive plum, blackberry, and walnut, using ecologically trained hand crews (e.g., BCCER or Mechoopda crews)." Does reducing ladder fuels mean the preferred wholesale removal of these naturalized species or solely removing their branches beneath their taller canopy? What training constituents ecologically trained hand crews, e.g. knowledge of native vs. invasive species, proper pruning techniques? Is a manual available or to be developed for reference to prescribed field management techniques by ecologically trained hand crews? Pg. 72 "-Target invasives first for removal, removing native plants as a last resort." In what cases would native plants need to be targeted for removal as any resort? Pg. 72 "-As invasives recede, cultivate a healthy valley oak understory by establishing and maintaining an optimum balance of grasses, wildflowers, and coarse woody debris. This understory provides rich forage for pollinators, supports a health soil ecosystem, and contributes to Valley oak health by allowing natural processes to keep acorn pathogens in check. This restoration goal may best be accomplished by creating areas for Mechoopda-led cultivation of plants of cultural significance, such as native geophytes and graminoids." What techniques and practices are to be used for Mechoopda-led cultivation of plants? Pg. 72 "-Utilize Mechoopda-led cultural fire to maintain and nourish “orchard oaks”. This statement implies that the practice of “Mechoopda-led cultural fire” is without adverse environmental consequences. Prescriptions for use of fire need to be explicit to understand and evaluate the extent of their potential adverse environmental effects. Mount Lassen Chapter – CNPS Page 7 of 9 Why are the prescribed fire standards for burning YST patches in Middle and Upper Park not expressed here? A prescribe fire burn plan needs to be developed for approval by regulatory agencies (e.g. Butte County Air Quality Management District) and application in the field. Pg. 75 "LEGEND FOR WORK UNITS IN LOWER PARK THINNING PROJECT 1. Understory Thin." What are the prescriptions (Best Management Practices) for "Understory Thin" Pg. 75. "2. Orchard Oak Restoration." What are the techniques (Best Management Practices) of orchard oak restoration involving the referenced use of fire? Pg. 75 "8. Cultural fire, demonstration area." What are the techniques (Best Management Practices / Burn Plan) to be used in the cultural fire demonstration area? Pg. 75 " 11. Potential grassland restoration and management projects." What are the techniques (Best Management Practices) to be use in grassland restoration and management projects? Pg. 75 "13. Oak underburning demonstration site" What are the techniques (Best Management Practices) to be use on the underburning demonstration site? Pg. 80 "6.4 Miscellaneous Parcels Survey A Spring 2020 survey of all miscellaneous City-owned parcels generated a database of fuels management issues." Where is this database of fuels management issues available for use in planning future activities and projects under the scope of this VFMP's PEIR and for public review and general reference? Pg. 81 "A programmatic EIR allows managers to “front-load” CEQA analysis in advance. For example, it may include resource inventories of certain areas, so crews do not have to conduct them later." What resource inventories for certain areas have been done and where are they available for public review and general reference? General Comments: A. In Cal Fire’s California Climate Investments Fire Prevention Grants Program that funded the VFMP and PEIR, its Project Scope of Work on Pg. 10 states: Mount Lassen Chapter – CNPS Page 8 of 9 4.) Deliverables used to measure success. -- a CEQA-compliant master Vegetative Fuels Management Plan for the City of Chico, including fire severity risk mapping, a full Area Burn Plan to restore regular prescribed burning to the parks where appropriate, and an annual operations schedule to keep the parklands on track optimizing carbon storage; -- an inventory of at least five major shovel-ready projects that will be ready for funding by mid-2021 In the DVFMP I did not find: 1. A “full Area Burn Plan” including the 5.3 Middle and Upper Park Star Thistle Burns. 2. An annual operations schedule to keep the parklands on track optimizing carbon storage; 3. An inventory of at least five major shovel-ready projects that will be ready for funding by mid-2021. They have only generalized project descriptions, lack site- specific biological and cultural surveys and an analysis of their environmental impacts in a Project Consistency Checklist / Initial Study. B. Has Cal Fire approved these omissions in the DVFMP? When will Cal Fire receive and then approve the VFMP and its PEIR and release payments for its cost? C. Which of the seven (7) Key Projects will require more detailed environmental review once they are more completely defined? Several Key Projects are described in more detail (5.3 Middle and Upper Park Star Thistle Burns, 5.4 Verbena Fields Stewardship, 5.5 Lindo Channel Vegetation Management, 5.6 Little Chico Creek Arundo Management, and 5.7 Lower Park Thinning) than others that are merely scopes of work: (5.1 “Ten Mile House” Oak Restoration and Wildfire Resilience Project, and 5.2 “Dozer Lines” Oak Restoration and Wildfire Resilience Project). D. How is the commencement of any of the seven (7) key and future projects to be made publicly known (e.g. Notice of Determination filed with the Butte County Clerk) in advance of their commencement assuming that they are determined by staff to be within the scope of the PEIR and require no further Environmental Determination (Cat. Ex., Neg. Dec., Mitigated Neg. Dec, EIR) after completion of the Project Consistency Checklist? Such advance knowledge is necessary for the public and the BPPC to review the validity of the consistency determination in the Project Consistency Checklist and if the projects have no significant adverse environmental effects based on subsequent detailed project descriptions and field surveys that are not included in the PEIR for the VFMP. Will a Notice of Determination be filled with the Butte County Clerk prior to the commencement of all projects evaluated for environmental effects by this final PEIR? Will availability of such notices be made immediately known via email to those requesting such notifications for all such projects in Chico’s parks and open spaces? Mount Lassen Chapter – CNPS Page 9 of 9 The ability for public review is a basic tenant of CEQA per CEQA Guidelines 15002. GENERAL CONCEPTS (a) Basic Purposes of CEQA. The basic purposes of CEQA are to: (1) Inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities. | survey, insufficient review, public review, qualifications, air quality | N/A | N/A | N/A | https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2020090170/4 | 39.73 | -121.84 | |
| 2018_StonegateVesting_DraftEIR | Stonegate Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and General Plan Amendment/Rezone | 2018 | 2016062049 | CEQA | EIR | N/A | Draft | City | City of Chico | Butte | Mount Lassen Chapter | Mount Lassen Chapter | N/A | Commercial/Educational/Industrial, Local Planning Action, Residential, Water Facilities | Approved | Comments on DEIR for the Stonegate Vesting Subdivision Map and General Plan Amendment / Rezone Project 6 messages Woody Elliott |
alternatives, wetlands, cumulative impacts, mitigation, regional conservation plan | N/A | N/A | N/A | https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2016062049/2 | 39.72 | -121.78 | |
| 2020_CleanHarbors_EIRScoping | Clean Harbors WMU Solid Waste Disposal Facility | 2020 | 2020069034 | CEQA | EIR | NOP | Scoping | County | Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department | Kern | Kern Chapter | Kern Chapter | N/A | Hazardous Waste, Local Planning Action, Waste Treatment | Ongoing | Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department Attn: Janice Mayes, Planner 2700 M Street, Suite 100 Bakersfield, California 93301-2370 mayesj@kerncounty.com Dear Ms. Mayes: The Kern Chapter of CNPS thanks you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation/Initial Study for Clean Harbors WMU Solid Waste Disposal Facility, PLN18-01927, referred to herein as the NOP or “document.” CNPS’ mission is to protect California's native plant heritage and to preserve it for future generations. CNPS supports science-based, rational policies and actions, on the local, state, national, and international levels, that lead to the continued study and enjoyment of the state’s botanical resources. Although we are not an agency with statutory responsibilities, we do have several comments on “the scope and content of the environmental information” to be included in the EIR in addition to mitigation suggestions, which your agency requests from the public. Our comments are targeted at the undeveloped parcel to the east of the existing Clean Harbors Solid Waste Disposal Facility; this parcel is proposed in the NOP for expansion of the facility and variously referred to as APN 099-251-32 and APN 099-261-32. According to information available from the Kern County Assessor’s office and maps in the Document, we believe that the latter is the correct APN. Regarding Surrounding Land Uses (Section 1.2.1 on page 13 and Table 1 on page 21), nature conservation is one of the primary land uses in the immediate vicinity but is not recognized in the document, which notes only that “Irrigated agriculture and oil production activities are the predominant land uses surrounding the facility for several miles.” In fact, lands in adjacent sections east and south of the project area are part of the Center for Natural Lands Management’s Lokern Preserve, which is not apparent from the NOP. The Lokern Natural Area as a whole, including APN 099-261-32, is recognized as one of the most important areas for conserving endangered species of the San Joaquin Valley. It is a core area for recovery of numerous Federally listed endangered species including the plant Kern mallow (Eremalche parryi ssp. kernensis) and the animals blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila), giant kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ingens), and San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), as well as the State- listed San Joaquin antelope squirrel (Ammospermophilus nelsoni) and many other rare species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998, page 197, task 2.1.4). In addition, APN 099-261-32 is part of a Red Zone in the draft Kern County Valley Floor Habitat Conservation Plan (2001); “The Red Zones consist of the highest valued conservation habitat for the VFHCP covered species. These areas will be prioritized for acquisition as preserves.” The Evaluation of Environmental Impacts part IV.a (page 68) notes that “The project area is located within the geographic range of several federal- and/or state-listed threatened and/or endangered wildlife taxa...” and “...the site is in the range of special status plant taxa...”, but fails to explain that the parcel APN 099-261-32 is known occupied habitat for Kern mallow and incorporates occurrences of San Joaquin kit fox and San Joaquin antelope squirrel. Part IV.b (page 68) discusses the absence of riparian habitat but does not address the presence of Valley Saltbush Scrub, a sensitive natural community with a State Rank of S2.1, meaning that it is imperiled and very threatened (California Natural Diversity Data Base 2020). The statements in section IV.a that “...impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species is [sic] unlikely given the highly disturbed nature of the project site...” (page 68, emphasis ours) and section IV.d. “The project area is entirely disturbed” are also erroneous. Only APN 099- 290-17, which is the site of the existing landfill, is highly disturbed. The few disturbances to APN 099-261-32 consist of a buried pipeline, two well pads with associated dirt roads, and trespass grazing by sheep, but overall the parcel is in similar condition to the best natural lands remaining throughout the Lokern Natural Area, including some of those that have been protected as preserves. Thus, impacts from expansion of the existing landfill are very likely to significantly impact recovery of the aforementioned species and should be disclosed as such in the EIR. Although the range of Kern mallow appears to extend beyond Lokern (California Natural Diversity Data Base 2020), that is an artifact of current taxonomy (Baldwin et al. 2012), which is controversial because it is based on a low-budget study that used just one genetic marker (Andreasen 2005). Plant taxonomy is ever-changing as new information becomes available, and the rules that govern botanical nomenclature stipulate that a proposed taxonomic change need not be adopted if it is not widely accepted. The predominantly white-flowered Eremalche population in the Lokern area has been recognized as unique for nearly 100 years (summarized in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998), and it occupies only a limited area within Lokern. In fact, several populations south of Lokern Road that were formerly attributed to Kern mallow have since been identified as desert mallow (Eremalche exilis; Andreasen et al. 2002). Loss of an additional 320 acres of occupied habitat would preclude recovery of Kern mallow in the strict sense. The NOP asks for other possible mitigation suggestions. We recommend that landfill expansion take place in areas that were converted from natural habitat long ago, have no documented use by listed species, and have not been identified as a priority for conservation. Retired agricultural lands are one such option, particularly because lack of water may lead to abandonment of former farmlands in the vicinity. Kern CNPS recommends that APN 099-261- 32 be preserved as endangered species habitat. Clean Harbors could use the land for their own mitigation needs or sell the property to an entity in need of mitigation lands, such as the Metropolitan Bakersfield HCP Implementation Trust group or High Speed Rail. Use as a nature preserve is compatible with the Agricultural Preserve designation and current zoning of APN 099-261-32. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the NOP for Clean Harbors WMU Solid Waste Disposal Facility. We look forward to seeing a thorough analysis of the property’s valuable endangered species habitat in the Environmental Impact Report. LITERATURE CITED Andreasen, K. 2005. Implications of molecular systematic analyses on the conservation of rare and threatened taxa: Contrasting examples from Malvaceae. Conservation Genetics 6:399–412. Andreasen, K., E.A. Cypher, and B.G. Baldwin. 2002. Sympatry between desert mallow, Eremalche exilis and Kern mallow, E. kernensis (Malvaceae): molecular and morphological perspectives. Madroño 49: 22-24. Baldwin, B. G, D. H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, T. J. Rosatti, and D. H. Wilken (eds.). 2012. The Jepson manual: vascular plants of California. 2nd edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. California Natural Diversity Data Base. 2020. RareFind 5. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento. Website http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp [accessed 20 July 2020]. County of Kern and California Division of Oil and Gas and Geothermal Resources. 2001. Draft Kern County Valley Floor Habitat Conservation Plan. Bakersfield, CA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery plan for upland species of the San Joaquin Valley, California. Region 1, Portland, OR, 319 pp. Available online at http://esrp.csustan.edu/publications/recoveryplan.php Sincerely yours, Ellen Cypher on behalf of the California Native Plant Society, Kern Chapter Conservation Committee | conservation, rare plants, endangered species, rare species, Kern County Valley Floor Habitat Conservation Plan, wildlife, threatened wildlife, endangered wildlife, special status plants, sensitive natural communities, significant impacts, EIR | N/A | N/A | N/A | https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2020069034/2 | 35.41 | -119.61 | |
| 2020_Avalon_MND | Avalon Project | 2020 | 2020039076 | CEQA | MND | Amended MND | Draft | City | City of Fort Bragg | Mendocino | Dorothy King Young Chapter | Dorothy King Young Chapter | N/A | Commercial/Educational/Industrial, Local Planning Action | The lead agency opted to produce an EIR instead of an MND. | August 26, 2020 Sarah McCormick, Assistant Planner City of Fort Bragg 416 North Franklin Street Fort Bragg, CA 95437 smccormick@fortbragg.com Subject: DKY CNPS comments on amended Avalon Hotel Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) Dear Ms. McCormick: The Dorothy King Young (DKY) Chapter of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) submitted the attached comment letter dated April 17, 2020 on the first draft of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Avalon Hotel. This second letter is in response to the amended Draft IS/MND that was made available for public review and comment between July 30, 2020 and August 31, 2020. We have reviewed the on-line documents for the proposed project, including the additions and amendments, and continue to have a number of concerns pertaining to the protection of rare native plants and sensitive natural communities, particularly on the adjacent MacKerricher State Park headlands. The amended Draft IS/MND does not provide mitigations that would reduce environmental impacts to a less-than-significant level. An EIR should be prepared and circulated, as it is the appropriate level of environmental document for the proposed project. As stated in our April 17, 2020 letter, the MacKerricher State Park headlands, which parallel the Pacific Ocean from Glass Beach to Ward Avenue, support numerous sensitive natural communities, including those within wetlands, coastal prairies, coastal bluffs, coastal sand dunes, riparian, and closed-cone pine forests. The nearly 1,300-acre Inglenook Fen-Ten Mile Dunes Natural Preserve of MacKerricher State Park, which extends from Ward Avenue to the Ten Mile River, contains a dune and wetland complex of statewide biodiversity significance. DKY Chapter members have a long history of collaborative support with State Parks to further projects involving botanical education, survey and reporting, and restoration of native plant communities at MacKerricher. Chapter members lead educational walks to identify and showcase the local flora and to share information about the natural ecosystems. The following summarizes our comments regarding potential impacts from the proposed Avalon Hotel project, even with the amendments: 1. The amended Draft IS/MND still fails to adequately address cumulative, direct, and indirect impacts, as required under CEQA, to rare plants and sensitive natural communities that will result from an increased number of visitors on the MacKerricher State Park headlands. For years we have seen how increased visitation has caused more trampling of rare plants and rare plant communities, soil erosion from Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 2 widening and deepening of social trails, the emergence of new social trails from the concentration of visitors at newly developed facilities, and even large excavated areas on the headlands and bluffs from illegal digging of artifacts and poaching of native plants. Each time the soil is disturbed, rare plants and natural habitat is lost, seed from aggressively invasive plants take hold, causing the colonization and spread of non- native weeds, erosion intensifies, and natural areas of the park are further degraded. The amended Draft IS/MND still does not address these cumulative impacts and does not offer meaningful mitigations to prevent the impacts of increased visitor use (discussed further in #2 below). As CNPS DKY Chapter botanical experts with decades- long knowledge of the MacKerricher headlands, our expert opinion is that the proposed project would have significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that are not adequately addressed and mitigated. The amended Draft IS/MND recognizes that the MacKerricher State Park headlands are heavily used, that there is evidence of environmental degradation along the bluffs from social trails, and that there will be impacts from increased use. The MacKerricher State Park General Plan (June 1995) also addresses the impacts of social trails and calls for corrective actions to be taken. The Fort Bragg Coastal Restoration and Trail Project Phase II Subsequent EIR (November 2014) discussed cumulative impacts to sensitive plant species on page 3-80 by stating: “Encroachment of development and public access along the California coast has presented cumulative effects to special-status plant species through reduction of available undisturbed habitat and increases in human disturbance.” The comment letter from the Mendocino Coast Chapter of the Audubon Society, which we fully support, clearly articulates how the incremental approval of visitor serving development projects by the City of Fort Bragg has failed to address and mitigate impacts from increased visitor use. The amended Draft IS/MND still provides no information on how increased use from motel guests will be monitored, does not quantify where and how these impacts will affect sensitive species and rare natural communities, and proposes no measurable valid actions to avoid, mitigate and otherwise rectify the impacts to the natural environment. The amended Draft IS/MND edited the reference to funds provided by the motel owner to State Parks to now read: “the project includes financial support to State Parks through funding mechanisms administered by Mendocino Area Parks Association (MendoParks). The applicant’s other lodging establishments, Beachcomber Motel and Surf & Sand Lodge, currently participate in MendoParks program and raised $115,000 in about four years. If approved and constructed, MendoParks and the applicant are prepared to enter a contract agreement with a clause that funds would be used toward a trail plan and maintenance for the area north of Pudding Creek Trestle as a priority project for both the park and community.” Based on the fact that the haul road was recently repaved with funds from the motels, and there is no reference in the amended Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 3 IS/MND to monitoring or maintaining native plant communities, it can reasonably be deduced that “a trail plan and maintenance” as stated above will NOT address the cumulative, direct, and indirect impacts raised by CNPS. There are still no quantifiable and enforceable actions to ensure that there will be measures put in place that will avoid or result in reduced trampling of sensitive species and habitats, prevent an increase in social trails, prevent increased soil erosion from social trails, or prevent the potential for increased access to native plants and artifacts that are poached. From the funds that State Parks has collected in the past four years from the lodging fund, has any of this money been spent to date to assess impacts from heavy visitor use, to determine how much of the use is potentially related to hotel guests, or to develop and implement any plans to correct impacts caused by social trails? The amended Draft IS/MND still states that “State Parks has identified this area for improvements and the agency intends to implement a single trail system for the vicinity north of Pudding Creek Trestle.” Again, we ask, how will implementing a “single trail system” reduce impacts from social trails unless physical actions are taken to close those trails and restore the habitats? Why is this proposal limited to the area immediately in front of the proposed hotel and the vicinity north of Pudding Creek when lodging guests also readily walk south to Glass Beach or farther north to Virgin Creek and on to the Natural Preserve where numerous social trails impact listed rare plants and highly sensitive natural communities? The Laguna Point Boardwalk, west of Lake Cleone is a perfect example of a “single trail system” with educational materials that does not prevent the dispersal of use onto highly erosive social trails that are impacting federally and state listed plants and archaeological sites. The following was included in the CNPS April 17, 2020 comment letter as a partial list of recommended measures to address impacts of increased public use resulting from the proposed Avalon Hotel. The amended Draft IS/MND did not take this list into consideration, and the recommendations stand: a. Impact areas must first be fully identified and documented through botanical surveys and erosion studies that include geospatial and timeline analysis; b. Visitor use in the form of a ratio of existing use by hotel guests versus use by other park visitors needs to be quantified with projections on how use and impacts would increase from development of the Avalon Hotel; c. A mitigation, monitoring, and reporting plan must be prepared that specifies success criteria, where and how actions will be taken, and how funds will be dedicated to implement those actions; d. Monitoring must include criteria to assess whether protective actions are being successful and where remedial actions may be necessary; e. Mitigation measures, monitoring, and remedial actions to offset the impacts of visitor use from hotel guests must be implemented in Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 4 perpetuity, with annual funding provided by the project proponent in relation to the number of hotel guests. 2. The added proposal to establish a wax myrtle (Morella californica) hedge in front of the hotel as mitigation to deter increased visitation to sensitive areas of the MacKerricher State Park headlands will not achieve the stated goal, is unrealistic, and lacks scientific validity. Limiting a proposed barrier hedge to only the section of parkland in front of the hotel property will not deter increased visitation to other sensitive areas both north and south of the hotel. It will not mitigate impacts from increased visitation to a less than significant level. The hedge will do nothing to prevent the extension of use beyond this barrier, and will only serve to concentrate the use of existing and newly established social trails away from the barrier. It does not address the fact that social trail density, trampling, and erosion is proportional with the pressure of visitor use. Fencing should be considered, as is described in the Audubon letter. The area in which wax myrtle is proposed for planting is also ecologically inappropriate. Wax myrtle is classified as a FACW (facultative wetland species that usually occurs in wetlands but may occur in non-wetlands). On the MacKerricher headlands, especially in the vicinity of the proposed hotel, wax myrtle naturally occurs in wet drainage areas, and not on the drier soils of the haul road berm where the plantings are being proposed. The proposed planting area is also incorrectly depicted as being dominated by nonnatives in Appendix 11, the “Preliminary Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan for Wax Myrtle Planting” by Wynn Coastal Planning, dated June 30, 2020 (“This mounded area is dominated by common velvet grass (Holcus lanatus), sweet vernal grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), wild radish (Raphanus sativa), and ice plant (Carpobrotus edulis”), and in Appendix 3, Wynn Coastal Planning letter attachment dated July 1, 2020 (Figure 3, page 3 shows proposed planting area as “velvet grass”). The attached photos, taken by CNPS on August 6, 2020 show a relatively high cover of natives (e.g gumplant, Grindelia stricta and tufted hairgrass, Deschampsia cespitosa) in and adjacent to the proposed planting area. As stated in our April 17, 2020 letter, CDFW has determined that “a stand is considered native if 10% or more relative cover consists of native taxa that are evenly distributed in the stand and present at any time during growing season” (https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities). The Wynn proposal discusses the removal of the small ice plant patch, which is appropriate, but does not propose removal of other non-natives, as it assumes that wax myrtle will shade out the other plants. By planting wax myrtle, natives that are present will also be shaded out and will be displaced during the planting process. To become established, the wax myrtle plantings will likely require irrigation and “weeding” (removal of competing vegetation), which will in turn affect other native plants that naturally occur there. Management of the park area adjacent to the hotel needs to follow park policies that pertain to natural areas; artificial landscaping is not appropriate in park natural areas, especially if it displaces native species and is used to convert one natural vegetation Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 5 type to another. The June 30, 2020 Wynn Coastal Planning report refers to the proposal as “habitat enhancement plantings” (page 4 of 8 in the report). Native habitat would not be enhanced, rather artificially converted to another vegetation type. The report also states that the wax myrtle planting proposal occurred after another on-site meeting with State Parks personnel. However, it does not state who in State Parks was present at the meeting, nor whether Park Senior Environmental Scientists (the personnel responsible for understanding, managing, and advising on native vegetation proposals and natural resource policies) were consulted. Despite the site-specific information that we provided in the April 17, 2020 comment letter on the proposed project, CNPS representatives were also not consulted regarding the proposed wax myrtle plan. The plan to plant wax myrtle on State Park land adjacent to the motel may be in violation of State policies, is ecologically inappropriate, and is not a viable mitigation for increased use on the MacKerricher headlands; it should be removed from the Draft IS/MND. 3. As stated in the CNPS April 17, 2020 comment letter, by not addressing cumulative, direct, and indirect impacts on the MacKerricher headlands, the Draft IS/MND (including the amended version) cannot justify a determination that the project would have a less than significant impact on the environment with mitigations. As discussed in #1 above, the project would result in significant impacts on the environment. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR), not a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) should be prepared and circulated for the project. The project proposes another motel, this one substantially larger, in a row of motels that are adjacent to MacKerricher State Park. The proposed project, in addition to other similar development projects being considered by the City on the property south of Glass Beach, will result in increased use of the MacKerricher headlands by more motel guests, adding to the cumulative, direct, and indirect impacts of social trails. The City of Fort Bragg, as lead agency, is required to fully address potential project impacts under CEQA, including but not limited to: 14 CCR Section 15064 DETERMINING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS CAUSED BY A PROJECT: (f) The decision as to whether a project may have one or more significant effects shall be based on substantial evidence in the record of the lead agency. (1) If the lead agency determines there is substantial evidence in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR (Friends of B Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988). Said another way, if a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68). 14 CCR Section 15355 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS: Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 6 “Cumulative impacts” refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. (a) The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects. (b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time. 14 CCR Section 15358 EFFECTS: “Effects” and “impacts” as used in these Guidelines are synonymous. (a) Effects include: (1) Direct or primary effects which are caused by the project and occur at the same time and place. (2) Indirect or secondary effects which are caused by the project and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect or secondary effects may include growth-inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density, or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems. (b) Effects analyzed under CEQA must be related to a physical change. A Draft EIR must require the evaluation of alternatives to the proposed project, including potentially scaling back the size of the hotel, an alternative development site, or other measures that avoid and reduce environmental impacts. 4. The April 17, 2020 CNPS letter stated that the wetland delineation report may have underestimated the area of wetland habitat because it relied on survey data taken only during a severe drought year. The letter went on to explain that “From the Spade report, it does not appear that the extraordinary drought year conditions were taken into consideration when the plant surveys were conducted and the wetland boundaries were delineated.” In response, the letter from Wynn Coastal Planning dated July 1, 2020 states that rainfall records for Fort Bragg documented significant rainfall during the hydrologic study period, which was February 11 to April 25, 2014, and that the hydrologic study was delayed due to a delay in rainfall. The Wynn letter does not address the fact that plant survey information, which is also used to determine wetland boundaries, was based on data taken during the drought year. Weather patterns highly affect germination and presence of annual and short-lived perennial species; species that normally germinate in late winter/early spring may not have been seen during the 2013-2014 plant surveys due to the drought. The NOAA and Western Regional Climate Center data for Fort Bragg 5N, California (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo- Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 7 web/datasets/GHCND/stations/GHCND:USC00043161/detail and https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca3161) show that rainfall was well below average until February for the Fort Bragg 5N California (station 043161) during 2013/2014: Month Average ppt. in inches 5/1/1895 to 6/9/2016 Monthly ppt. in inches 10/1/2013 to 4/30/14 Oct. 2013 2.61” 0.0” Nov. 2013 5.42” 1.45” Dec. 2013 6.96” 0.27” Jan. 2014 7.61” 2.21” Feb. 2014 6.29” 7.69 Mar. 2014 5.27” 8.46 April 2014 3.06” 1.71 Total 37.22 21.79 5. The April 17, 2020 CNPS letter stated that botanical surveys were conducted over five years ago during a drought, not conducted to current CDFW protocols, and that scoping surveys did not appear to have included the adjacent MacKerricher headlands. The July 1, 2020 Wynn Coastal Planning letter responded by stating that additional surveys were conducted on the subject parcel and within the State Parks boundary in 2017, but data was not reported because the results were consistent with what was reported in 2015. As described in #2 above, the plant species composition and relative coverage for the area of MacKerricher State Park that is adjacent to the Avalon Hotel site was observed to be quite different by CNPS representatives than was described in the Wynn reports. Again, vegetation classifications, survey requirements, and reporting for rare plants and sensitive natural communities have been updated since surveys were conducted for the proposed Avalon Hotel project. The current March 2018 CDFW protocols (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline) require that sensitive natural communities be documented on rapid assessment or relevé field forms that are to be submitted to CDFW. Grasslands that may have previously been classified as non-native (e.g. Holcus lanatus- Anthxanthum odoratum Semi-Natural Herbaceous Stand) should be revisited, as CDFW has determined that “a stand is considered native if 10% or more relative cover consists of native taxa that are evenly distributed in the stand and present at any time during growing season” (https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities). Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 8 For the past two years, Dorothy King Young Chapter science volunteers of CNPS have been collaborating with CDFW to survey, document, and more accurately classify local coastal headland natural communities. Much of the work last year was conducted on the Glass Beach headlands, just south of Pudding Creek; surveys began again this year with paid CNPS staff, and continued after COVID-19 restrictions were modified. We are finding significant potentially rare vegetation types, which are also likely to be found on the headlands north of Pudding Creek. Although not documented to occur north of Pudding Creek, the rare Blennosperma nanum var. robustum (Point Reyes blennosperma, CRPR 1B.2, State Rare) is on the bluffs immediately south of Pudding Creek in an area that is impacted by trampling due to numerous social trails. Other rare plants known to occur on the MacKerricher headlands that would potentially be impacted by increased public use along social trails include, but are not limited to: Hesperevax sparsiflora var. brevifolia (short-leaved evax, CRPR 1B.2), Lasthenia californica ssp. macrantha (perennial goldfields, CRPR 1B.2), Phacelia insularis var. continentis (North Coast phacelia, CRPR 1B.2), Erysimum concinnum (headland wallflower, CRPR 1B.2), Erysimum menziesii (Menzies’ wallflower, CRPR 1B.2, FE, SE), Campanula californica (swamp harebell, CRPR 1B.2), Castilleja mendocinensis (Mendocino coast paintbrush, CRPR 1B.2), Collinsia corymbosa (round-headed Chinese houses, CRPR 1B.2), Gilia capitata ssp. chamissonis (blue coast gilia, CRPR 1B.2), Gilia millefoliata (dark-eyed gilia, CRPR 1B.2), Chorizanthe howellii (Howell’s spineflower, CRPR 1B.2, FE, ST), Lilium maritimum (coast lily, CRPR 1B.1), and Agrostis blasdalei (Blasdale’s bentgrass, CRPR 1B.2). Botanical surveys for the proposed project should still be updated and expanded, given that they were conducted over five (or three) years ago, partially during a drought year, include short-lived species, were reported to be different than what is observed by CNPS currently, and did not address potential impacts on rare plants and habitats where increased use from hotel guests will occur on parkland (not just 100 ft. from the proposed hotel developed trail). 6. Similar to impacts on sites of botanical significance, the Draft IS/MND also fails to address cumulative, direct, and indirect impacts to wildlife species, including listed birds, and to Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources, including the extensive midden sites and cultural landscapes on the MacKerricher headlands. As described in the Mendocino Coast Chapter of Audubon letter, and supported by scientific data, increased visitor use on the MacKerricher headlands directly and cumulatively impacts sensitive bird populations and their habitats. The entire MacKerricher State Park and surrounding areas were densely occupied by Northern Pomo and Coast Yuki, who thrived on the land for thousands of years. Extensive evidence of Native American presence is found throughout the park in the form of middens that are more widespread than even the rare plants, and descendants still gather foods and other resources in the practice of their tribal traditions (MacKerricher State Park General Plan, June 1995). Cumulative, direct, and indirect Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 9 impacts to Native American sites were not considered on the MacKerricher headlands where motel guests exacerbate impacts and erosion due to trampling of the cultural landscape and midden sites. Project impact analysis and mitigations need to address the effects of increased use from motel guests on wildlife, including bird populations, and on the extensive Native American sites found on the adjacent MacKerricher headlands, and not just limit impact analysis to the project site. 7. The specifications for non-native plant removal and revegetation with locally native species and the installation of interpretive panels are appropriate and necessary measures. CNPS supports these actions and suggests that part of the mitigations could include expanding the non-native plant removal to include adjacent State Park lands. The requirement for planting with locally native species should be strictly enforced, and where possible direct seeding should be used. Measures need to be taken to avoid unfortunate mistakes, e.g. “native” plantings by the City of Fort Bragg adjacent to the Glass Beach headlands resulted in the establishment of a larger variety of Grindelia stricta that does not naturally grow on the Mendocino Coast. In summary, there are numerous significant potential impacts of the proposed Avalon Hotel project that warrant recirculation of an environmental document at the EIR level. Trampling of rare plants and sensitive vegetation, increased erosion and bare soil resulting in loss of native plants, establishment of invasive weeds, degradation of archaeological sites, increased access to and poaching of artifacts and native plants, and increased disturbance and resultant loss of wildlife populations, including sensitive bird species, are all factors that contribute to the cumulative impacts of the project, for which effective mitigations are not being considered. As CNPS conservation chairs, rare plant coordinator and vegetation chair, we would be glad to answer any questions regarding the natural communities and rare plants on the Mendocino Coast, and to discuss more appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures for the proposed Avalon Hotel project. Please do not hesitate to contact us (conservation@dkycnps.org) if you would like more information or have questions regarding our comments. Respectfully, Renée Pasquinelli Renée Pasquinelli, Conservation Co-Chair (North) Dr. Peter Baye, Conservation Co-chair (South) Teresa Sholars Teresa Sholars, Rare Plant Coordinator and Vegetation Chair Dorothy King Young Chapter, California Native Plant Society1 Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 10 1The mission of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) is to protect California’s native plant heritage and preserve it for future generations through application of science, research, education, and conservation. CNPS works closely with decision-makers, scientists, and local planners to advocate for well-informed policies, regulations, and land management practices. A formal cooperative agreement between CNPS and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is the backbone of California’s rare plant and vegetation status review programs. The data compiled and shared by both organizations are used throughout the environmental review process. The Dorothy King Young (DKY) Chapter of CNPS focuses on protecting and providing education about the native plants and natural communities within coastal Mendocino County and we often work directly with local and Sacramento-based CDFW science staff. Renée Pasquinelli is a retired CA State Parks Sr. Environmental Scientist. During her career, she spent over 20 years in the Mendocino (and Mendocino Russian River) District managing park natural areas, planning and implementing restoration projects, and addressing park related environmental impact issues through CEQA. Dr. Peter Baye is a highly respected coastal ecology consultant, former Senior USACE SF District Regulatory wetland ecologist, and a current expert witness for U.S. EPA Region 9 (SF) and Department of Justice regarding Clean Water Act Section 404 wetland jurisdiction and violations. Dr. Baye holds a PhD in plant sciences, and has 40 years professional experience in coastal vegetation, nearly 30 years emphasis on California coastal wetlands. Teresa Sholars is Professor Emeritus of Biology and Sustainable Agriculture, College of the Redwoods, where for over 40 years she has taught students about the native plants and vegetation on the Mendocino Coast. Ms. Sholars is highly respected for her consultation expertise on rare plants and natural communities, is a CNPS Fellow, and author of Lupinus in the second edition of The Jepson Manual. cc: Jennifer Garrison, Sr. Environmental Scientist, CDFW (Jennifer.Garrison@wildlife.ca.gov) Gordon Leppig, Sr. Environmental Scientist (Supervisory), CDFW (Gordon.Leppig@wildlife.ca.gov) Brendan O’Neil, Sr. Environmental Scientist, CDPR (Brendan.ONeil@parks.ca.gov) Bob Merrill, North Coast District Manager, CA Coastal Commission (Bob.Merrill@coastal.ca.gov) Tamara Gedik, Coastal Program Analyst, CA Coastal Commission (Tamara.Gedik@coastal.ca.gov) Dionne Gruver, Senior State Archaeologist, CDPR (Dionne.Gruver@parks.ca.gov) Terry Bertels, District Superintendent Sonoma-Mendocino Coast, CDPR (Terry.Bertels@parks.ca.gov) Jay Chamberlin, Division Chief, Natural Resources, CDPR (Jay.Chamberlin@parks.ca.gov) Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 11 Aug. 6, 2020 CNPS photos of area within and adjacent to proposed wax myrtle planting. Vegetation bordering the haul road at the south end of the proposed planting area. High coverage of native gumplant (Grindelia stricta). Native coastal grassland at the north end of the proposed planting area. High coverage of native tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia cespitosa). Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 1 April 17, 2020 Sarah McCormick, Assistant Planner City of Fort Bragg 416 North Franklin Street Fort Bragg, CA 95437 smccormick@fortbragg.com Subject: DKY CNPS comments: Avalon Hotel Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) Dear Ms. McCormick: The Dorothy King Young (DKY) Chapter of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) was recently alerted to the preparation and posting of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Avalon Hotel, available for public review and comment between March 26 to April 27, 2020. We have reviewed the on-line documents for the proposed project and have a number of concerns pertaining to the protection of rare native plants and sensitive natural communities, particularly on the adjacent MacKerricher State Park headlands. The MacKerricher State Park headlands, which parallel the Pacific Ocean from Glass Beach to Ward Avenue support numerous sensitive natural communities, including those within wetlands, coastal prairies, coastal bluffs, coastal sand dunes, riparian, and closed-cone pine forests. The nearly 1,300-acre Inglenook Fen-Ten Mile Dunes Natural Preserve of MacKerricher State Park, which extends from Ward Avenue to the Ten Mile River, contains a dune and wetland complex of statewide biodiversity significance. DKY Chapter members have a long history of collaborative support with State Parks to further projects involving botanical education, survey and reporting, and restoration of native plant communities at MacKerricher. Chapter members lead educational walks to identify and showcase the local flora and to share information about the natural ecosystems. The following summarizes our comments regarding potential impacts that the proposed Avalon Hotel project would have on the native plants and natural ecosystems at and around MacKerricher State Park: 1. Why is the comment period for the Draft IS/MND being limited to the period of time that includes COVID-19 “shelter-in-place” restrictions? Access to the MacKerricher State Park headlands is currently prohibited to individuals who should be afforded opportunities for on-site project assessment, but who are not able to walk there from home. The “shelter-in-place” order went into effect on March 24, 2020, two days before the public comment period opened for the project Draft IS/MND, and will remain in effect until May 10, 2020, which is 13 days after the close of public comment. To allow the public and agencies to adequately review and comment on the proposed project Attachment: DKY CNPS letter to City of Fort Bragg in response to first Draft IS/MND, Avalon Hotel Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 2 under CEQA, the City of Fort Bragg should expand the comment period to a date that is 30 days after the “shelter-in-place” order is lifted. 2. The Draft IS/MND fails to adequately address cumulative, direct, and indirect impacts, as required under CEQA, to rare plants and sensitive natural communities that will result from an increased number of visitors walking on the MacKerricher State Park headlands. We fully agree with the Mendocino Coast Audubon Society’s comments regarding significant impacts that would occur from increased public use by anticipated guests of the Avalon Hotel. As CNPS DKY Chapter botanical experts with decades-long knowledge of the MacKerricher headlands, our expert opinion is that the proposed project would have significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that are not adequately addressed and mitigated. The Draft IS/MND recognizes that the MacKerricher State Park headlands are heavily used and there is evidence of environmental degradation along the bluffs from social trails. The MacKerricher State Park General Plan (June 1995) also addresses the impacts of social trails and calls for corrective actions to be taken. The Fort Bragg Coastal Restoration and Trail Project Phase II Subsequent EIR (November 2014) discussed cumulative impacts to sensitive plant species on page 3-80 by stating: “Encroachment of development and public access along the California coast has presented cumulative effects to special-status plant species through reduction of available undisturbed habitat and increases in human disturbance.” However, the Draft IS/MND provides no information on how increased use from motel guests will be monitored, does not quantify where and how these impacts will affect sensitive species and rare natural communities, and proposes no measurable actions to avoid, mitigate and otherwise rectify the impacts. The Draft IS/MND states “The applicant currently provides funds to MacKerricher State Park through the MacKerricher Park Improvement Fund, which is a collaboration between Mendocino Area Parks Association (MendoParks) and participating Fort Bragg Inns and their guests. The applicant’s current lodging establishments, Beachcomber Motel and Surf & Sand Lodge, raised $104,000 for the MacKerricher State Park Improvement Fund in the past four years. If the proposed project is approved and constructed, the Avalon would also participate in this program and/or contribute support to State Parks for improvements as stated in mitigation measure PUB-3.” Mitigation measures PUB-3, REC-1 and REC-2 discuss funds, native plants, and educational materials to be provided, and the removal of invasive plants on the project property, but offer no quantifiable and enforceable actions to ensure that these measures will avoid or result in reduced impacts to sensitive species and habitats. If State Parks has collected $104,000 in the past four years from the lodging fund, has any of this money been spent to date to assess impacts from heavy visitor use, to determine how much of the use is potentially related to hotel guests, or to develop and implement any plans to correct impacts caused by social trails? The Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 3 Draft IS/MND states that “State Parks has identified this area for improvements and the agency intends to implement a single trail system for the vicinity north of Pudding Creek Trestle.” How will implementing a “single trail system” reduce impacts from social trails unless physical actions are taken to close those trails and restore the habitats? Why is this proposal limited to the area north of Pudding Creek when lodging guests also readily walk south to Glass Beach where numerous social trails impact listed rare plants and highly sensitive natural communities? The Laguna Point Boardwalk, west of Lake Cleone is a perfect example of a “single trail system” with educational materials that does not prevent the dispersal of use onto highly erosive social trails that are impacting federally and state listed plants and archaeological sites. The following is a partial list of recommended measures to address impacts of increased public use resulting from the proposed Avalon Hotel: a. Impact areas must first be fully identified and documented through botanical surveys and erosion studies that include geospatial and timeline analysis; b. Visitor use in the form of a ratio of existing use by hotel guests versus use by other park visitors needs to be quantified with projections on how use and impacts would increase from development of the Avalon Hotel; c. A mitigation, monitoring, and reporting plan must be prepared that specifies success criteria, where and how actions will be taken, and how funds will be dedicated to implement those actions; d. Monitoring must include criteria to assess whether protective actions are being successful and where remedial actions may be necessary; e. Mitigation measures, monitoring, and remedial actions to offset the impacts of visitor use from hotel guests must be implemented in perpetuity, with annual funding provided by the project proponent in relation to the number of hotel guests. 3. By not addressing cumulative, direct, and indirect impacts on the MacKerricher headlands, the Draft IS/MND cannot justify a determination that the project would have a less than significant impact on the environment with mitigations. As discussed in #2 above, the project would result in significant impacts on the environment. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR), not a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) should be prepared and circulated for the project. The project proposes another motel, this one substantially larger, in a row of motels that are adjacent to MacKerricher State Park. The proposed project will result in increased use of the MacKerricher headlands by more motel guests, adding to the cumulative, direct, and indirect impacts of social trails. The City of Fort Bragg, as lead agency, is required to fully address potential project impacts under CEQA, including but not limited to: Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 4 14 CCR Section 15064 DETERMINING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS CAUSED BY A PROJECT: (f) The decision as to whether a project may have one or more significant effects shall be based on substantial evidence in the record of the lead agency. (1) If the lead agency determines there is substantial evidence in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR (Friends of B Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988). Said another way, if a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68). 14 CCR Section 15355 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS: “Cumulative impacts” refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. (a) The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects. (b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time. 14 CCR Section 15358 EFFECTS: “Effects” and “impacts” as used in these Guidelines are synonymous. (a) Effects include: (1) Direct or primary effects which are caused by the project and occur at the same time and place. (2) Indirect or secondary effects which are caused by the project and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect or secondary effects may include growth-inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density, or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems. (b) Effects analyzed under CEQA must be related to a physical change. A Draft EIR should be prepared and circulated, which would require the evaluation of alternatives to the proposed project, including potentially scaling back the size of the hotel, an alternative development site, or other measures that avoid and reduce environmental impacts. Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 5 4. The wetland delineation report may have underestimated the area of wetland habitat because it relied on survey data taken only during a severe drought year. According to the “Biological Scoping Survey Report, Botanical Survey and Wetland Delineation” prepared by Spade Natural Resource Consulting (April 21, 2015) for the proposed project, plant surveys were conducted during 2013 and 2014; groundwater level data was collected from installed monitoring wells on February 11, 2014 through April 25, 2014. A NOAA website states that the “water year through January 2014 ranked as the driest October-January on record for the West region” (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/drought/201413#west-sect). From the Spade report, it does not appear that the extraordinary drought year conditions were taken into consideration when the plant surveys were conducted and the wetland boundaries were delineated. The Draft IS/MND should address the potential for wetland areas to have been underestimated in the 2015 Spade report due to the severe drought conditions. 5. Botanical surveys for the 2015 “Biological Scoping Survey Report, Botanical Survey and Wetland Delineation” prepared by Spade Natural Resource Consulting were conducted over five years ago during a drought, not conducted to current CDFW protocols, and hence may not provide information that is currently accurate. In addition, the report states that scoping surveys were conducted within the entire boundaries of the property and 100ft. beyond, which would, but does not appear to have included the adjacent MacKerricher headlands. Vegetation classifications, survey requirements, and reporting for rare plants and sensitive natural communities have been updated since 2015. March 2018 CDFW protocols (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline) require that sensitive natural communities be documented on rapid assessment or relevé field forms that are to be submitted to CDFW. Grasslands that may have previously classified as non-native (e.g. Holcus lanatus- Anthxanthum odoratum Semi-Natural Herbaceous Stand) should be revisited, as CDFW has determined that “a stand is considered native if 10% or more relative cover consists of native taxa that are evenly distributed in the stand and present at any time during growing season” (https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities). For the past two years, Dorothy King Young Chapter science volunteers of CNPS have been collaborating with CDFW to survey, document, and more accurately classify local coastal headland natural communities. Much of the work last year was conducted on the Glass Beach headlands, just south of Pudding Creek; surveys began again this year with paid CNPS staff, and will continue after COVID-19 restrictions are lifted. We are finding significant potentially rare vegetation types, which are also likely to be found on the headlands north of Pudding Creek. Although not documented to occur north of Pudding Creek, the rare Blennosperma nanum var. robustum (Point Reyes Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 6 blennosperma, CRPR 1B.2, State Rare) is on the bluffs immediately south of Pudding Creek in an area that is impacted by trampling due to numerous social trails. Other rare plants known to occur on the MacKerricher headlands that would potentially be impacted by increased public use along social trails include, but are not limited to: Hesperevax sparsiflora var. brevifolia (short-leaved evax, CRPR 1B.2), Lasthenia californica ssp. macrantha (perennial goldfields, CRPR 1B.2), Phacelia insularis var. continentis (North Coast phacelia, CRPR 1B.2), Erysimum concinnum (headland wallflower, CRPR 1B.2), Erysimum menziesii (Menzies’ wallflower, CRPR 1B.2, FE, SE), Campanula californica (swamp harebell, CRPR 1B.2), Castilleja mendocinensis (Mendocino coast paintbrush, CRPR 1B.2), Collinsia corymbosa (round-headed Chinese houses, CRPR 1B.2), Gilia capitata ssp. chamissonis (blue coast gilia, CRPR 1B.2), Gilia millefoliata (dark-eyed gilia, CRPR 1B.2), Chorizanthe howellii (Howell’s spineflower, CRPR 1B.2, FE, ST), Lilium maritimum (coast lily, CRPR 1B.1), and Agrostis blasdalei (Blasdale’s bentgrass, CRPR 1B.2). Botanical surveys for the proposed project should be updated and expanded, given that they were conducted over five years ago during a drought year, include short-lived species, and did not address potential impacts on rare plants and habitats on the adjacent parkland. 6. Similar to impacts on sites of botanical significance, the Draft IS/MND also fails to address cumulative, direct, and indirect impacts to Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources, including the extensive midden sites and cultural landscapes on the MacKerricher headlands. The entire MacKerricher State Park and surrounding areas were densely occupied by Northern Pomo and Coast Yuki, who thrived on the land for thousands of years. Extensive evidence of Native American presence is found throughout the park in the form of middens that are more widespread than even the rare plants, and descendants still gather foods and other resources in the practice of their tribal traditions (MacKerricher State Park General Plan, June 1995). The Draft IS/MND states that Alta Archaeological Consulting performed a confidential archaeological study for the project and that the Sherwood Valley Band of Pomo were consulted for potential impacts on the project site. However, cumulative, direct, and indirect impacts to Native American sites were not considered on the MacKerricher headlands where motel guests exacerbate impacts and erosion due to trampling of the cultural landscape and midden sites. Project impact analysis and mitigations need to address the effects of increased use from motel guests on Native American sites that are found extensively on the adjacent MacKerricher headlands, and not just limit impact analysis to the project site. The specifications for non-native plant removal and revegetation with locally native species and the installation of interpretive panels are appropriate and necessary measures. CNPS supports these actions and suggests that part of the mitigations (in addition to those discussed above) could include expanding the non-Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 native plant removal to include adjacent State Park lands. The requirement for planting with locally native species should be strictly enforced, and where possible direct seeding should be used. Measures need to be taken to avoid unfortunate mistakes, e.g. “native” plantings by the City of Fort Bragg adjacent to the Glass Beach headlands resulted in the establishment of a larger variety of Grindelia stricta that does not naturally grow on the Mendocino Coast. As CNPS conservation chairs, rare plant coordinator and vegetation chair, we would be glad to answer any questions you may have regarding the natural communities and rare plants on the Mendocino Coast, especially those that may be affected by the proposed Avalon Hotel project. Please do not hesitate to contact us (conservation@dkycnps.org) if you would like more information or have questions regarding our comments. Respectfully, Renée Pasquinelli Renée Pasquinelli, Conservation Co-Chair (North) Dr. Peter Baye, Conservation Co-chair (South) Teresa Sholars, Rare Plant Coordinator and Vegetation Chair Dorothy King Young Chapter, California Native Plant Society The mission of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) is to protect California’s native plant heritage and preserve it for future generations through application of science, research, education, and conservation. scientists, and local planners to advocate for well-informed policies, regulations, and land management practices. A formal cooperative agreement between CNPS and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is the backbone of California’s rare plant and vegetation status review programs. The data compiled and shared by both organizations are used throughout the environmental review process. The Dorothy King Young (DKY) Chapter of CNPS focuses on protecting and providing education about the native plants and natural communities | sensitive natural communities, wetlands, rare plants, cumulative impacts, mitigation, survey, monitoring, EIR, alternatives, use permit, land division, coastal permit | N/A | N/A | N/A | https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2020039076/3 | 39.46 | -123.81 | |
| 2018_FortBraggOHV_PEIRScoping | Fort Bragg OHV Park | 2018 | 2018022040 | CEQA | EIR | Program EIR | Scoping | Other | Mendocino Coast Recreation and Park District | Mendocino | Dorothy King Young Chapter | Dorothy King Young Chapter | N/A | Recreational | Paused | February 27, 2018 Mr. Dan Keyes, District Administrator Mendocino Coast Recreation and Parks District 300 South Lincoln Street Fort Bragg, CA 95437 Subject: PRELIMINARY COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED MCRPD OHV PARK PROGRAMMATIC EIR PREPARED FOR THE PROJECT SCOPING MEETING, FEBRUARY 28, 2018 The Dorothy King Young (DKY) Chapter of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) fully supports land management actions that promote the restoration and protection of native vegetation in California. The DKY Chapter focuses on protection and education about native plant species and natural habitats that occur within coastal Mendocino County, roughly from the Pacific Ocean to the coastal mountains west of Highway 101. We have read the announcement for the Notice of Preparation and Public Scoping Meeting for the Mendocino Coast Recreation and Parks District’s proposed Fort Bragg OHV Park Programmatic EIR, and other background materials that are available on-line that pertain to the project. From this review and knowledge of the site’s vegetation, the DKY Chapter of CNPS sees two major flaws in the proposal that are most pertinent to raise during the scoping process: 1) the site selected is inappropriate for an OHV park, and 2) a programmatic EIR is the wrong CEQA document to use, rather a project EIR should be prepared. The following preliminary scoping comments provide more detail regarding our concerns: ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE 586-ACRE PROPERTY AND PAST COMMENTS The vegetation on the 586-acre property consists mainly of two types that are listed as rare by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) (https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities/List). These two vegetation types are the Hesperocyparis pygmaea (Mendocino pygmy cypress woodland) Alliance G2 S2 and the Pinus muricata (Bishop pine forest) Alliance G3 S3. The property may also contain Lithocarpus densiflorus (Tanoak forest) Alliance G4 S3, which are areas in which tanoaks dominate the forest stands. CDFW considers vegetation community alliances described under the Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (MCV) with State ranks of S1-S3 (limited occurrences and distribution and under threat), and all associations within them to be highly imperiled. In 2015, CDFW began site specific surveys of these rare natural communities on the 586-acre property for the purpose of refining vegetation classification for the Mendocino Coast. Surveys by CDFW, with assistance from local botanical experts, will continue next month (March 2018), and will result in refined descriptions of the Mendocino pygmy cypress woodland and Bishop pine forest. Plant species that are listed as fully protected in California are found within Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 2 these vegetation types and specifically, on the 586 acres. The highly imperiled and rare “Sholars Bog” is located adjacent to the proposed OHV park property. In the mid-2000’s, CNPS commented on an EIR for a golf course development project that was proposed by the MCRPD on the same property. The potential for significant impacts were raised in several written letters and during on-site meetings. The MCRPD ultimately dropped the project. Given the high level of environmental sensitivity on the property that was revealed at that time, it is unclear to CNPS why the MCRPD would propose to undertake another use project that would result in significant impacts. CNPS does not agree with the statement on the NOP and Scoping Meeting announcement that reads: “The project is expected to reduce impacts related to the existing unauthorized uses that take place on the property now including refuse and other debris dumping, gun and rifle shooting, and informal OHV use.” The project proposes to increase the frequency of OHV use on a property that has highly erodible soils and rare vegetation. With this increased use comes the potential for riders to leave designated trails and for greater access to more areas that could be subject to illegal dumping. More frequent law enforcement patrols, which could occur now without OHV use development, would be the primary force to reduce these illegal activities. CNPS requests that the MCRPD disclose the surveys and impact assessments that resulted from the previous proposed development on the 586 acres, and explain why another highly impacting project is being considered in rare natural communities. After the level of environmental concerns and opposition that were raised during the previous project review process, why has the MCRPD, a public entity, opted to partner with a recreational organization that proposes destructive use, rather than with organizations and agencies that would promote restoration and protection? If the MCRPD intends to pursue the OHV park, CNPS requests that extensive surveys be conducted to determine the locations and abundance of protected plant species and rare natural communities, prior to initiating any development plans. All surveys must be conducted in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) “Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities” (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline). What evidence does the MCRPD have to show that development of an OHV park will reduce illegal OHV use? How will increased OHV use on the property reduce impacts? How does the MCRPD propose to enforce regulations to ensure that OHV users will not leave designated trails? APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF CEQA ANALYSIS The NOP and Public Scoping Meeting announcement states that “MCRPD proposes to create a formal off-highway motor vehicle recreation park located off Fort Bragg-Willits Road (State Route 20) in Fort Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 3 Bragg, California”. The announcement goes on to state, “The EIR is being prepared at a programmatic level because project design details and a full evaluation of the environmental constraints are not known at this time. A detailed development plan for the park will be prepared in subsequent separate action from the Program EIR. The development plan may require additional CEQA compliance depending on the final placement of recreational facilities. An economic feasibility plan is being prepared concurrently with the EIR.” CNPS requests that the MCRPD explain why a Programmatic EIR is being proposed, rather than a Project EIR. Has Mendocino County Counsel reviewed the MCRPD proposal to use a PEIR? Lack of information on environmental constraints is not a valid reason to avoid doing a project level EIR. Why is the MCRPD not conducting the appropriate levels of biological assessments to determine the full level of environmental constraints necessary to implement the proposed project prior to submitting an environmental document for public review? Without specific site evaluations, the full impacts of the proposed project are not being disclosed, and consequently, determinations on the significance of impacts and potential mitigation requirements cannot be determined. STATE GRANT FUNDING According to the California Department of Parks and Recreation, Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division (OHMVR) website, the Mendocino Coast Recreation and Parks District (MCRPD) has been awarded a total of nearly $3 million ($2,995,250) in State grant funding for Planning ($255,421) and Restoration ($2,739,829) on the 586 acre MCRPD property that is now the subject of this OHV park scoping meeting (http://ohv.parks.ca.gov/pages/1140/files/2016-17Planning-FINAL.pdf and http://ohv.parks.ca.gov/pages/1140/files/2016-17Restoration-FINAL.pdf). The Restoration Grant Proposal described activities, including fencing and revegetation that are supposedly for the purpose of restoring sensitive impacted lands. The Grant Proposal also disclosed that “Once the restoration project is complete and all planning has been completed, the intent is to create an OHV park on this property. It is our intent to utilize this property to generate revenue from OHV that will help sustain the project and at least partially fund the on-going operation of an OHV park. This project is designed to fence the entire perimeter of the property to allow for the land to begin to heal itself. All roads and skid trails will be left intact (not restored) to be used as a "trails" OHV park potentially.” The CEQAnet website shows that the Planning Grant was filed as a project that is Categorically Exempt from CEQA. The description on the website reads: “This project would fund an economic feasibility study and a CEQA environmental analysis to evaluate the potential for developing a new OHV park on a former timber harvest area, which has existing logging roads and skid trails.” (http://www.ceqanet.ca.gov/NOEdescription.asp?DocPK=721236 ). Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 4 From the final grant application shown on-line, the Restoration Grant proposal claims that the project is Exempt from CEQA by stating: “This project is for restoration of damage caused by illegal OHV activities and is therefore exempt from CEQA under the Guidelines of this grant.” However, on the website that shows the approved grants, a footnote is included for the MCRPD project, which reads: “Project Approval Subject to Completion of the CEQA Process”. On April 2, 2015, in response to an apparent earlier proposal by the MCRPD to seek grant funding for restoration on the 586-acre property, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife submitted the following comments (http://ohv.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=28267): These comments and recommendations are in response to the Mendocino Coast Recreation and Parks District (MCRPD) grant proposal for restoration at the MCRPD’s 586-acre property at Highway 20 and Summers Lane. The project proposes restoration of damage caused by trespass use of off-highway vehicles (OHVs) and fencing of the entire property, with future plans to allow OHV use after fencing and restoration. As the grant proposal states, the property contains Mendocino Pygmy Cypress Woodland (MPCW), wetlands, and a sphagnum bog, which are natural communities of special concern to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). CDFW has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants and their habitat. I would like to take this opportunity to provide general recommendations on the proposed project, as well as offer CDFW’s assistance in designing a project that avoids impacts to public trust resources. Recommendations: 1. A full biological assessment should be prepared for the property, with a particular focus on areas proposed for future development. 2. An appropriate CEQA document should be prepared, which analyzes the restoration project as well as plans for future development. 3. Areas designated for future OHV use should be selected to avoid MPCW, wetlands, and other sensitive natural communities. 4. Fencing location, design and installation should take the following into consideration: a. Fencing should preferably not be installed within sensitive natural communities. b. Fencing should be designed to avoid impacts to wildlife. Potential impacts include, but are not limited to, restriction of movement, entanglement, and collisions due to lack of visibility. I commend your efforts to restore degraded habitat and provide recreational opportunities in appropriate areas. CDFW may have additional recommendations as project details are developed. Again, I would like to offer CDFW’s assistance in designing a project that avoids or minimizes potential environmental impacts. Thank you, Angela Liebenberg - 4/2/15 CNPS requests that the project proponent discloses how the planning and restoration projects that are described in the grant applications are related to the proposed development of an OHV park, which is the subject of this scoping meeting. Why does it appear that these projects are being considered separately and how does the grant funding apply to each? How do the grant proposals comply with the new legislation (SB 249) that governs OHV parks, including state provided grants in California? Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 5 What formal agreement does the MCRPD have with the California Recreation Alliance to pursue an OHV park on the 586-acre public property? Who is preparing the environmental documents? Why have the CDFW and environmental organizations that promote restoration and protection of rare species and natural communities not been consulted in the development of the restoration proposal? EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION OHV use, even if it is confined to existing roads, has the great potential to cause erosion and sedimentation runoff onto adjacent habitats and within downstream channels. The City of Fort Bragg’s water comes from Newman Gulch, one of the downstream domestic water sources that would be subject to sediment delivery from OHV use. The highly rare Sholars bog is adjacent to and receives runoff from the proposed OHV development property. The alternatives analysis for the Draft EIR for the Mendocino Central Coast Transfer Station proposal included a discussion of the MCRPD property (Alternative 5 page 3.9.11), but rejected the site. One of the reasons stated for the rejection referred to potential impacts to Sholars Bog: “The site is the headwaters of Sholars Bog and drains to the northwest into pygmy forest. Additional runoff from transfer station development would need to be carefully addressed and managed in order to mitigate potentially significant runoff impacts to the watershed. Mitigating these potential impacts would be similar or more challenging than the mitigation necessary for the proposed project site.” How does the MCRPD propose to prevent sedimentation from OHV use, which is an activity that inherently perpetuates the occurrence of bare soil? CLIMATE CHANGE Climate change is already having a profound impact on many of California’s native plant populations. Off-highway motor vehicles increase greenhouse gas emissions. Lead agencies must analyze the greenhouse gas emissions of proposed projects, and must reach a conclusion regarding the significance of those emissions. (See CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4.). CEQA mandates analysis of a proposed project’s potential energy use (including transportation-related energy), sources of energy supply, and ways to reduce energy demand, including through the use of efficient transportation alternatives. (See CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F.) (http://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/climate-change.html). How will the MCRPD be able to show that the proposed OHV park will not further increase greenhouse gas emissions, both during project implementation and during future OHV use? ALTERNATIVE USE OF THE PROPERTY Development of an OHV park on a 586-acre property that contains rare natural communities and fully protected plant species is clearly inappropriate and inconsistent with State regulations. Alternatively, a park that proposes passive recreational use, with pedestrian only trails, including the installation of boardwalks and interpretive educational signs would not only be more appropriate, but would better Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 6 serve the Fort Bragg community. Funding is obviously available from the State to restore lands that have been degraded by OHV use, and to provide law enforcement to prevent illegal, destructive OHV activities. CNPS recommends that the MCRPD abandon the OHV proposal and instead, pursue funding for restoration and enforcement included in a project that promotes passive recreational use and education about the unique and sensitive natural environments of the Mendocino Coast. The Dorothy King Young Chapter of the California Native Plant Society will submit additional comments following the scoping meeting, prior to the March 19, 2018 deadline for comments, if warranted following discussions and information presented during the meeting. We would be happy to work with the MCRPD to offer recommendations on developing other, more appropriate recreational uses for the 586-acre property off of Highway 20. Respectfully, Teresa Sholars Renée Pasquinelli, Conservation Co-Chair (North) Teresa Sholars, Rare Plant Coordinator and Vegetation Chair Dorothy King Young Chapter, California Native Plant Society cc: Greg Suba, Conservation Program Director, California Native Plant Society Jenn Garrison, Sr. Environmental Scientist, California Department of Fish and Wildlife | Program EIR, Project EIR, rare vegetation, sensitive natural communities, survey, erosion, sedimentation, climate change, greenhouse gases | N/A | CEQA §15064.4 | N/A | https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2018022040 | 39.42 | -123.77 | |
| 2018_FortBraggOHV_PEIRScoping_AdditionalComments | Fort Bragg OHV Park | 2018 | 2018022040 | CEQA | EIR | Program EIR | Scoping | Other | Mendocino Coast Recreation and Park District | Mendocino | Dorothy King Young Chapter | Dorothy King Young Chapter | N/A | Recreational | Paused | March 15, 2018 Mr. Dan Keyes, District Administrator Mendocino Coast Recreation and Parks District 300 South Lincoln Street Fort Bragg, CA 95437 Subject: ADDITIONAL SCOPING COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED MCRPD OHV PARK PROGRAMMATIC EIR The Dorothy King Young (DKY) Chapter of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) submitted a preliminary comment letter, dated February 27, 2018 to the Mendocino Coast Recreation and Park District (MCRPD) in regards to the proposed OHV park programmatic EIR (letter attached). Four members of the DKY Board also attended and provided separate written and verbal comments at the project scoping meeting that was held at the C. V. Starr Center in Fort Bragg on February 28, 2018. Our comments emphasized two main points: 1) the site selected is inappropriate for an OHV park, and 2) a programmatic EIR is the wrong CEQA document to use, rather a project EIR should be prepared. After attending the scoping meeting and conducting further research on the proposed use of the property by the MCRPD and its OHV partners, the DKY Chapter is even more convinced that other less-destructive uses are more appropriate and more feasible for the property. Consequently, this letter provides additional scoping comments on the proposed MCRPD OHV Park Programmatic EIR. As stated in our February 27, 2018 letter, CNPS fully supports land management actions that promote the restoration and protection of native vegetation in California. The DKY Chapter focuses on protection and education about native plant species and natural habitats that occur within coastal Mendocino County, roughly from the Pacific Ocean to the coastal mountains west of Highway 101. We offer several educational walks throughout the year, and actively participate in state-initiated scientific surveys and reporting on the local flora, including its rare plants and vegetation types. We also review proposed projects on the Mendocino Coast that have the potential to impact sensitive vegetation and often provide written comments to the regulatory and permitting agencies. INFORMATION DISCLOSURE During the public scoping meeting for the proposed MCRPD OHV Park Programmatic EIR, we received a map of the potential site developments related to the project. We also heard greater detail about the nearly $3,000,000 in grant funding that the MCRPD has received Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 2 through the California Department of Parks and Recreation Off-highway Motor Vehicle Recreation (OHMVR) Division from the MCRPD grant writer and California Recreation Alliance (CRA) representative, Sarah Bradley Huff. To our surprise and dismay, we also learned that the Restoration grant proposal, which was awarded $2,739,829 from the OHMVR Division, was not circulated for public review and comment under CEQA but was given a Categorical Exemption from CEQA by the lead agency, which is the California Department of Parks and Recreation. We fail to understand how a project that proposes the removal of rare vegetation, including potentially listed plant species, and proposes ground disturbance activities that will alter drainage patterns to the detriment of a rare vegetation type can be exempt from the CEQA review process. The MCRPD, the CRA, and the OHMVR Division should have been fully aware of environmental concerns on the 586-acre property from comments received in 2015, including from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), on a similar restoration grant application that the MCRPD submitted to the OHMVR Division. In addition, as stated in our February 27, 2018 comment letter, CNPS and other environmental organizations raised several serious concerns in the mid-2000’s regarding potential impacts on rare vegetation and plants when the MCRPD proposed a golf-course on the same 586-acre property. Have the MCRPD and CRA, as project proponents for the OHV park, fully informed the OHMVR Division, which is the granting entity and lead agency for the OHV grant-funded projects, about the environmental significance and sensitivity of the 586-acre property? Given the known extent of environmentally sensitive habitats on the property, why has the MCRPD proposed to undertake planning and actions that are physically and biologically damaging, as are described in the OHV grant proposals, prior to conducting legally required botanical surveys? CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Following the scoping meeting, DKY Chapter members of CNPS assisted CDFW in conducting a reconnaissance of the 586-acre property in preparation for an upcoming CDFW vegetation survey and mapping project, which focuses on the Mendocino Coast Pygmy Cypress Woodland. From what was observed during the site visit, much of the property is covered by the Mendocino Coast Pygmy Cypress Woodland and Northern Bishop pine forest, both of which are rare vegetation communities. It also appeared that in several locations, recent attempts were made to drain sections of severely eroding road surfaces by using heavy equipment to construct ditches that divert water. By channelizing and draining water away from areas that support Pygmy Cypress Woodland, the actions compound cumulative impacts of the proposed projects (restoration and OHV park) by changing the hydrology, exacerbating severe downcutting, and further mobilizing highly erosive soils. Pygmy Cypress Woodland is Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 3 characterized by shallow, saturated soils, and the species that grow there have evolved and are dependent upon the wetland environment. The “pygmy forest” is actually both the shorter forest type that occurs on Blacklock soils and taller versions that occur on better soils. The vegetation is still rare if the Mendocino Pygmy cypress (Heperocyparis pygmaea) is part of the dominant cover of trees (see attached paper entitled “Mendocino Pygmy Cypress Forest” 2006, by Teresa Sholars and Clare Golec). The restoration grant proposal included funding for the purchase and rental of off-road vehicles and heavy equipment. Continued use of this motorized equipment as described in the restoration proposal and as evidenced on-site will further degrade the sensitive habitats. Fencing along the property boundary was also included as one of the main components of the restoration grant proposal, although we did not observe that fence construction had begun. Installation of barrier fences is an important action for preventing illegal OHV access, but we caution that the work needs to be conducted carefully and with constraints to avoid significant impacts through areas where rare plants and vegetation occur. The EIR needs to address cumulative impacts, including those related to OHV use by the project proponents, and the use of heavy equipment to grade and drain roads that transect the highly erosive wetland soils that are apparent throughout the property. The environmental analysis and review process needs to be completed prior to conducting any additional work on the property, including road drainage and fencing that has the potential to directly or indirectly affect the rare natural communities and listed species. As stated in the previous letter from CNPS, the environmental analysis needs to include full, protocol level botanical surveys. In addition, the environmental analysis needs to include site specific information on the soils, geomorphology, and hydrology on the 586-acre property, especially in relation to how the natural physical environment may present constraints to road treatments. NEWLY SUBMITTED PLANNING GRANT On March 6, 2018, another planning grant application, submitted by the MCRPD, was posted on the OHMVR Division website for public review and comment. This will be the third proposal submitted by the MCRPD for OHMVR grant funding to plan and develop an OHV park on the 586-acre property. The stated objective of the new grant proposal is to “fund the creation of a Master Plan for the MCRPD OHV Park.” Yet, the previous year’s funded planning proposal stated: “This project is to complete the environmental research to see if this project would be Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 4 possible. This project is also to complete an economic feasibility study to determine if this project would be beneficial financially to the area.” It appears that the MCRPD has prematurely determined that the feasibility study and environmental research will deem that an OHV Park is appropriate and feasible for the property, prior to even conducting the analysis and completing the environmental review process that are required to make those determinations. Why has the MCRPD continued to submit grant proposals related to the development of an OHV park on the 586-acre property prior to completing the necessary and legally required environmental analysis? Is the OHMVR Division fully aware of the significance of environmental constraints to OHV development on the property? The Dorothy King Young Chapter of the California Native Plant Society will continue to actively review and comment on proposals for furthering the development of an OHV park on the 586- acre MCRPD property off of Highway 20 in Fort Bragg. Again, CNPS recommends that the MCRPD abandon the OHV proposal and instead, pursue funding for appropriate and effective restoration and enforcement included in a project that promotes passive recreational use and education about the unique and sensitive natural environments of the Mendocino Coast. We would be happy to work with the MCRPD to offer recommendations on ecologically-based restoration techniques and developing other, more appropriate recreational uses for the 586- acre property off of Highway 20. Respectfully, Renée Pasquinelli marshpas@wildblue.net Teresa Sholars tsholars@mcn.org Renée Pasquinelli, Conservation Co-Chair (North) Teresa Sholars, Rare Plant Coordinator and Vegetation Chair Dorothy King Young Chapter, California Native Plant Society cc: Greg Suba, Conservation Program Director, California Native Plant Society Jenn Garrison, Sr. Environmental Scientist, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Sixto J. Fernandez, Grants Manager, OHMVR Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program | categorical exemption, rare plants, drainage patterns, survey, cumulative impacts, sensitive natural communities, planning grant | N/A | N/A | N/A | https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2018022040 | 39.42 | -123.77 | |
| 2019_VTP_DraftPEIR | Vegetation Treatment Program | 2018 | 2005082054 | CEQA | EIR | Program EIR | Draft | State | Board of Forestry and Fire Protection | Statewide | Dorothy King Young Chapter | Dorothy King Young Chapter | N/A | Vegetation Management | The lead agency dropped this PEIR and later created a new PEIR for this project. | January 9, 2018 California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection ATTN: Edith Hannigan, Board Analyst PO Box 944246 Sacramento, CA 94244-2460 RE: VTP Draft PEIR Comments Dear Members of the California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection; The Dorothy King Young (DKY) Chapter of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) fully supports land management actions that promote the restoration and protection of native vegetation in California. The DKY Chapter focuses on native plant species and natural habitats that occur within coastal Mendocino County, roughly from the Pacific Ocean to the coastal mountains west of Highway 101. We have reviewed the California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection’s Revised Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the Proposed Statewide Vegetation Treatment Program (VTP) and find that, while some proposed actions may benefit native vegetation, others have the potential to cause significant impacts to special status plants and rare vegetation types on the Mendocino Coast. By lacking specificity, and only addressing fire in relation to broad categories of plant communities, the VTP Draft PEIR fails to adequately analyze potential environmental impacts, as is required under CEQA. We share the concerns, including those pertaining to CEQA, that are well articulated in other letters on the VTP Draft PEIR that you are receiving from the Endangered Habitats League, the CNPS Conservation Program Director, and other CNPS Chapters. The proposed VTP Draft PEIR as it is written, should not be certified. Our comments on the VTP Draft PEIR, which are listed below, reiterate some of the general issues that are also raised by others. In addition, our letter focuses on examples of specific ecological concerns regarding our local listed rare vegetation types, all of which must be considered under CEQA, as is true for all rare vegetation throughout California, and for which there is no meaningful discussion in the VTP Draft PEIR. General comments: 1. The VTP Draft PEIR proposes fuel management activities on an area of more than 23 million acres of extremely diverse vegetation in California, but fails to show scientific evidence that such treatments would actually result in a substantial reduction in the number of catastrophic wildfires. The VTP Draft PEIR lacks the specificity necessary to Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 2 substantiate claims that the project will not result in significant impacts to sensitive biological resources, including rare vegetation types and listed plant species. Analysis used in the VTP Draft PEIR is based on broad categories of geographical range (Biological Regions) that contain widely variable and dissimilar habitats, on an outdated vegetation classification system (Wildlife Habitat Relationships (WHR)), and on an oversimplification of plant communities to describe fuel types (tree dominated, grass dominated, and shrub. As a programmatic EIR, the document also fails to provide adequate mitigation measures to ensure that future projects tiering off of the program avoid unmitigated significant impacts. Mitigations proposed in the Draft PEIR for listed species rely on a nine-quad search of CNDDB (California Natural Diversity Database) and a voluntary site visit by a Project Coordinator, but there is no discussion of the scientific qualifications of the coordinator, any acknowledgement that CNDDB is not a complete database, or any discussion of how site surveys are to be conducted, if at all. Prior to proposing any fuel management treatments in California, there needs to be a basic understanding of the ecology of specific vegetation types. Individual project planning must first include protocol-level, site specific surveys and consultations with the regulatory agencies before treatment designs are considered. Botanical surveys must be conducted in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) “Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities” (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline). If fuel management is to be proposed, we recommend that the currently recognized authority on California vegetation, A Manual of California Vegetation. Second Edition. (John O. Sawyer, Todd Keeler-Wolf, and Julie M. Evens. 2009. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA) be used as the reference for describing vegetation types and how they may be treated under a VTP. The Manual of California Vegetation has been adopted as the standard vegetation classification by State and Federal agencies. It describes vegetation types by dominant species and includes sections on fire characteristics and other natural processes that shape the ecology of each type, regional distribution information, and the rarity ranking of imperiled natural vegetation. 2. The VTP rightfully includes statements describing fire as a natural element in California ecosystems and how naturally occurring wildfires and burning by Native Americans have been instrumental in defining the California landscape. The document states that “restoring native, fire-adapted ecosystems can increase ecosystem resiliency to wildfire, drought, and potentially climate change” (Chapter 2, page 2-11). However, the document fails to define “ecosystem resiliency”, especially under changing climate regimes, and is not based on an ecological approach to vegetation management, but Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 3 instead on one of vegetation structure manipulation, which may or may not result in ecosystem resiliency. In some cases, for example, Bishop pine forest, ecosystem resiliency may mean that trees are allowed to burn under extreme conditions that consume a mature stand and facilitate new seedling establishment (a stand replacement fire). For other coniferous forest types on the north coast, for example coast redwood, the document fails to adequately address how timber management practices have created unnaturally extreme fire conditions by producing younger, often even-aged stands that are more readily consumed by fire. A recent paper by Stephens, et. al. (Stephens, S. L., B. M. Collins, E. Biber, and P. Z. Fulé. 2016. U.S. federal fire and forest policy: emphasizing resilience in dry forests. Ecosphere 7(11):e01584. 10.1002/ecs2.1584) discusses the need for change in US Forest Service policies toward planning and implementation that increases resiliency in forest habitats by restoring natural ecosystem processes and promoting late seral characteristics. The same argument can be applied to State regulated and private forests that are managed for timber under the Forest Practice Rules. We recommend that the VTP Draft PEIR define “ecosystem resiliency” for each vegetation type, and take more of an ecological approach to determining vegetation treatments in general. Specifically, we also recommend that the VTP Draft PEIR include a section on how the Forest Practice Rules may be changed to provide for long-term ecological recovery of native forests in relation to wildfire effects and timber management. 3. The VTP Draft PEIR includes ecological restoration as a management component, but does not provide vegetation-specific ecological information, and limits this treatment to areas outside of the wildland urban interface (WUI) and fuel break treatment areas. If an objective is to restore ecosystem resiliency to wildfire, then having a thorough understanding of each particular vegetation type is critical to determining an appropriate treatment regime, whether it be in an area designated as “ecological restoration” or “WUI”. Treatments should be designed for site specific ecological conditions, and in some instances, it may be more appropriate to allow the vegetation to burn without suppression. Successful ecological restoration for one vegetation type may actually require that a dense understory be allowed to develop, especially in moist coastal areas. In another vegetation type, allowing a mature forest to develop, then allowing it to burn in a stand-replacement fire (Northern bishop pine forest, for example) may be the best ecological restoration strategy, whether it be in or outside the WUI. Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 4 4. Mitigations proposed in the VTP Draft PEIR that specify avoidance of individual listed plant species, and/or narrow buffers (minimum of 15 feet) around the species are not adequate to protect the long-term viability of rare plant populations. Often, the ground and vegetation disturbances that occur from manual and mechanical treatments in and around intact rare vegetation types and special status species can cause ecosystem-level changes by disrupting favorable environmental conditions such as shade, moisture regimes, and mycorrhizal associations. Similarly, treatments within rare vegetation types must be based on site-specific ecological conditions, including the fire adaptions of the species occurring within those communities. Site-specific evaluations by qualified botanists and ecologists are needed prior to determining the type of vegetation treatment that should be applied and where, or whether all treatments should be avoided. The focus should be on restoring and protecting intact functioning ecosystems and the processes necessary to maintain those systems. 5. Many of the mapped fuel break treatments within Appendix A.2.1 for the Klamath North Coast Bioregion are inappropriately placed and if implemented, the proposed treatments would have significant, unnecessary impacts on rare biological habitats. If fuel break treatments are implemented as mapped on the Mendocino Coast, mature native trees could potentially be removed within the State Parks and within the Coastal Zone (the Mendocino County Local Coastal Plan regulates the removal of mature trees that are not regulated under timber harvest plans). If such obvious errors in mapping are readily visible on the Klamath North Coast Bioregion maps, can we assume that such errors in mapping occur throughout all bioregions? For example: a fuel break (shown as a grey line) is drawn where there are no roads or ridgetops within the Inglenook Fen, a highly rare wetland community that supports numerous rare plants within the Inglenook Fen-Ten Mile Dunes Natural Preserve of MacKerricher State Park. Not only is the fen a wetland that would not likely burn, it is primarily surrounded by open sand and coastal dune habitat. Other examples of inappropriately placed fuel breaks are those that are shown within old growth redwood forests of Hendy Woods State Park, and the Mendocino Coast Pygmy Cypress Forests at Jug Handle State Natural Reserve, Russian Gulch and Van Damme State Parks. As discussed below, ground disturbance and related vegetation clearing within pygmy forests would result in permanent impacts that could never be fully mitigated. We recommend that, if fuel breaks (and other vegetation treatments) are to be proposed, that more accurate maps be presented, and that site- specific evaluations be used to help determine treatment locations. CEQA requires that accurate project treatment maps be included in environmental documents so that reviewers may determine where potential impacts will occur. Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 5 6. The VTP Draft PEIR does not include discussions of rare vegetation types. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) website provides the official list of natural vegetation communities (https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural- Communities/List). CDFW considers vegetation community alliances described under the Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (MCV) with State ranks of S1-S3 (limited occurrences and distribution and under threat), and all associations within them to be highly imperiled. These rare vegetation types that were omitted from the VTP must be included for analysis under CEQA for potential impacts, impact avoidance measures, and mitigations. Specific comments for rare vegetation types found on the Mendocino Coast: Within coastal Mendocino County, there are approximately 30 natural vegetation types that are ranked at S1-S3. The list below is a subset of those 30, and are presented as examples of CDFW recognized rare vegetation types that would likely be impacted by the proposed VTP (note that those types not listed should not automatically be considered unaffected). Global and State rarity rankings are given beside the vegetation names below, and both the MCV and old Holland Classification (HC) names are used when applicable. 1 Information regarding fire characteristics that is provided in the discussion under the vegetation types was mostly obtained from MCV. 1. Hesperocyparis pygmaea (Mendocino pygmy cypress woodland) Alliance G2 S2 in MCV Mendocino Pygmy Cypress Forest G2 S2.1 in HC This is a highly unique and rare vegetation type that supports numerous special status plant species, and is very limited in distribution, with only about 2,500 acres remaining. 1 The process of vegetation mapping and refinement for some of the vegetation types described in the Manual of California Vegetation, especially for the north coast, is still in progress, and no recent surveys have been made of old CNDDB natural community occurrences. CDFW states: “We think it imprudent to remove these elements from the CNDDB before assessing them and reclassifying them in terms of the currently accepted state and national standards for vegetation classification. In the meantime, we continue to include those "non-standard" CNDDB NC elements in the current Natural Communities List.” https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities/Background Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 6 It occurs solely on three distinct flat terraces at approximately 300, 425, and 650 feet in elevation; soils are nutrient-poor and extremely acid (pH 2.8 to 3.9), poorly drained, and often underlain by an iron-cemented hardpan that inhibits root penetration. Soils are between saturation and field capacity moisture in summer and saturated in winter when ponding commonly occurs (Sholars, T. and Clare Golec 2006. Mendocino Pygmy Cypress Forest. unpublished paper). The pygmy forest is fire adapted with many species either reseeding readily from serotinous cones or resprouting after burning. Much of the Mendocino Pygmy Cypress Forest is contained within the area designated for WUI treatments under the proposed VTP Draft PEIR, and fuel break lines are shown on the maps. Such treatments would decimate this vegetation type, as any ground disturbance resulting from fire lines or fire breaks would impact the thin soil horizon, negatively affecting drainage and potentially puncturing the hardpan. Wildfires that may occur in the Mendocino Coast Pygmy Cypress Forest should be allowed to burn; suppression activities should only occur well outside of the forest. Given the moist environment, any wildfire that occurs will likely be low in intensity and result in a mosaic of burned and unburned areas. Any management actions considered for the Mendocino Pygmy Cypress Forest should first be discussed with a local scientific authority on pygmy forest ecology. 2. Pinus muricata (Bishop pine forest) Alliance G3 S3 in MCV Northern Bishop Pine Forest G2 S2.2 in HC Much of the Pinus muricata vegetation type on the Mendocino Coast is composed of older, even-aged stands that are diseased and dying. It is considered a stand replacement forest, as bishop pines are relatively short lived, readily produce seed from cones that are opened with heat, and periodic crown fires are critical in regenerating stands. Bishop pines do not survive well after understory burns since the roots are relatively shallow and grow within the thick duff layers that accumulate beneath the canopies. The management of this vegetation type is problematic on the Mendocino Coast, as private development is often interspersed within the forest. This is another vegetation type that is mostly designated for WUI and fuel break treatments in the VTP Draft PEIR. However, much of the forest is also contained within the California State Parks along the coast; management for forest restoration and long-term resilience is currently being planned and will be implemented under a large grant that was recently awarded to parks’ environmental division. We encourage the Board of Forestry to work cooperatively with the California Department of Parks and Recreation natural resource management staff (Brendan O’Neil, Senior Environmental Scientist, Sonoma Mendocino Coast District) in developing any treatments that may be proposed for Bishop pine forest. Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 7 3. Abies grandis (Grand fir forest) Alliance G4 S2 in MCV Grand Fir Forest G1 S1.1 in HC Abies grandis is another forest species that is not well adapted to burning, as young trees have thin bark and older trees often succumb to decaying fungi after burn damage. The forest occurs in relatively mesic environments and the natural fire interval is considered to be quite long. Seedlings do establish in openings following fires and continue to grow into closed canopies because the trees are shade tolerant. Grand fir forest occurs in the fuel break, WUI, and ecological restoration areas of the proposed VTP. Understory treatments that would remove vegetation, open up and reduce moisture levels in the forest may unnaturally shorten fire intervals and negatively affect this rare forest type. Maintaining an intact, moist understory of native species that includes an intermittent shrub and herbaceous layer is the preferred management strategy for Grand fir forest. Non-native species should be removed. 4. Picea sitchensis (Sitka spruce forest) Alliance G5 S2 in MCV Sitka Spruce Forest G1 S1.1 in HC Sitka Spruce Grand Fir Forest G4 S1.1 in HC Picea sitchensis occurs in a limited area of moist forests in a narrow band along the Mendocino Coast, which is also the southernmost distribution of Sitka spruce forest. It occurs within the areas mapped for fuel breaks and WUI in the VTP Draft PEIR. The species is very susceptible to mortality from fire due to its thin bark and shallow roots. Fire intervals are very long (150 to 350+ years). Natural fire events in Sitka spruce forests are typically stand replacing, and recolonization of seedlings is typically from windblown seed originating from unburned adjacent stands. This is another rare vegetation type in which a moist understory of native species should be maintained to prevent unnatural drying that may lead to more frequent catastrophic fires; vegetation treatments involving thinning or removal of native understory species may be inappropriate and counterproductive. 5. Pinus contorta var. contorta (Beach pine forest) Alliance G5 S3 in MCV Beach Pine Forest G4 S2.1 in HC Beach pine forest occurs near the immediate coast in Mendocino County in coastal dunes, bluffs and rocky exposed headlands. It also occurs within the area mapped for fuel breaks and as WUI in the VTP Draft PEIR. Understory species on the Mendocino Coast include many natives such as California blackberry (Rubus ursinus) and California hairgrass (Deschampsia cespitosa ssp. holciformis), and invasive noxious weeds, including velvet grass (Holcus lanatus) and the highly flammable gorse (Ulex europaeus). Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 8 Pinus contorta var. contorta does not tolerate burning, as trees are readily killed and the foliage is moderately flammable. A pre-settlement vegetation analysis of pollen phytoliths was conducted on the coastal headlands within California State Parks on the Mendocino and Sonoma headlands in the late 1980’s by Dr. Susan Bicknell, Forest Ecologist, Humboldt State University. Dr. Bicknell’s research determined that the native vegetation community was a pine savannah of likely Pinus contorta var. contorta and Pinus muricata interspersed with native bunchgrass, including California hairgrass. The open understory and relatively low density of pines was attributed to burning by Native Americans, as the natural fire frequency is otherwise considered to be 150 to 350 years. Management actions for the potential reduction of catastrophic wildfires in the Beach pine forest should focus on the removal of nonnative plants, especially the highly flammable gorse. 6. Sequoia sempervirens (Redwood forest) Alliance G3 S3.2 in MCV Upland Redwood Forest G3 S2.3 North Coast Alluvial Redwood Forest G2 S2.2 in HC The Redwood forest vegetation community occurs in moist coastal areas and along inland coastal river valleys that receive heavy summer fog. Sequoia sempervirens is an extremely long-lived species; old growth individuals can be over 2,000 years old, 8 feet in diameter, and over 300 feet tall. Cut trees readily resprout and eventually form dense circles of “second-growth” stands; cut again, “third- and fourth- growth” stands may be evident. Few actual “old growth” groves of redwoods remain on the Mendocino Coast. The only notable stands are found within the State Parks. According to the MCV, “Fire is the principal disturbance agent in both young-growth and old-growth stands.” The thick bark of older trees often prevents fire from causing mortality and nearly all old stands show some degree of fire scars. Basal hollows created by repeated burning of older trees provides important wildlife habitat, including for sensitive species such as the Townsend’s big-eared bat. Young redwoods, with their thinner bark, are sometimes killed by fires, but can resprout. Young redwood stands also have more dry litter accumulation on the ground and their microclimate is drier than that of mature redwood forests. During the 2008 lightening fires that consumed over 50,000 acres in Mendocino County, young redwoods were killed in timber harvested areas, while nearly all of the redwoods at Montgomery Woods State Natural Reserve survived, despite the fact that no suppression activities were used in the reserve during the fires. The old growth groves of Montgomery Woods simply had a much wetter microclimate due to the dense canopy of enormous trees and thick understory of ferns. The VTP Draft PEIR includes fuel breaks, WUI and ecological restoration zones where Redwood forests grow along the Mendocino Coast, including old growth groves within the State Parks and Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 9 Reserves. Since much of the Redwood forest on the Mendocino Coast is under timber management, and integrates with other timber producing vegetation communities, such as that dominated by Douglas fir, we recommend that the Board of Forestry reevaluate how these forests are currently managed and work toward developing policies that are ecosystem-based to produce long-term sustainability and resilience in the forests (as discussed above under #2 in the General comments). For the Redwood forests that occur within parkland or other reserves, we recommend that the Board work collaboratively with California State Park natural resource managers to implement management policies that allow fire events to occur as natural processes within these ecosystems. 7. Lithocarpus densiflorus (Tanoak forest) Alliance G4 S3 in MCV Tanoak is a component of most coniferous forests on the Mendocino Coast, but the Tanoak forest Alliance is one in which tanoak stands dominate the landscape. Tanoaks are highly valued by Native Americans, both for acorn harvest and use of the wood and bark. Mature trees provide an important food crop and nesting and roosting habitat for numerous wildlife species. Tanoaks are hosts to a variety of fungi, many mycorrhizal associations form mutually beneficial relationships, and play critical ecological roles in maintaining forest health. Tannin produced from the bark was once used on an industrial scale for tanning leather. However, as tanoaks lost their value for commercial use, they became viewed as an obstacle to growing the more lucrative conifer species. Landscape level losses to tanoak forests have occurred as a result of widespread tree removals and herbicide use, and more recently from infestations of Phytophthora ramorum, the introduced pathogen that causes Sudden Oak Death. Fires kill young tanoaks, but individuals readily resprout after burning. Older trees survive light understory burning, which may be beneficial in reducing the number of young conifers that encroach upon tanoak stands. Researchers have suggested that controlled burning may also have some application in treating Sudden Oak Death, but more studies are needed (Bowcutt, Frederica 2015. The Tanoak Tree, An Environmental History of a Pacific Coast Hardwood. University of Washington Press). Tanoak forests on the Mendocino Coast occur in both the WUI and ecological restoration designated areas described in the VTP Draft PDEIR. We recommend that, in general, treatments within Tanoak forests mimic a natural fire regime and be conducted to retain large individual trees, and in some cases, reduce competition from encroaching conifers. We also encourage more research on the use of controlled burns to treat forest pathogens. Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 10 8. Baccharis pilularis (Coyote brush scrub) Alliance G5 S5 (some associations are of high priority for inventory) in MCV Northern Coyote Bush Scrub G4 S4 in HC Northern Coastal Bluff Scrub G2 S2.2 in HC Northern Salal Scrub G4 S3.2 in HC Northern Silk Tassel Scrub G3 S2.3 in HC Corylus cornuta var. californica (Hazelnut scrub) Alliance G3 S2? In MCV Rubus (parviflorus, spectabilis, ursinus) (Coastal brambles) Alliance G4 S3 in MCV Scrub and bramble vegetation types on the Mendocino Coast generally occur on the coastal headlands or as understory components in moist forests, and are shown as occurring primarily within the WUI designated areas and within areas mapped for fuel breaks. Naturally occurring fire is infrequent in these relatively mesic environments. Most of the species, including Baccharis pilularis, readily resprout after burning or cutting. The scrub vegetation types provide important habitat for nesting birds and other wildlife. Hazelnut scrub is an important food source for Native Americans and many native hazelnut patches are highly prized and considered to be sacred sites. We recommend that site-specific evaluations be conducted prior to determining whether treatment is even necessary in these coastal scrub vegetation communities, or if so, the type of treatment that may be most appropriate. Removal of invasive weeds and retaining stands of scrub that are important to local tribes should be high priorities. 9. Native Grassland G3 S3.1 in HC Elymus glaucus (Blue wild rye meadows) Alliance G3? S3? In MCV Coastal Terrace Prairie G2 S2.1 in HC Calamagrostis nutkaensis (Pacific reed grass meadows) Alliance G4 S2 in MCV Danthonia californica (California oat grass prairie) Provisional Alliance G4 S3 in MCV Festuca rubra (Red fescue grassland) Alliance G4 S3 in MCV Coastal grasslands that support native perennial grasses occur primarily along the coastal bluffs and occasionally within forest openings or as an understory component beneath Northern bishop pines and Shore pines. These natural communities on the Mendocino Coast occur in much of the area designated as WUI in the VTP Draft PEIR. Fuel breaks are also mapped for areas of native grassland. The native grasses also intermix with noxious non-native perennial grasses, primarily velvet grass (Holcus lanatus) and sweet vernal grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum). Many of the native grass species readily resprout following fire, however so do the non-native perennial grasses. Although the Native Americans regularly burned coastal headland grassland areas, burning prior to European occupation occurred when there were no non-native grasses to compete with the native plants. Today, when burning occurs in the same vegetation Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 11 communities, colonization or reemergence of velvet grass and sweet vernal grass poses a real threat to maintaining the integrity of the native vegetation ecosystems. Ground disturbance within these intact coastal grasslands also favors invasion by noxious weedy annual and perennial grasses. We recommend that ground disturbance be avoided in any intact native grass vegetation community. If vegetation treatments are considered, including mowing or grazing, site-specific evaluations should first be conducted by knowledgeable botanical ecologists to determine the most appropriate strategies. In summary, the Dorothy King Young Chapter of the California Native Plant Society finds that the VTP Draft PEIR lacks the site-specific botanical and ecological information necessary to make conclusive determinations regarding potentially significant impacts resulting from proposed fuel management activities. The VTP Draft PEIR also fails to provide meaningful mitigation and reporting measures that could allow appropriate site-specific evaluations for future tiered projects. As discussed under the General and Specific concerns listed above, nearly all of the rare vegetation types that occur on the Mendocino Coast would potentially be impacted if the vegetation treatments were carried out as described in the VTP Draft PEIR. We urge the Board of Forestry to NOT certify the VTP Draft PEIR, and if recirculated, to completely revise the document to be based on currently recognized ecological principles and environmental assessment protocols. We request that the Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition be used as a primary reference for identifying vegetation types and the treatments that may or may not be appropriate. Overall, we emphasize the importance of recognizing that understanding the functions and characteristics of native California ecosystems, in the context of changing climate regimes, is critical to achieving the goal of facilitating long-term resilience of native vegetation in response to wildfire. Respectfully, Renée Pasquinelli, Conservation Co-Chair (North) Dorothy King Young Chapter, California Native Plant Society cc: Greg Suba, Conservation Program Director, California Native Plant Society | rare vegetation, special status plants, insufficient review, mitigation, monitoring, mapping, qualifications | N/A | N/A | N/A | https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2005082054/5 | 38.58 | -121.50 | |
| 2020_MitchellCreek_THP | THP 1-20-00193-MEN (“Mitchell Creek”) | 2020 | N/A | CEQA | THP | N/A | Draft | State | California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection | Mendocino | Dorothy King Young Chapter | Dorothy King Young Chapter | N/A | Timber Harvest Plan | Ongoing | November 23, 2020 Julie D. Rhoads CalFire Jackson State Demonstration Forest 802 North Main Street Fort Bragg, California 95427 Julie.Rhoads@fire.ca.gov and santarosareviewteam@fire.ca.gov Subject: DKY CNPS comments on the consistency of THP 1-20-00193-MEN (“Mitchell Creek”), including cumulative effects associated with adjacent timber harvest plans (THP 1-20-00006-MEN “Caspar 500” and the proposed submittal of “Railroad South THP”, with the approved EIR for the Jackson Demonstration State Forest Management Plan Dear Ms. Rhoads: The Dorothy King Young (DKY) Chapter of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS)1 has recently received urgent requests for assistance from several community members expressing concerns about potential impacts from at least three Jackson Demonstration State Forest (JDSF) timber harvest plans in the Caspar vicinity. Members of our DKY Chapter are quite familiar with these areas of JDSF through various levels of education, research, and collaborative botanical surveys under the direction of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). From 2002 to 2006, board members of the DKY Chapter submitted lengthy comments to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection on the proposed Draft EIRs for the Jackson Demonstration State Forest Management Plan. Our comments on the EIR drafts focused on the need for comprehensive survey and documentation on the flora of JDSF, and the need to adhere to CDFW (formerly California Department of Fish and Game) protocols for conducting and reporting plant survey information, especially for sensitive species and plant communities. We have reviewed on-line documents associated with THPs 1-20-00193-MEN and 1-20-00006-MEN and have serious concerns regarding potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to rare plants and sensitive natural communities, especially those that are unique to the Mendocino Coast. We also have concerns that the proposed timber harvest plans are not in compliance with the JDSF Management Plan as approved through the EIR process. Areas proposed for timber harvest within the Caspar vicinity THPs are within or adjacent to vegetation types listed as sensitive natural communities by CDFW (https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural- Communities/Background#sensitive%20natural%20communities), including Mendocino pygmy cypress woodland association (G1 S1), Grand fir forest association (G4 S2 and potentially rarer alliances with G2 S1 and G1 S1 rankings), Bishop pine – Monterey pine forest and woodland association (various alliances with G2 S2 rankings), and Redwood forest and woodland (G3 S3). Within these and even the more common vegetation types, numerous rare plant species Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 2 also have the potential to occur, including but not limited to Campanula californica (swamp harebell, CRPR 1B.2), Carex californica (California sedge, CRPR 2B.2), Pinus contorta ssp. bolanderi (Bolander’s beach pine, CRPR 1B.2), and Hesperocyparis pygmaea (pygmy cypress, CRPR 1B.2). Our concerns are summarized as follows: 1. There appears to be no reference to, nor any statements on how the newly submitted and proposed THPs relate to the approved EIR for the JDSF Management Plan. Section 3 of THP 1-20-00193-MEN describes the purpose of the proposed timber harvest plan and cites several sections of the Public Resources Code that only discuss the management of state forests in a general sense, however it does not mention the Management Plan. On February 7, 2007, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection submitted a summary report to the Board of Forestry entitled: “Potential Harvest Limitations to be Applied during Initial Implementation of the Proposed Jackson Demonstration State Forest Management Plan.” This report, which is part of the public record, was in response to the BOF’s direction to CDF (now CalFire) staff to develop harvest limitation overlays based on the results of input from the Mendocino citizen’s advisory group for JDSF. Section 3 of THP 1-20-0193-MEN also does not discuss potential harvest limitations based on these BOF directions. DKY CNPS requests that CalFire provide an explanation as to how the proposed timber harvest plans will meet goals, objectives, conditions, or other agreements developed through the approved EIR process for the JDSF Management Plan, especially in regards to sensitive plants and vegetation types, and to the limited acreage of remaining old growth and second growth forests. 2. Botanical surveys are only proposed after the timber harvest plans are approved, which prevents the disclosure of potential sensitive botanical areas and the development of meaningful avoidance and mitigations measures during the formal review process. In addition, an outdated plant survey protocol is proposed to be used for THP 1-20-00193-MEN. For surveys to be valid, they must follow the current Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (State of California Natural Resources Agency, March 20, 2018, and the CDFW-CNPS Protocol for the Combined Vegetation Rapid Assessment and Relevé Field Form, June 5, 2019, with updated guidance available on-line). The current protocols also require sensitive vegetation types, not just rare plants, to be surveyed and reported to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). All areas of Mendocino Cypress Woodland have now been officially mapped and are available through BIOS within CNDDB. Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 3 The DKY Chapter of CNPS concurs with CDFW’s comments for first review for THP 1-20-00193 MEN, which state in part: “The conservation of special status native plants and their habitats, as well as sensitive natural communities, is integral to maintaining biological diversity. Based on the potential habitat and CNDDB records, close proximity of the THP to the Mendocino pygmy cypress woodland sensitive natural community, the submission of the THP prior to completing botanical surveys, and reference to outdated survey protocol, the THP as proposed presents potentially significant adverse impacts to sensitive natural communities and special status plant species.” In addition, any mitigation measure proposed for avoidance and minimization of impacts to rare plants and sensitive natural communities must consider both direct and indirect effects (see attached “Buffers as Mitigation Measures to Conserve Sensitive Botanical Resources” California Department of Fish and Game, Submitted by Clare Golec as substantial evidence into the record for THP 1-06-039HUM, Sierra Pacific Industries “Shower Head”, October, 2006). We request that protocol-level botanical surveys be conducted and reported, as part of the public record disclosure and review process, prior to approval of THP 1-20-00193 MEN and prior to the submittal of all subsequent timber harvest plans being prepared. We request that all sensitive vegetation maps obtained through BIOS, particularly those of the Mendocino Cypress Woodland Alliance and Associations, be submitted as overlays on the THP boundary maps. 3. The three timber harvest plans (including the approved 1-20-00006-MEN, currently being reviewed 1-20-00196-MEN, and the proposed “Railroad South”) appear to be adjacent to each other from the attached map that was sent to us by community members. From the map, it would appear that the total acreage of potential cumulative impacts is much greater than would be realized from simple review of any single plan. Similar sensitive vegetation types and habitats for rare plant species are found throughout all three existing and proposed plans. Why are the plans being submitted separately, and are the full potential cumulative impacts on sensitive vegetation and rare plants being considered in the separate, apparent piecemeal review processes? How does the separate submittal of these plans comply with the approved EIR for the JDSF Management Plan? 4. The proposed “Railroad South” THP that you described may be in the area that is commonly referred to as “mushroom corners” (acreage near the corner of Road 409 and Little Lake Roads). It is called that because of the abundance and variety of fungal species that are regularly found there, and it is also addressed within the JDSF Management Plan. This area is known worldwide by well- respected mycologists and other scholars. For decades, it has been visited by educators and Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 4 students, as it serves as a perfect teaching location for the identification of many different fungal species. Any timber harvest there will directly impact the significant mycorrhizal associations that are critical for forest health, and which result in the abundance of mushrooms that are commonly found. We request that, prior to completing any plans for harvest within the area commonly referred to as “mushroom corners” that you consult with Teresa Sholars, Professor Emeritus, College of the Redwoods and CNPS Rare Plant Coordinator and Vegetation Chair, and that you disclose how the area will be avoided. Please do not hesitate to contact us (conservation@dkycnps.org) if you have questions regarding our comments, or if we can be of assistance in developing recommendations for protecting rare plants and sensitive vegetation types prior to and during the timber harvest review processes. Respectfully, Renée Pasquinelli Renée Pasquinelli, Conservation Co-Chair (North) Dr. Peter Baye, Conservation Co-chair (South) Teresa Sholars Teresa Sholars, Rare Plant Coordinator and Vegetation Chair Dorothy King Young Chapter, California Native Plant Society1 1The mission of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) is to protect California’s native plant heritage and preserve it for future generations through application of science, research, education, and conservation. CNPS works closely with decision-makers, scientists, and local planners to advocate for well-informed policies, regulations, and land management practices. A formal cooperative agreement between CNPS and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is the backbone of California’s rare plant and vegetation status review programs. The data compiled and shared by both organizations are used throughout the environmental review process. The Dorothy King Young (DKY) Chapter of CNPS focuses on protecting and providing education about the native plants and natural communities within coastal Mendocino County and we often work directly with local and Sacramento-based CDFW science staff. cc: Jon Hendrix, Sr. Environmental Scientist, CDFW (Jon.Hendrix@wildlife.ca.gov) Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 5 1 Buffers as Mitigation Measures to Conserve Sensitive Botanical Resources California Department of Fish and Game Submitted by Clare Golec as substantial evidence into the record for THP 1-06-039HUM, Sierra Pacific Industries “Shower Head” October, 2006 Regulatory Requirements for Sensitive Plant Mitigations The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the California Forest Practice Rules (FPR), require that certain proposed projects, such as a timber harvesting plan (THP), disclose potential significant environmental impacts, and where possible, feasible mitigations to avoid or minimize these impacts. CEQA, Section 21002, states public agencies shall not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or mitigations which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the projects. Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines defines a substantial reduction in number of an endangered, rare, or threatened species as a potentially significant effect on the environment, triggering the disclosure of impacts and the incorporation of project alternatives or mitigation measures. FPR Section 896(a) states, “It is the Board’s intent that no THP shall be approved which fails to adopt feasible mitigation measures or alternatives...that would substantially lessen or avoid significant adverse impacts which the activity may have on the environment.” Section 898.2(e) of the FPR allows for disapproval of a THP which does not conform to the rules of the Board of Forestry if implementation of the plan would irreparably damage plant species listed as rare or endangered by the Department of Fish and Game (DFG). Section 919.4 states, “where significant adverse impacts to non-listed species are identified, the Registered Professional Forester and Director of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protections shall incorporate feasible practices to reduce impacts.” CEQA Section 15370(a-e) lists five types of mitigations. Of these types, buffers are primarily implemented to achieve (a) “Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action,” and (b) “Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation.” This paper assesses the use of buffers to mitigate project impacts to sensitive plant1 populations occurring in California timberlands. The Department of Fish and Game has recommended that an interim 50- foot buffer on newly discovered sensitive plant occurrences be included as a default protection measure in timber harvesting plans and non-industrial timber management plans. This interim measure is intended as a placeholder until site-specific protection measures are developed, typically through consultation with Department personnel. 1 Sensitive plants include those plants listed as endangered, threatened or rare (Section 670.2, Title 14, California Code of Regulations; Section 1900, Fish and Game Code; ESA Section 17.11, Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations) or those meeting the definitions of rare or endangered provided in Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines. 2 Biological Justification for Sensitive Plant Buffers The use of buffers to mitigate impacts to sensitive habitats and species has been widely used for many years as a principal tool to protect natural resources, as well as public health and safety. The rationale for using buffers (rather than protecting only the footprint of a sensitive habitat or population) is based upon sound ecological principles that habitats and populations: 1) are dynamic, 2) are not typically discrete entities with clearly defined boundaries, but rather a part of an ecological continuum, and 3) because of their ecological interconnectedness with adjacent habitats, they can be significantly impacted, indeed, even eliminated, by indirect effects of adjacent activities. These principles are well-established in the ecological literature. For these reasons, local and state regulations typically do not allow construction activities directly adjacent to natural resources such as wetlands, watercourses and sensitive habitats or species; but rather require specific setbacks, or buffers. These types of buffers are typically up to 100 feet in width and in most cases not less than 50 feet in width. In California for instance, 300-foot-wide buffers are required for estuaries and 100-foot-wide buffers are required for wetland habitats in the coastal zone (14 CCR 13577), bald eagle and peregrine falcon nests receive a minimum 10-acre habitat buffer zone (372-foot-wide buffer) in forest lands (14 CCR 919.3), and aircraft are restricted from flying lower than 3,000 feet above the Sespe Condor Sanctuary (14 CCR 10501.5). Additionally, timber harvesting activities can have direct impacts to sensitive plant occurrences. Flagging placement errors, misdirected tree falling, equipment operator error, broadcast burning and pile burning escape, and herbicide application error are examples of activities that may result in direct impact to unbuffered and buffered sensitive plan occurrences. Appropriately designed buffers can provide protection from these types of unintentional impacts. Specific Indirect Threats to Sensitive Plant Populations According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(d)(3), “An indirect physical change is to be considered only if that change is a reasonably foreseeable impact which may be caused by the project.” Typical THP management activities such as timber harvesting (canopy removal) and road and landing construction have numerous biotic and abiotic effects. These activities have indirect effects on adjacent habitats which are reasonably foreseeable as well as well-documented in the forestry and ecological literature. Indirect impacts to sensitive plants can include canopy alteration (change in shade and light exposure); change of hydrology; disruption of symbiosis (such as mycotrophic or mycorrhizal relationships); disturbance of root systems; burial of seeds below germination depths; exposure of bare mineral soil; slash accumulation; changes in vegetation competition; and competition from invasive exotics (Sholars and Golec in press) 3 These effects are primarily the result of edge effects from habitat fragmentation. Edge effects are the physical and biological changes that occur in an insular habitat fragment, such as a sensitive animal, sensitive plant, or wetland protection area, related to its proximity and amount of edge or border with a different habitat type (Noss and Cooperrider 1994). Canopy retention areas used to protect sensitive plant populations leave small forest habitat patches, or fragments. These fragments are often surrounded by, or border on, forest openings created by clearcuts, selection, and other types of silvicultural prescriptions, as well as by roads, landings, and other facilities needed when harvesting timber. Establishing a buffer as mitigation to minimize the impacts of a project creates a habitat fragment that is influenced by the activities and actions conducted adjacent to the fragment (Davies et al. 2001). The physical changes occurring outside the fragment affect the resident species. Fragments create new edges between forest and open habitat. Edges reduce the effective area of remnant patches (Kapos 1989; Saunders et al. 1991; Meffe and Carroll 1994). Numerous studies on edge effects and fragmentation, including many clarifying the effects of forest harvesting on adjacent stands, have consistently documented significant indirect biotic and abiotic impacts on remnant habitats. These include: • Changes in microclimate, including relative humidity, solar radiation, soil temperature, air temperature, and average high and low temperatures, wind velocity and other metrics, in forest fragments adjacent to forest openings have been documented. For example, edge effects were documented to extend from 50 feet to greater than 820 feet into remnant patches depending on microclimate and habitat type (Kapos 1989; Chen et al. 1993a; Matlack 1993; Young and Mitchell 1994; Chen 1995; Murcia 1995; Brosofske 1997; Renhorn et al. 1997; Doug 1998; Chen et al. 1999; Jules 1999; Gehlhausen et al. 2000; Zheng 2000; Silbernagel 2001; Davies et al. 2004; Concilio 2005; and others) • Changes in vegetation structure adjacent to forest openings, including changes in species density, growth rate, volume, above- and below- ground biomass, and vegetation height have been documented by Williams-Linera 1990; Chen et al. 1992; Brothers 1993; Fraver 1994; Malcolm 1994; Young and Mitchell 1994; Lovejoy et al. 1996; Laurance et al. 1998; Stinton et al. 2000; Franklin et al. 2004; Harper et al. 2005; and others. • Changes in vegetation composition in adjoining remnant patches, including species composition, species richness, and plant community have been documented in Harris 1984; Schonewald-Cox and Bayless 1986; Dzwenko and Loster 1989; Laurance and Yensen 1991; Duffy and Meier 1992; Tyser and Worley 1992; Aizen and Feinsinger 1994; Gilliam et al. 1995; Meier et al.1995; Sillett 1995; Frost 1997; Rambo and Muir 4 1998; Jules et al. 1999; Russell et al. 2000; Thysell and Carey 2000; Davies et al. 2001; Euskirchen et al. 2001; Harper and Macdonald 2001; Jalonen and Vanha-Majamaa 2001; Rees and Juday 2002; Russell and Jones 2002; Benito-Malvido and Martinez-Ramos 2003; Moen and Jonsson 2003; Watkins et al. 2003; Harper et al. 2005; Halpern et al. 2005; Nelson et al. 2005a; Nelson et al. 2005b; and others. • Changes to plant life history and plant/animal interactions in forest fragments, including survival, growth, development, reproduction, pollination, seed set and dispersal are documented in Jennersten 1988; Aizen and Feinsinger 1994; Fahrig and Merriam 1994; Meier et al.1995; Buchmann and Nabhan 1996; Ozanne et al. 1997; Jules 1998; Intachat 1999; Jules and Rathcke 1999; Ozanne et al. 2000; Tallmon et al. 2003; Nelson and Halpern 2005a; and others. Buffer and mitigation design Management of sensitive plants is challenging because the effects of habitat modification through edge effects are landscape specific (Davies et al. 2001). Landscape alterations such as changes in average stand age and composition, soil structure, chemical and microbial ecology, pollinator communities, microclimate, and fire ecology, as well as the introduction of invasive non-native species are known to adversely affect sensitive plant species and ultimately their persistence on the landscape (Schemske et al. 1994, Halpern and Spies 1995). Application of buffers as a conservation management tool is widespread, but formally applied protocols for determining buffer sizes are not well documented. For example, a minimum buffer of 200 feet was proposed for the San Fernando Valley spineflower to minimize the impacts from the introduced Argentine ant (Conservation Biology Institute 2000). This distance could decrease to 80-100 feet with the application of a suite of additional management measures. The effects of forest management on sensitive plant species can vary depending on many factors. Such factors include: Biological – Species attributes such as life history patterns, growth form, growth rate, reproduction, and dormancy, as well as demography, population structure, competition, pollination ecology, seed dispersal methods, seed bank attributes, the biological attributes of habitat, associated species and species interactions. Physical – Environmental factors such as exposure, slope, aspect, landscape position, canopy cover, habitat physiognomy, temperature, humidity, hydrology, soil types and soil characteristics, large woody material, and disturbance regime. 5 Methods used to determine buffer design vary from standard species-specific protection measures to the use of “precise conservation” (Berry et al. 2003), employing specific spatial information and procedures to a specific occurrence site (Dosskey et al. 2005). Investigators working in different forest ecosystems have found small patches (2-9 hectares) of intact forest may retain interior-forest vegetation characteristics (Ranney 1977, Levenson 1981, Kapos 1989, Matlack 1994). Nelson and Halpern (2005a) found forest patches of at least 1 hectare in size may play an important role in protecting sensitive late-seral plant species. Thorell and Gotmark (2005) found buffer zones of 200 meters increased conservation values of reserves. Ames (2002) created buffers for rare plants within timber harvesting areas in Manitoba. Retention areas varied from 1 to 80 hectares with mortality of rare species recorded at the edges of buffers. The size of the buffer zone retained around rare plant populations that rely exclusively on insect pollination depends on the distance the pollinator will travel to obtain their resources (Tepedino 2006). Buffer widths of 50 feet can be effective in reducing pesticide runoff by 50 percent (USDA 2000). Few studies have assessed the impacts of management on abundance, biology, and ecology of sensitive plants in California forests and few data exist on the autoecology and long-term regional trends for the majority of sensitive species occurring in California forests, whether in managed timberlands or old growth stands (Golec et al. in press). National Forests in California emphasize maintaining habitat elements for two species of lady’s slipper orchid (Kaye and Cramer 2005), including maintaining sufficient cover and decayed down logs, snags, and duff layer, avoiding activities that alter, remove, or compact the soil, duff, or organic matter in the habitat area, and: “...managing sites to include entire populations plus an area large enough to maintain current habitat and associated microclimate, primarily temperature and moisture. The size should be determined by a field visit and should consider factors such as canopy cover, slope, aspect, topographic position, vegetation structure (such as growth form, stratification, and coverage), and species composition. Because individual plants do not appear above ground every year, it is important to buffer species locations in order to capture dormant plants.” 6 Specific management consideration for Bensoniella oregana within National Forests in California and Oregon (USDA 2005) include: “...establish an area large enough to maintain the habitat and associated microclimate of the population; this includes undisturbed forest structure, cool, moist shaded conditions, and undisturbed soil litter layer.” A Forest Service conservation assessment (USDA 2006) for the liverwort Ptilidium californicum recommends: “In situations in which the proposed stand management would result in a sharp edge between the no disturbance buffer and the managed unit, it may be advisable to provide a feathered buffer in a circular shape around the occupied substratum to reduce the effect of edge. In general maintaining structural components (e.g., multi-storied stand, legacy or refugia old-growth trees) to regulate heat, light and moisture conditions and to provide linkages between old and younger stands may reduce risks to P. californicum.” Plumas National Forest applies buffer distances for sensitive plants that range from at least one chain (66 feet) up to 150 feet depending upon the species and type of activity (Hansen 2006). For example a timber harvesting activity with tractor equipment would warrant a150-foot buffer versus a 66-foot buffer for an activity such as hand thinning of shrubs before a prescribed burn. Conclusions Edge effect and fragmentation impacts in forest habitats are incontrovertible, and it is clearly reasonably foreseeable that forest management and timber harvest activities can adversely affect adjacent sensitive plant populations. The results of many studies demonstrate the direct and indirect impacts that timber harvesting activities have on adjacent forest stands and the necessity for canopy retention and equipment exclusion buffers around sensitive plant populations. Sensitive plant populations on small fragments are at risk not only because their populations are inherently smaller and may become smaller with direct impacts, but because they are subjected to significant habitat modification (Davies et al. 2001). Habitat modification within a fragment can be influenced or moderated by reducing edge permeability and increasing the size of a buffer (Kelly and Rotenberry 1993). Changing the permeability of a buffer, through habitat management, and altering the types of activities permitted within the buffer zone is a potential method for mitigating identified impacts. The function of a buffer is to mitigate direct and indirect impacts of management activities. The application of buffers as a conservation management tool is dependent on the specific sensitive plant species and its biology, occurrence and site specific characteristics, and the type, size, frequency and intensity of impacts. The Department 7 of Fish and Game timberland planning program has determined that an interim 50-foot buffer on newly discovered sensitive plant occurrences in harvest plans is a prudent and reasonable measure until site-specific protection measures are developed by qualified personnel. The Department recognizes some sensitive plant occurrences may be impacted under this level of protection, but most occurrences will likely be adequately protected. In working with most industrial and non-industrial timberland owners in California, the Department has found that such a buffer minimizes operational constraints on the landowner until site-specific consultation is completed. Literature Cited Aizen, M.A., and P. Feinsinger. 1994. Forest fragmentation, pollination, and plant reproduction in a Chaco dry forest, Argentina. Ecology 75:330–351. Ames, D. 2002. Survey of timber sales in southeastern Manitoba for potential habitat of rare native plant species. Native Orchid Conservation Inc., Winnipeg, Canada. Available at: http://www.nativeorchid.org/dorisSE01report.htm Benito-Malvido, J. and M. Martinez-Ramos. 2003. Impact of forest fragmentation on understory plant species richness in Amazonia. Conservation Biology 17(2):389-400. BerryJ. K., J. A. Delgado, R. Khosla, and F. J. Pierce. 2003. Precision conservation for environmental sustainability. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 58(6):332-339. Brosofske, K.D., J. Chen, R.J. Naiman, and J.F. Franklin. 1997. Harvesting effects on microclimatic gradients from streams to uplands in Western Washington, USA. Ecological Applications 7(4):1188-1200. Brothers, T. S. 1993. Fragmentation and edge effects in central Indiana old-growth forests. Natural Areas Journal 13:268-274. Buchmann, S. L. and G. P. Nabhan. 1996. The Forgotten Pollinators. Washington D.C.: Island Press. CDF. 2006. California Forest Practice Rules. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Resource Management, Forest Practice Program. CEQA. 2006. California Environmental Quality Act Statutes and Guidelines. State of California, Governors’ Office of Planning and Research. Chen, J., J. F. Franklin, and T. A. Spies. 1992. Vegetation responses to edge environments in old-growth Douglas-fir forests. Ecological Applications 2(4):387-396 8 Chen, J., J. F. Franklin, and T. A. Spies. 1993a. Contrasting microclimatic patterns among clearcut, edge, and interior area of old-growth Douglas-fir forest. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 63(3/4):219-237 Chen, J., J. F. Franklin, and T. A. Spies. 1993b. An empirical model for predicting diurnal air-temperature gradients from clearcut-forest edge into old-growth Douglas-fir forest. Ecological Modeling 67:179-198 Chen, J., J. F. Franklin, and T. A. Spies. 1995. Growing season microclimatic gradients from clearcut edges into old-growth Douglas-fir forests from clearcut edges. Ecological Applications 5(1):74-86. Chen, J. S.D. Saunders, T. Crow, K.D. Brosofske, G. Mroz, R. Naiman, B. Brookshire, and J. Franklin. 1999. Microclimatic in forest ecosystems and landscapes. Bioscience 49(4):288-297. Concilio, A., S. Ma, Q. Li, J. LeMoine, J. Chen, M. North, D. Moorhead, and R. Jensen. 2005. Soil respiration response to experimental disturbance in mixed conifer and hardwood forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 35:1581-1591 Conservation Biology Institute. 2000. Review of potential edge effects on the San Fernando Valley Spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina). Prepared for Ahmanson Land Company, West Covina, CA and Beveridge and Diamond, LLP, San Francisco, CA. Davies, K. F., C. Gascon, and C. R. Margules. 2001. Habitat fragmentation: consequences, management, and future research priorities. In: Conservation Biology: Research Priorities for the Next Decade. M. E. Soule and G. H. Orians, editors. Island Press. Dong, J., J. Chen, K.D. Brosofske, and R. J. Naiman. 1998. Modeling air temperature gradients across managed small streams in Western Washington. Journal of Environmental Management 53(4):309-321. Dosskey, M. G., D. E. Eisenhauer, and M. J. Helmers. 2005. Establishing conservation buffers using precision information. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 60(6):349-354. Duffy, D. C. and A. J. Meier. 1992. Do Appalachian herbaceous understories ever recover from clearcutting? Conservation Biology 6(2):196-201. Dzwonko, Z., and S. Loster. 1989. Distribution of vascular plant species in small woodlands on the western Carpathian foothills. Oikos 56:77--86. 9 Euskirchen, E.S, J. Chen, and R. Bi. 2001. Effects of edges on plant communities in a managed landscape in northern Wisconsin. Forest Ecology and Management 148:93- 108. Farig L. and G. Merriam. 1994. Conservation of fragmented populations. Conservation Biology 8(1):50-59. Franklin, J.F., T.A. Spies, R. Van Pelt, A. B. Carey, D.A. Thornburgh, D. R. Berg, D. B. Lindenmayer, M. E. Harmon, W. S. Keeton, D.C. Shaw, K. Bible, and J. Chen. 2002. Disturbances and structural development of natural forest ecosystems with silvicultural implications, using Douglas-fir forests as an example. Forest Ecology and Management 155:399-423. Fraver, S. 1994. Vegetation responses along edge-to-interior gradients in the mixed hardwood forests of the Roanoke River basin, North Carolina. Conservation Biology 8:822-832. Frost, E. J. 1997. Edge effects in old-growth forests of the Klamath Mountains: evidence from the understory flora. In: Proceedings of the First Conference on Siskiyou Ecology. J.K. Beigel, E. S. Jules, and B. Snitkin, editors. The Siskiyou Regional Education Project, Cave Junction, Oregon. Gehlhausen, S.M., M.W. Schwartz, and C.K. Augspurger. 2000. Vegetation and microclimate edge effects in two mixed-mesophytic forest fragments. Plant Ecology 147:21-35. Gilliam F. S., N.L. Turrill, and M.B. Adams. 1995. Herbaceous-layer and overstory species in clear-cut and mature central Appalachian hardwood forests. Ecological Applications 5(4):947-955. Given, D. R. 1994. Principles and Practices of Plant Conservation. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon. Golec, C., T. LaBanca, and G. Leppig. In Press. The conservation of sensitive plants on private redwood timberlands in northern California. In: Proceedings of the Redwood Science Symposium: What does the future hold? March 15-17, 2004, Rohnert Park, California. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-194. Halpern, C.B. and Spies. T.A. 1995. Plant species diversity in natural and managed forests of the Pacific Northwest. Ecological Applications 5(4):913-934. Halpern, C. B., D. McKenzie, S. A. Evans, and D. A. Maguire. 2005. Initial responses of forest understories to varying levels and patterns of green-tree retention. Ecological Applications: Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 175–195. 10 Hansen, L. 2006. Personal communication. Botanist, Lassen National Forest, United States Department of Agriculture. August, 2006 Harper, K.A. and S.E. MacDonald. 2001. Structure and composition of riparian boreal forest: new methods for analyzing edge influence. Ecology 82(3):649-659. Harper, K.A., S.E. MacDonald, P.J. Burton, J. Chen, K.D. Brosofske, S.C. Saunders, E.S. Euskirchen, D. Roberts, M.S. Jaiteth, and P. A. Esseen. 2005. Edge influence on forest structure and composition in fragmented landscapes. Conservation Biology 19(3):768-782. Harris, L. D. 1984. The Fragmented Forest. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 211 pp. Huennecke, L. A. 1991. Ecological implications of genetic variation in plant populations. In: Genetics and Conservation of Rare Plants. D. A. Falk and K. E. Holsinger editors. Oxford University Press, New York. Intachat J., J. D. Holloway, and M. R. Speight. 1999. The impact of logging on geometroid moth populations and their diversity in lowland forests of Peninsular Malaysia. Journal of Tropical Forest Science 11(1):61-78. Jalonen, J. and I. Vanha-Majamaa. 2001. Immediate effects of four different felling methods on mature boreal spruce forest understory vegetation in southern Finland. Forest Ecology and Management 146:25-34. Jennersten, O. 1988. Pollination in Dianthus deltoides (Caryophyllaceae): effects of habitat fragmentation on visitation and seed set. Conservation Biology 2:359–366. Jules E. S. 1998. Habitat fragmentation and demographic change for a common plant:Trillium in old-growth forest. Ecology 79:1645-1656. Jules, E.S. and B.J. Rathcke. 1999. Mechanisms of reduced trillium recruitment along edges of old-growth forest fragments. Conservation Biology 13:784-793. Jules, E. S., E. J. Frost, L. S. Mills, and D. A. Tallmon. 1999. Ecological consequences of forest fragmentation in the Klamath Region. Natural Areas Journal 19:368-378. Kapos, V. 1989. Effects of isolation on the water status of forest patches in the Brazilian Amazon. Journal of Tropical Ecology 5:173-185. Kaufman, M.R., C.M. Regan, and P.M. Brown. 2000. Heterogeneneity in ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forests: age and size structure in unlogged and logged landscapes of central Colorado, Canadian Journal of Forest Research 30:698-711. 11 Kaye, T. N. 1999. Effects of timber harvest on Cimicifuga elata, a rare plant of western forests. Northwest Science 73 (3):159-167. Kaye, T. N. and J. R. Cramer. 2005. Conservation assessment for Cyprepedium fasciculatum and C. montanum. USDA, Forest Service, Region 5, Pacific Southwest Regional Office, Vallejo, CA. Kelly, P. A. and J. T. Rotenberry. 1993. Buffer zones for ecological reserves in California: Replacing guesswork with science. In: Interface between ecology and land development in California. J. E. Keeley, editor. Southern California Academy of Sciences, Los Angeles, CA. Pages 85-92. Laurance, W.F. and E. Yensen. 1991. Predicting the impacts of edge effects in fragmented habitats. Biological Conservation 55:77–92. Laurance, W. F., L. V. Ferreira, J. M. Rankin-De Merona, S. G. Laurance, R. W. Hutchings, and T. E. Lovejoy. 1998. Effects of forest fragmentation on recruitment patterns in Amazonian tree communities. Conservation Biology 12:460–464. Levenson, J. B. 1981. Woodlots as biogeographic islands in southern Wisconsin. Pages 13-39 in: R. L. Burgess, D. M. Sharpe, and M. C. Brunner, editors. Forest island dynamics in man-dominated landscapes. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA. Lovejoy, T. E., R. O. Bierregaard, Jr., A. B. Rylands, J. R. Malcolm, C. E. Quintela, L. H. Harper, K. S. Brown, Jr., A. H. Powell, G. V. N. Powell, H. O. R. Schubart, and M. Hays. 1986. Edge and other effects of isolation on Amazon forest fragments. In Conservation Biology. M. Soulé, editors. Pages 257-285. Sinauer Associates, Inc, Sunderland, MA. Malcolm, J. R. 1994. Edge effects in Central Amazonian forest fragments. Ecology 75:2438–2445. Matlack, G.R. 1993. Microenvironmental variation within and among forest edge sites in the eastern United States. Biological Conservation 66:185-194. Matlack, G.R. 1994. Vegetation dynamics of the forest edge – trends in space and successional time. Journal of Ecology 82:113-123. Meffe, G.K. and C.R. Carroll. 1994. Principles of Conservation Biology. Sinauer Associates, Inc. Sunderland, MA. Meier, A. J., S. P. Bratton, and D. C. Duffy. 1995. Possible ecological mechanisms for loss of vernal-herb diversity in logged eastern deciduous forests. Ecological Applications 5(4):935-946. 12 Murcia, C. 1995. Edge effects in fragmented forests: implications for conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10:58-62. Nelson, C. R., and C. B. Halpern. 2005a. Edge-related responses of understory species to aggregated retention harvest in the Pacific Northwest. Ecological Applications 15:196-209. Nelson, C. R. and C. B. Halpern. 2005b. Short-term responses of vascular plants and bryophytes in forest patches retained during structural retention harvests. Pages 366- 368 in C. E. Peterson and D. A. Maguire, editors. Balancing ecosystem values: innovative experiments for sustainable forestry. Proceedings of a conference. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-635. Noss, R. F. and A. Y. Cooperrider. 1994. Saving Natures' Legacy: Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity, Island Press, Washington, DC and Covelo, CA. Ozanne, C. M. P., A. Foggo, C. Hambler and M. R. Speight. 1997. The significance of edge-effects in the management of forests for invertebrate biodiversity, In Stork, N., J. Adis and R. Didham, eds. Canopy Arthropods, London: Chapman and Hall, 534-550 Ozanne, C. M. P., M. R. Speight, C. Hambler, and H. F. Evans. 2000. Isolated Trees and Forest Patches: Patterns in Canopy Arthropod Abundance and Diversity in Pinus sylvestris (Scots Pine). Forest Ecology and Management 137 (1-3):53-63. Rambo, T. R., and P. S. Muir. 1998. Forest floor bryophytes of Psuedotsuga menziesii-Tsuga heterophylla stands in Oregon: influence of substrate and overstory. The Bryologist 101(1):116-130. Ranney, J. W. 1977. Forest island edges – their structure, development, and importance to regional forest ecosystem dynamics. Environmental Sciences Division 1069, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA. Rees, D.C. and G.P. Juday. 2002. Plant species diversity on logged versus burned sites in central Alaska. Forest Ecology and Management 155:291-302. Renhorn, K.E., P. A. Esseen, K. Palmquist, and B. Sundberg. 1997. Growth and vitality of epiphytic lichens I. Responses to microclimate along a forest edge interior gradient. Oecologia 109:1-9. Reznaik, A. A. 1987. Are small reserves worthwhile for plants? Endangered Species Update 5(2):1-3 Russell, W. H., J. R. McBride, K. Carnell. 2000. Edge effects and the effective size of old-growth coast redwood preserves. In: Wilderness science in a time of change conference—Volume 3: Wilderness as a place for scientific inquiry. Stephen F. McCool, David N Cole, William T. Borrie, Jennifer O’Loughlin, editors. Pages 128-136. 13 Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-3. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Russell, W. H. and C. Jones. 2002. The effects of timber harvesting on the structure and composition of adjacent old-growth coast redwood forest. Landscape Ecology 16:731-741. Saunders, D. A., R. J. Hobbs, and C. R. Margules. 1991. Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conservation Biology 5:18-32. Schaal, B. A., W. J. Leverich, and S. H. Rogstad. 1991. Comparison of methods for assessing genetic variation in plant conservation biology. In:Genetics and Conservation of Rare Plants. D. A. Falk and K. E. Holsinger editors. Oxford University Press, New York. Schemske, D.W., B. C. Husband, M. H. Ruchelshaus, C. Goodwillie, I. M. Parker, and J. G. Bishop. 1994. Evaluating approaches to the conservation of rare and endangered plants. Ecology 75:584-606. Schonewald-Cox, C. and J. W. Bayless. 1986. The Boundary Model: A geographic analysis of design and conservation of nature reserves. Biological Conservation 38(4):305-322. Sholars, T. and C. Golec. In Press. Rare plants of the redwood forest and forest management effects. In: Proceedings of the Redwood Science Symposium: What does the future hold? March 15-17, 2004, Rohnert Park, California. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-194. Silbernagel, J., J. Chen, and B. Song. 2001. Winter temperature changes across an old-growth Douglas-fir forest edge. Acta Ecologica Sinica 21(9):1403-1412. Sillett, S. C. 1995. Branch epiphyte assemblages in the forest interior and on the clearcut edge of a 700-year-old Douglas-fir canopy in western Oregon. The Bryologist 98(3):301-312. Tallmon, D. A., E. S. Jules, N. J. Radke, and L. S. Mills. 2003. Of Mice and Men and Trillium: Cascading Effects of Forest Fragmentation. Ecological Applications. 13(5):1193-1203 Tepedino, V. J. 2006. The reproductive biology of rare rangeland plants and their vulnerability to insecticides. In: Grasshoppers: Their Biology, Identification, and Management. Available at: http://www.sidney.ars.usda.gov/grasshopper/Handbook/III/iii_5.htm 14 Thorell, M. and F. Gotmark. 2005. Reinforcement capacity of potential buffer zones: forest structure and conservation values around forest reserves in southern Sweden. Forest Ecology and Management 212(1/3):333-345. Thysell, D. R. and A. C. Carey. 2000. Effects of forest management on understory and overstory vegetation: a retrospective study. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-488. Portland OR, U.S Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 41p. Tyser, R. W. and C. A. Worley. 1992. Alien flora in grasslands along road and trail corridors in Glacier National Park, USA. Conservation Biology 6:253-262. United States Department of Agriculture. 2000. Conservation buffers to reduce pesticide losses. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Water and Climate Center, Available at: ftp://ftp.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/downloads/pestmgt/newconbuf.pdf United States Department of Agriculture. 2005. Conservation assessment for Bensoniella oregana (Abrams & Bacigal.) C. Morton. USDA, Forest Service, Region 6 and USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington. United States Department of Agriculture. 2006. Conservation assessment for Ptilidium californicum (Aust.) Underw. USDA, Forest Service, California Region. Watkins Z., J. Chen, J. Pickens, and K. Brosofske. 2003. Effects of forest roads on understory plants in a managed hardwood landscape. Conservation Biology 17(2):411- 419. Williams-Linera G. 1990. Vegetation structure and environmental conditions of forest edges in Panama. Journal of Ecology 78:356–73. Young A. and N. Mitchell. 1994. Microclimate and vegetation edge effects in a fragmented podocarp-broadleaf forest in New Zealand. Biological Conservation 67:63- 72. Zhang, D., J. Chen, B. Song, M. Xu, P. Sneed, and R. Jensen. 2000. Effects of silvicultural treatments on forest microclimate in Southeastern Missouri Ozarks. Climate Research 15:45-59. | sensitive natural communities, survey, rare plants, mitigation, cumulative impacts, fungal species | N/A | N/A | N/A | https://caltreesplans.resources.ca.gov/Caltrees/customization/ca/caltrees.aspx | 39.36 | -123.66 | |
| 2020_LittleNorthFork_THP | THP 1-20-00006-MEN (“Little North Fork Big River”) | 2020 | N/A | CEQA | THP | N/A | Draft | State | California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection | Mendocino | Dorothy King Young Chapter | Dorothy King Young Chapter | N/A | Timber Harvest Plan | Ongoing | December 31, 2020 Lee Susan, Registered Professional Forester 32290 Rivers End Road Fort Bragg, California 95437 summit@mcn.org Mike Powers, Forest Manager CalFire Jackson State Demonstration Forest 802 North Main Street Fort Bragg, California 95427 Mike.Powers@fire.ca.gov santarosareviewteam@fire.ca.gov Subject: DKY CNPS comments on THP 1-20-00173-MEN (“Little North Fork Big River”) Dear Mr. Susan, Mr. Powers, and Santa Rosa Review Team Chairperson: The Dorothy King Young (DKY) Chapter of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS)1 has reviewed the proposed THP 1-20-00173-MEN, including its consistency with Jackson Demonstration State Forest (JDSF) Management Plan, particularly as it relates to potential impacts to significant native plant communities. As discussed below, due to the unique significance of the proposed harvest area, DKY CNPS recommends that this area be set aside as a no-harvest research tract for ecologically-based Late Seral Forest Characteristic Development studies. Members of our DKY Chapter are quite familiar with these areas of JDSF through various levels of education, research, and collaborative botanical surveys under the direction of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). From 2002 to 2006, board members of the DKY Chapter submitted lengthy comments to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection on the proposed Draft EIRs for the Jackson Demonstration State Forest Management Plan. Our comments on the EIR drafts focused on the need for comprehensive survey and documentation on the flora of JDSF, and the need to adhere to CDFW (formerly California Department of Fish and Game) protocols for conducting and reporting plant survey information, especially for sensitive species and plant communities. The proposed harvest area includes significant older second growth redwood stands. Much of this forest type has been harvested on the north coast; third growth redwood and younger second growth stands dominate timberlands. The remaining older second growth stands occur mostly within northern California redwood parks. Section III of the THP states that the overstory is between 100-120 years old and that the plan area has not been entered for over 90 years. The plan area as it exists now is essentially “roadless”. The THP is proposing over three miles (18,517') of new seasonal roads, as well as the reconstruction of another 7,810' feet of older Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 2 road; 1,770' feet of road will be on slopes over 65%, and 2,284' more on slopes over 50% in what is known to be a Coho salmon and steelhead bearing watershed. The JDSF Management Plan for this area states: Management Adjacent to Mendocino Woodlands The Mendocino Woodlands camps are utilized by a large number of local and regional residents. There has been long-standing concern that management of timber stands within the legislatively established special treatment area (STA) would reduce the recreational value of the park. Due partially to these concerns, only one timber harvest has occurred within the STA during the past planning period. A large portion of the STA has been designated as an area for demonstration of the development of late seral habitat, where timber management will be tightly constrained to maintain pleasing forest views. Recently, a memorandum of understanding between the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and the Department of Parks and Recreation was signed. Many of the provisions of the memorandum are intended to protect the use and values associated with the Mendocino Woodlands camp area. Two limited timber harvests are planned to occur in the STA within the planning period. One is the continuation of a selective harvest demonstration for non-industrial timberland owners, and the second is s thinning demonstration in the upper area of Thomson Gulch designed to eventually produce late seral habitat with a large average tree size. The majority of the Thomson Gulch demonstration will be located outside of the STA. The Department will maintain ongoing communication and cooperation with State Parks to ensure that management of JDSF adjacent to Woodlands State Park and the recently established Big River Unit of Mendocino Headlands State park retains a high level of compatibility with State Park values. The DKY Chapter of CNPS has the following specific comments regarding the proposed THP 1- 20-00173-MEN: 1. Late Seral Forest Characteristic Development should be based on current research that addresses both understory and tree canopy. The RESEARCH element of JDSF forest management should be utilizing current science in late seral forest development by setting aside no-harvest areas, which appropriately fits the Woodlands STA. Section 3 of THP 1-20-00173-MEN states that “The THP area is located within the Woodlands Special Treatment Area. The JDSF Forest Management Plan designates this area for Late Seral Forest Characteristic Development.” The tree height model submitted by CDFW as part of the First Review PHI report (attached) shows that a substantial portion of the THP area is covered by trees that are approximately 200 feet in height. The THP describes the harvest parameters proposed under the JDSF option (a) document, however, nowhere does it discuss current scientific research-based evidence that supports a no-harvest regime for Late Seral Forest Characteristic Development. Current research (Hanover, A. and Russell, W., 20182 , Russell, W. and K. H. Michels, 20103. and Russell, W., 20094 ) has shown that THP stand re-entry for thinning (or "restoration" to enhance and accelerate mature redwood tree characteristics) can depress forb and fern diversity relative to self- Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 3 restored (no harvest) redwood forest areas. The no-harvest Woodlands STA could serve as an internal forest floor herb "refuge system" to conserve a selection of the most diverse and abundant stands of ground layer herbs, for seed dispersal and colonization of disturbed harvested areas. In other words, rare or not, we should be conserving stands of maximum forest floor herb diversity to support recolonization. This is based on Dr. Will Russell's research and our own observations showing that the slowest-growing and episodically reproductive mycotrophic forbs (of the genera Allotropa, Cephalanthera, Chimaphila, Corralorhiza, Goodyera, Piperia, Pyrola, Calypso, Pityopus, Pleuricospora, Kopsiopsis, Listera, Corallorhiza, Platanthera, etc.) are most frequently identified with older undisturbed forest stands. Mycotrophic forbs are herbaceous plants that form mycorrhizae and obtain nutrient substances from the soil by means of the fungi that inhabit their roots. The no-harvest STA would also serve to promote the conservation of fungal diversity. Late seral forest habitat is comprised of an interacting assemblage of all species in the forest, including understory and mycorrhizae, and not simply defined by the size of individual overstory trees. Extensive ground and understory disturbance, as is described in this THP, especially with over 4 miles of proposed road development, is incompatible with Late Seral Forest Characteristic Development. 2. The alternatives analysis should include a proposal for setting aside the Woodlands STA as a no-harvest research and education area. Under the alternatives analysis section of the THP, #3. Alternative Land Uses, we disagree with the last statement “providing for research opportunities and education in forest management would not be met”, which essentially claims that without harvest, research cannot be conducted and there can be no education on forest management. Setting aside a no- harvest “control” area to compare to other harvest operations that have been conducted throughout JDSF is critical to the development of scientifically valid research that can provide valuable education material for future forest management, particularly for Late Seral Forest Characteristic Development. 3. Botanical and wetland surveys and reports must be completed prior to completion of the THP and circulated as part of the THP public review process. The THP, which is supposed to be functionally equivalent to a CEQA document, fails to disclose and address pertinent environmental information regarding botanical and wetland resources. The THP proposes botanical surveys only after approval, which prevents the identification of potentially sensitive areas for alternative management considerations, and the development of meaningful avoidance and mitigations measures (e.g. no-harvest research areas) during the public and agency review process. For surveys to be valid, they must follow the current Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (State of California Natural Resources Agency, March 20, 2018, and the CDFW-CNPS Protocol for the Combined Vegetation Rapid Assessment and Relevé Field Form, June 5, 2019, with updated guidance available on-line). The current protocols also require sensitive vegetation types, not just rare plants, to be surveyed and reported to the Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 4 California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Areas proposed for harvest within the THP are within or adjacent to vegetation types listed as sensitive natural communities by CDFW (https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural- Communities/Background#sensitive%20natural%20communities), including Grand fir forest association (G4 S2 and potentially rarer alliances with G2 S1 and G1 S1 rankings), Tan oak--madrone, Tan oak--chinquapin (G3 S3), and Redwood forest and woodland (G3 S3). Within these and even the more common vegetation types, numerous rare plant species also have the potential to occur, including, but not limited to Campanula californica and Erythronium revolutum. Human disturbance regimes, e.g., timber harvest operations, do not have the same effect on rare plant species as does naturally occurring disturbance. The botanical report for the THP should reference the 2007 published report by Teresa Sholars and Clare Golec which examined THP effects on ten rare redwood forest understory species (https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr194/psw_gtr194_26.pdf). The THP does not disclose the distribution of wetlands (including seasonal wetlands meeting federal Clean Water Act (EPA-USACE) wetland determination criteria, not limited to "wet areas" defined by Forest Practice Rules) in the THP area. The THP does not assess any potential impacts or mitigation measures to protect sensitive wetland habitats or vegetation from timber harvest disturbances such as tractor operation, log skidding, temporary skid road construction, obstruction of surface drainage patterns, increased drainage of wetland depressions, soil compaction, soil and duff layer disturbance, or filling of wetlands (regardless of whether fills are exempt from federal wetland/Section 404 CWA regulation, they may still cause significant adverse impacts to state wetlands). The THP should provide a field-based distribution map of potential wetland areas (indicated by prevalence of OBL (obligate) or FACW (facultative wetland) plants and wet-season hydrology indicators) and an account of potential impacts and mitigation measures, including but not limited to wetland buffers. OBL or FACW species that occur with high frequency as indicators of priority herb layer refugia include: Adiantum aleuticum, Woodwardia fimbriata, Rhododendron (Ledum) glandulosum, Hypericum anagalloides, Lathyrus palustris, and Lysichiton americanus. 4. The THP needs to include a discussion regarding consistency with the JDSF Management Plan and approved EIR sections that pertain to sensitive plants and vegetation types, and to the limited acreage of remaining old growth and second growth forests. The proposed THP does not provide adequate information regarding consistency with the approved EIR for the JDSF Management Plan. Section 3 of THP 1- 20-00173-MEN describes the purpose of the proposed timber harvest plan and cites several sections of the Public Resources Code that only discuss the management of state forests in a general sense, however it does not mention the Management Plan. On February 7, 2007, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection submitted a summary report to the Board of Forestry entitled: “Potential Harvest Limitations to be Applied during Initial Implementation of the Proposed Jackson Demonstration Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 5 State Forest Management Plan.” This report, which is part of the public record and is attached, was in response to the BOF’s direction to CDF (now CalFire) staff to develop harvest limitation overlays based on the results of input from the Mendocino citizen’s advisory group for JDSF. Section 3 of THP 1-20-0173-MEN also does not discuss potential harvest limitations based on these BOF directions. Please do not hesitate to contact us (conservation@dkycnps.org) if you have questions regarding our comments. Respectfully, Renée Pasquinelli Renée Pasquinelli, Conservation Co-Chair (North) Dr. Peter Baye, Conservation Co-chair (South) Teresa Sholars Teresa Sholars, Rare Plant Coordinator and Vegetation Chair Dorothy King Young Chapter, California Native Plant Society1 1The mission of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) is to protect California’s native plant heritage and preserve it for future generations through application of science, research, education, and conservation. CNPS works closely with decision-makers, scientists, and local planners to advocate for well-informed policies, regulations, and land management practices. A formal cooperative agreement between CNPS and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is the backbone of California’s rare plant and vegetation status review programs. The data compiled and shared by both organizations are used throughout the environmental review process. The Dorothy King Young (DKY) Chapter of CNPS focuses on protecting and providing education about the native plants and natural communities within coastal Mendocino County and we often work directly with local and Sacramento-based CDFW science staff. 2Hanover, A. and Russell, W., 2018. Understory Recovery in Coast Redwood Communities: A Case Study Comparing a Naturally Recovering and an Actively Managed Forest. Open Journal of Forestry, 8(04), p.489. https://www.scirp.org/html/4-1620526_87535.htm 3Russell, W. and K. H. Michels. 2010. Stand development on a 127-year chronosequence of naturally regenerating Sequoia sempervirens (Taxodiaceae) forests. Madroño 57:229-241. Dorothy King Young Chapter P. O. Box 577, Gualala, California 95445 6 4Russell, W., 2009. The influence of timber harvest on the structure and composition of riparian forests in the Coastal Redwood region. Forest Ecology and Management, 257(5), pp.1427-1433. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Will_Russell2/publication/223424288_The_influence_of_timber_ harvest_on_the_structure_and_composition_of_riparian_forests_in_the_Coastal_Redwood_region/link s/5ab477f7a6fdcc1bc0c40275/The-influence-of-timber-harvest-on-the-structure-and-composition-of- riparian-forests-in-the-Coastal-Redwood-region.pdf cc: Jon Hendrix, Sr. Environmental Scientist, CDFW (Jon.Hendrix@wildlife.ca.gov) Adam Hutchins, Environmental Scientist, CDFW (Adam.Hutchins@wildlife.ca.gov) Tree Height Model Tree Height in 25-feet intervals up to 270-feet Value ≤ 0 ≤ 25 ≤ 50 ≤ 75 ≤ 100 ≤ 125 ≤ 150 ≤ 175 ≤ 200 ≤ 225 ≤ 250 ≤ 270 Potential Harvest Limitations to be Applied during Initial Implementation of the Proposed Jackson Demonstration State Forest Management Plan Department of Forestry and Fire Protection February 7, 2007 Introduction In late 2006 and early 2007, a group of six Mendocino County-based members of the public provided the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection and the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection new input on the revised Draft Management Plan for Jackson Demonstration State Forest (JDSF). As part of this input, the group requested that further limitations be placed on the types of harvesting activities that may be conducted during the initial implementation of timber harvesting plans (THPs) in order to not foreclose certain future management opportunities (e.g., development of older forest characteristics, provision of certain recreation qualities). Some members of the group also suggested that a set of cautionary overlays be prepared to guide harvesting during this period. The Mendocino group additionally suggested that, during this initial plan implementation period, advisory entities should further review (and as they deem appropriate, recommend further changes to) the specific spatial and nonspatial forest structure goals, conservation biology approaches, silvicultural systems, and other elements of the Forest Management Plan. As a result of the input from the Mendocino group, the Board’s JDSF Subcommittee asked Department staff to develop a set of overlays and harvesting restrictions, potentially to be applied during initial Plan implementation. This document and its attachments represent the staff response to the Subcommittee’s request. Overlays The overlays were not a part of the Mendocino group’s initial written comments to the Board and the Department (three documents plus a group cover letter dated November 30, 2006, attached). Two members of the group provided specific input on the overlays. Group member Vince Taylor (Campaign to Restore Jackson State Redwood Forest) provided oral, map-based, and written descriptions (see attached letter of January 11, 2007 and overlay maps) of overlays covering five areas of concern: 1. High Value Older Forest 2. High Value for Fish and Wildlife 3. High Value Recreation Areas 4. High Value for Restoration R&D 5. High Value for Botanicals. Potential Harvest Limitations During Initial Plan Implementation 02/07/07 Page 1 Group member Kathy Bailey (Sierra Club) pointed toward the spatial representation of Alternative F included in the Draft Environmental Impact Report as providing a potential overlay that would address multiple areas of concern, including older forest, recreation, watercourse protection, fish and wildlife habitat (see attached January 12, 2007 memo from Kathy Bailey and Map Figure AA from the December 2005 Draft Environmental Impact Report, attached). There is substantial overlap among the overlay values of concern identified by the Mendocino group members (e.g., older forest and wildlife habitat or older forest and recreation). Some of the identified overlay concerns have been addressed by existing mapped areas in the Draft Forest Management Plan (DFMP) or December 2005 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) (e.g., pygmy forest). The older forest seemed to be the most fundamental potential overlay. Older Forest The older forest concern is related to areas that are already in older forest or that have a strong potential, due to harvesting history and current stand structure, to be “recruited” into older forest structure through passive growth or though management actions designed to hasten development of older forest structure (e.g., selection harvesting to increase the rate of growth on the remaining trees). Existing old growth stands are already well mapped. To identify areas with high potential for recruitment to older forest condition, we used the Forest’s geographic information system, spatial information about harvesting history, and forest inventory plot data. Based on general knowledge of forest condition at JDSF and approaches taken by others regarding standards for older forest conditions, we focused on the number of trees per acre greater than 30 inches in diameter as a metric for older forest recruitment potential. See the attached map figure. We also looked at trees per acre greater than 40 inches as a potential metric. However, given the larger size threshold and lower numbers of trees in this size category, this appeared to be a less promising metric.1 This table summarizes the acreage by TPA class: Trees/Acre >30” Acres Trees/Acre >30” Acres 1-2 2,240 8-10 1,150 2-3 8,827 10-12 2,647 3-4 5,133 12-15 20,221 4-6 2,537 15-20 3,388 6-8 468 20+ 1,833 1 It should be noted that “older forest condition” is not just a matter of the number of larger trees. Other important factors are presence of large, decadent standing trees, snags, down woody debris, trees with large “platform” limbs; presence of mosses, lichens, and other lower plant forms on tree limbs and in the forest canopy; multiple forest canopy layers; species composition; and other factors. Potential Harvest Limitations During Initial Plan Implementation 02/07/07 Page 2 Examining the map of trees per acre (TPA) greater than 30 inches, it became clear that there was a break point in the data distribution at 10 TPA and above (the purple color shades). A total of 28,089 acres have more than 10 TPA. Of this area, 10,535 acres (or 39 percent) are included within Older Forest Structure Zone, Late Seral Development Areas (including Class I and Class II Watercourse and Lake Protection Zones, marbled murrelet habitat recruitment areas, old growth augmentation areas) or old growth groves. Other approaches in the Pacific Northwest have used 8 TPA greater than 30 inches as a metric for older forest structure. Thus, we believe that in the context of JDSF, a metric of more than 10 TPA greater than 30 inches in diameter provides a useful basis for identifying areas with a high recruitment potential to older forest conditions. A significant portion of area with a substantial number of large trees has been partially harvested within the past 30 years. While the number of large trees in these areas may be somewhat less than in even-aged stands, the larger trees tend to grow faster due to an increase in light and space. These partially harvested stands also exhibit an increase in structural diversity, often having a significant understory component that is missing in even-aged closed canopy stands. The area thus identified as having a high recruitment potential for older forest condition recruitment has a high correlation to the “high value older forest” overlay area designated by Mr. Taylor on a map. The area identified by staff additionally includes a substantial area in the northwestern portion of JDSF. The area identified by staff as having a high recruitment potential for older forest condition recruitment has less correlation with the Recovery Research and Recreation (RRR) area designated by the Sierra Club in Alternative F. The RR&R area has a somewhat higher correlation with the Older Forest Structure Zone Corridor proposed in the revised DFMP. The Sierra Club indicates that the RR&R area has a similar purpose to the DFMP’s Older Forest Structure Zone: The concept behind this R&R Area is to attempt to rebuild some contiguous older forest habitat, linking the existing old growth groves, some of the old second-growth, and including the Camp One area that is already a high recreation use area. Staff believes that the areas designated on the map as having 10 or more TPA greater than 30 inches in diameter, in conjunction with features of the DFMP such as the older Forest Structure Zone, provides an appropriate basis for an overlay to avoid potential foreclosure of older forest recruitment potentials during the initial plan implementation period. Within these areas, the existing and potential older forest values can be protected, where harvesting is conducted, through the use of commercial thinning or uneven-aged prescriptions such as selection and cluster selection. Potential Harvest Limitations During Initial Plan Implementation 02/07/07 Page 3 Recreation Expressed concerns about recreation and timber harvesting are related to harvesting potentially altering an area’s direct value for recreation (e.g., placing a large clearcut in an area that might make an excellent campground) or changing an area’s effect on a recreation experience (e.g., a harvest in an area that a hiking trail goes through). The availability of older forest for recreation facilities and activities has been identified as an area of concern. The older forest overlay, described above, will address this concern, at least in part. Other DFMP measures addressing this concern are the Older Forest Structure Zone, the Woodlands Special Treatment Area, Late Seral Development Areas, the Campground Buffers, and the Road and Trail Corridors. The DFMP also incorporates mitigations from the DEIR to address potential visual impacts to recreation from timber harvesting. Concerns also were expressed about protecting the quality of the recreational experiences of people who live immediately adjacent to the Forest and often take walks and engage in other recreation activities in the Forest. In addition to the above described measures, it should be noted that these areas along the west side of the Forest are designated for unevenaged management. Further, there is a Neighbor Buffer that is applied to areas of the Forest adjacent to nonindustrial forest landowners. While this buffer is meant more to avoid impacts to their homesites, it also provides some recreational value. The Sierra Club has expressed concerns about harvesting in the vicinity of Roads 100 and 200. The area near Road 200 includes the old growth Waterfall Grove. The general area through which these roads pass was first logged between 1940 and 1970. Subsequent partial cutting removed most of the larger residual old growth trees. These stands are now primarily young, having two or more distinct age classes and a fair amount of tanoak. Very little harvesting is proposed adjacent to these two roads in the short-term. The only harvest currently proposed within the Roads 100 and 200 areas is the West Chamberlin harvest, which lies to the west of Road 200. This proposed harvest is a commercial thin/old forest structure development harvest, so it should enhance, rather than impair, the older forest characteristics that the Sierra Club is interested in protecting in this area. Additionally, these roads are located within the WLPZ (which is to be managed for development of late seral forest) for most of their lengths, and portions of them are also protected by Road and Trail Corridors. In addition, portions of Roads 100 and 200 areas are already afforded some protection by the Older Forest Structure Zone, as is the Waterfall Grove and the area around it. The vast majority of the residual old growth trees in the areas of Roads 100 and 200 will be protected by the residual old growth tree protection measures of the DFMP. Based on the above considerations, staff does not believe that an additional map overlay is needed to protect current and potential future recreation values during the initial plan implementation period. Potential Harvest Limitations During Initial Plan Implementation 02/07/07 Page 4 Fish and Wildlife There are a wide range of potential fish and wildlife habitat concerns for JDSF. Key issues are provision of habitat for Threatened and Endangered species (protecting existing habitat and recruiting additional habitat to support recovery) and, in general, increasing the amount of older forest habitat. The proposed older forest overlay, in conjunction with the Older Forest Structure Zone, Late Seral Development Areas (including Class I and Class II Watercourse and Lake Protection Zones, marbled murrelet habitat recruitment areas, old growth augmentation areas), and existing old growth groves provides protections for existing older forest and areas with high older forest recruitment potential. These areas will provide adequate protection to older forest habitat during the initial Plan implementation period without the need for further overlay development. The protection and recruitment of the specific habitat needs of key species is already addressed by the DFMP. Marbled murrelet habitat is addressed via the proposed murrelet habitat development area in the southwest corner of the Forest, in part by the late seral forest development goals of Class I and Class II WLPZs, and by the DEIR’s Additional Management Measure for Contribution to Recovery of Marbled Murrelet Habitat (see DEIR p. VII.6.6-118 to 119). Further, site-specific evaluations for the presence of murrelets and the consideration of potential murrelet habitat protection will be a part of each THP or other significant management activity. The DFMP does not specifically propose murrelet habitat development in the area of Jughandle Creek, as proposed by the Sierra Club. Part of this area is pygmy forest, which does not provide murrelet habitat, but will be protected under the DFMP. Also, the DFMP will protect and recruit potential murrelet habitat in the Class I and Class II WLPZs in this drainage. The proposed Mitchell Creek harvest lies within the upper reaches of these watersheds, and most of the area proposed for harvest has been selectively harvested in the past. As proposed below for harvest during the initial plan implementation period, this harvest will utilize selection and cluster selection. Application of the DEIR’s Additional Management Measure for Contribution to Recovery of Marbled Murrelet Habitat could potentially result in a decision to provide additional murrelet habitat protection to this area. The Sierra Club also suggests that the Thompson Gulch area north of the Woodlands special treatment area be considered for possible management for murrelet habitat. The DFMP includes proposed late seral development management for this area as part of it short-term harvest listing. This harvest will be the initial demonstration of this management method within JDSF, and will only occur following consultation with other fish and wildlife management agencies and the Department of Parks and Recreation. This area also would be under consideration as a part of the Additional Management Measure for Contribution to Recovery of Marbled Murrelet Habitat Potential Harvest Limitations During Initial Plan Implementation 02/07/07 Page 5 Given the extensive protections for the murrelet and murrelet habitat described above, no additional protective overlays are needed during the initial Plan implementation period. Aquatic habitat for listed salmonid species is addressed via the DFMP’s WLPZ protections, Road Management Plan, Hillslope Management approach, and various additional management measures and mitigations developed in the DEIR (e.g., the Additional Management Measure for Large Woody Debris Survey, Recruitment, and Placement). Further, site-specific evaluations for the presence of salmonids and the consideration of potential salmonid habitat protection will be a part of each THP or other significant management activity. Given these extensive protections for salmonids, no additional protective overlays are needed during the initial Plan implementation period. An additional listed species of concern for JDSF is the Northern spotted owl. It should be noted that this species is currently wide-spread within the redwood region. Also, it is important to note that the owl uses a range of habitat types to meet is nesting, roosting, and foraging needs. These habitat types include recent even-aged management units, which provide additional prey base, and other stages of forest development utilized for breeding and cover requirements. Site-specific evaluations for the presence of Northern spotted owl, and protection of owl habitat at activity sites, will be a part of each THP or other significant vegetation disturbing management activity. Given current and projected owl habitat conditions on the Forest, current distribution and utilization of the Forest by this species and need for a range of habitat types, as well as protection procedures followed at the project level, no additional protective overlays are needed during the initial Plan implementation period. The above addresses the key listed species of concern for JDSF. Considerations for various other listed species are thoroughly discussed in the DEIR. For other Threatened and Endangered species that may be present on JDSF, at a minimum, site specific evaluations for species presence and provision of needed protections will be provided. Further, there is no current spatial information on these species that could be used to develop a precautionary overlay. Thus, there is no realistic potential for the development of overlays for these additional species for application during the initial plan implementation period. Botanical Resources Key known botanical resources, such as pygmy forest, cypress groves, and Mushroom Corners are already spatially designated and protected in the DFMP and through additional measures provided in the DEIR. Thus, there is no need to develop and apply overlays for these important resources for application during the initial plan implementation period. Spatial information on the presence of other botanical resources is either very limited or nonexistent. Further, these resources are protected by the DFMP’s requirement for the application of the Department of Fish and Game’s botanical survey protocols for THPs. Potential Harvest Limitations During Initial Plan Implementation 02/07/07 Page 6 The primary objective of management will be to identify both species presence and habitat, and to protect the species and the integrity of the habitat. Thus, development of overlays for these botanical resources is neither feasible nor necessary for application during the initial plan implementation period. Note also that the department also has committed to the development of Forest-wide monitoring protocols for botanical resources during the early period of Plan Implementation. High Value for Restoration R&D Vince Taylor has roughly identified two areas of JDSF as having a high potential for demonstration of forest restoration. While the intended form of this restoration is not entirely clear, these are generally areas of the Forest that have been harvested in the past, including areas with steep slopes that were logged decades ago with ground- based yarding equipment that produced a high level of soil disturbance, excavation, and erosion. It is the intent of the DFMP to reduce erosion and promote stand productivity by managing the roads and slopes to mitigate past damages and restore both growth potential and natural ecological process. A substantial area of the Forest, as explained earlier, will be managed to restore and develop late seral forest conditions. Given these elements of the DFMP, staff does not believe that an overlay for this area of concern is needed during the initial Plan implementation period, Harvesting Restrictions to be Applied during Initial Plan Implementation These restrictions, to be applied to harvesting activity during the initial plan implementation period, are designed, in part, to complement the older forest overlay in particular. By restricting the intensity of timber management during the initial implementation period, and by including checks such as requiring approval of the Demonstration State Forest Advisory Group for evenaged management during this period, these harvest restrictions will help to protect or enhance the older forest, wildlife habitat, recreation, and other values of concern. 1. Utilize selection, group selection, or commercial thinning, except in Tunnel and Upper Parlin THPs (see below). Both of these harvests lie outside of the Sierra Club’s RR&R Area. Tunnel lies outside of the high value older forest area mapped by Vince Taylor. They both fall within the older forest potential layer developed by staff. However, these two harvests represent only 1.1 percent of the staff’s older forest potential overlay. 2. BOF to approve of general harvest location and Rx to be used in short-term as a part of DFMP approval (see revised DFMP Table 3.4). This table, with some reorganization, also is presented below. It should be noted that none of these identified short-term harvests is hard-wired to occur. Harvests in the list may be modified or dropped; other harvest may be added. These changes are a normal part of the adaptive management approach utilized in the DFMP. Potential Harvest Limitations During Initial Plan Implementation 02/07/07 Page 7 3. Harvest the following proposed THPs as indicated below (for which a substantial amount of preparatory work has been completed) and as marked in the field, in consideration of normal operating necessity (e.g., cable corridors, new road right-of- way, landing safety): • North Fork Spur: selection or as marked • West Fork Chamberlain: commercial thinning or as marked • Upper Parlin: Alternative prescription similar to variable retention or clearcut, or as marked (subject to review and approval of the Demonstration State Forest Advisory Group) • Tunnel: Alternative prescription similar to variable retention or clearcut and selection, or as marked (subject to review and approval of the Demonstration State Forest Advisory Group) • Mitchell Creek: selection and cluster selection 4. For uneven-aged harvesting during the initial implementation period: selection • retain minimum of 150 square feet of conifer basal area • comply with other provisions of the Forest Practice Rules for selection harvesting group selection: • limit group opening size to 1.5 acres or less • retain minimum of 150 square feet of conifer basal area within the matrix • retain at least 5 trees per acre >24 inches DBH in group openings commercial thinning: • comply with provisions of Forest Practice Rules 5. For Camp 3 and Brandon Gulch, the two enjoined timber sales subject to a settlement agreement and contracts with timber buyers, restarted operations must be consistent with silvicultural designations per DFMP Figure 6. 6. Initial implementation period harvest limitations will sunset no more than 36 months after approval of the Forest Management Plan by the Board. During this period, the spatial and nonspatial forest structure goals, conservation biology approaches, silvicultural systems, and other elements of the Forest Management Plan will be subject to review via advisory committee processes. This review may lead to the department making changes in these Plan elements. Depending upon the degree of the changes made, approval of the Board may be required. The intent of this process is that any changes made will be within the scope of potential management activities and potential environmental impacts already considered in the CEQA processes for the Forest Management Plan, such that further substantial CEQA analysis will not be required. A table presenting the list of potential short-term harvests to be conducted during the first five to ten years of Plan implementation is provided below. Potential Harvest Limitations During Initial Plan Implementation 02/07/07 Page 8 Potential Harvest Limitations During Initial Plan Implementation 02/07/07 Page 9 Sale Area Name Planned Silviculture Harvest Acres* (approx.) Planning Watershed Planned Harvests with Substantial Preparation Work Completed, Expected Action for Year 1 to 2 Mitchell selection/cluster selection 635 Mitchell Creek Northfork Spur selection/cluster selection 600 Brandon Gulch Parlin commercial thin / alternative prescription with scattered, grouped, and combination scattered and grouped structure retention (during initial implementation period, subject to review and approval of the Demonstration State Forest Advisory Group) 251 Parlin Creek Tunnel alternative prescription similar to seed tree, with structure retention /selection (during initial implementation period, subject to review and approval of the Demonstration State Forest Advisory Group) 54 Hare Creek West Chamberlain commercial thin/old forest structure development 650 Chamberlain Creek Potential Future Harvests Next 1 to 2 Years 14 Gulch North group selection with small, medium, and large groups 400 Berry Gulch Berry Flat commercial thinning/selection/cluster selection/with road and trail buffer 50 Berry Gulch Dunlap North light and moderate commercial thin/selection with road and trail corridor/cluster selection 300 Chamberlain Creek Dunlap South group selection with small, medium, and large groups with and without matrix thinning 350 Chamberlain Creek/ Lower North Fork Big River/Two Log Creek Hare Creek GHIJK selection/cluster selection, clusters with matrix thinning, clusters with no matrix thinning/variable WLPZ demonstration 250 Hare Creek Potential Future Harvests Years 2 to 3 Orchard selection /cluster selection/group selection with small groups, with and without matrix thinning 500 Caspar Creek Park Gulch group selection/silvicultural demonstration area with selection; cluster selection; group selection with small, medium, and large groups, with and without matrix thinning 300 Chamberlain Creek Pleiades #4 selection/cluster selection (4th selective cut) 50 Kass Creek S Whiskey Springs light and moderate commercial thin/selection/cluster selection/selection with road and trail corridor 300 Berry Gulch Upper Hare Creek selection/cluster selection/variable WLPZ treatment demonstration 100 Hare Creek Volcano #2 group selection with small, medium, and large groups; with and without matrix thinning/selection with road and trail corridor 500 Brandon Gulch Water Gulch #1 commercial thinning with light and moderate thinning 300 Chamberlain Creek Potential Harvest Limitations During Initial Plan Implementation 02/07/07 Page 10 Potential Future Harvests with High Research or Demonstration Potential (subject to review by advisory entities) Helms selection/group selection/combined selection and group selection/with control stands 250 Mouth of Big River/Berry Gulch Riley Ridge old forest structure development using light and moderate thinning with variable density hardwood retention 600 Brandon Gulch Thompson Gulch late seral development using light and moderate variable density thinning and selection 250 Berry Gulch Water Gulch #2 light and moderate commercial thin/silvicultural demonstration area with selection; cluster selection; group selection with small, medium, and large groups, with and without matrix thinning/two-aged stand 450 Chamberlain Creek West Berry Gulch light and moderate commercial thin/silvicultural demonstration area with selection; cluster selection; group selection with small, medium, and large groups, with and without matrix thinning/two-aged stand 400 Berry Gulch Potential Even-aged Management in Years 3 to 7 (subject to review by advisory entities) Frolic #2 two-aged stand/variable retention/alternative prescription using combination of scattered and clumped retention/with control stands/variable WLPZ treatment demonstration 200 Parlin Creek Road 80 two-aged stand/alternative prescription similar to seed tree, with clustered structure retention/clearcut(max. 20 acres total clearcut area) 200 Parlin Creek Scissors #2 selection with road and trail corridor/cluster selection/variable retention/alternative prescription similar to seed tree with clumped structure retention 100 Parlin Creek Waldo two-aged stand/variable retention/ alternative prescription similar to seed tree with clustered structure retention/clearcut (max. 20 acres total clearcut area)/variable WLPZ treatment demonstration 150 Parlin Creek Walton Gulch #2 two-aged stand/variable retention/alternative prescription similar to seed tree with scattered and clumped structure retention/variable WLPZ treatment demonstration 100 Hare Creek Enjoined Harvests Subject to Legal and Contract Resolution Brandon** selection, cluster selection 540 Brandon Gulch Camp 3** selection, cluster selection 366 Brandon Gulch *For group selection units, the number in this column represents the total area of the unit. Typically, about 20 percent of the area is in group openings; the remaining area is sometimes thinned during the group selection harvest entry. **The Camp 3 and Brandon THPs are currently enjoined from operation and subject to a stipulated agreement under First District Court of Appeal Case No. 102911 and Mendocino County Superior Court Action No. SCUK CVPT 0289022. Consistency with Scope of DEIR Staff believes that the management activity and approach described here are within the range of the alternatives and environmental assessment contained in the December 2005 Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Draft Jackson Demonstration State Forest Management Plan. Attachments • November 30, 2006, Materials from Mendocino group (four items) • January 11, 2007, Letter from Vince Taylor, Campaign to Restore Jackson State Redwood Forest, to Russ Henly, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection • January 4, 2007 maps provide by Vince Taylor • January 12, 2007, Memo from Kathy Bailey, Sierra Club, to Russ Henly, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection • Map Representation of Alternative F from December 2005 Draft Environmental Impact Report • Map of Trees per Acre over 30” in Diameter with Short-Term Harvest Polygons • Methods used to Create Map of Trees per Acre over 30” in Diameter Potential Harvest Limitations During Initial Plan Implementation 02/07/07 | alternatives, survey, wetlands, sensitive natural communities, rare plants, fungal species | N/A | N/A | N/A | https://caltreesplans.resources.ca.gov/Caltrees/customization/ca/caltrees.aspx | 39.36 | -123.66 | |
| 2020_RollingMeadow_MND | Rolling Meadow Ranch, LLC, Conditional Use Permits | 2020 | 2020070339 | CEQA | MND | N/A | Draft | County | Humboldt County Planning Department | Humboldt | North Coast Chapter | North Coast Chapter | N/A | Commercial/Educational/Industrial, Local Planning Action | Approved | North Coast Chapter P.O. Box 1067 Arcata, CA 95518 30 December 2020 Meghan Ryan Humboldt County Planning Department 3015 H Street Eureka, CA 95501 mryan2@co.humboldt.ca.us re: Rolling Meadow Ranch, LLC. Conditional Use Permits SCH No. 2020060339 Dear Meghan Ryan: Please consider these comments from the North Coast Chapter of the California Native Plant Society. CNPS is a 501(c)3 non-profit dedicated to conserving California native plants and their natural habitats. CNPS has 10,000 members in 33 chapters statewide. The North Coast Chapter represents 320 members in Del Norte, Humboldt, western Trinity, and western Siskiyou counties. The Chapter is opposed to the project as proposed due to its impacts on sensitive natural prairie communities and other significant native vegetation. We urge the County to evaluate project alternatives and require appropriate mitigation to minimize project impacts on native vegetation and sensitive natural communities. 1. Prairies. In northwest California grassy clearings found in the general matrix of forested mountains are called, informally, prairies. (We use the word "meadow" for montane clearings.) These open areas support a high diversity of plant species, much more than grasses. Historically, prairies were important to indigenous people as foraging sites for seeds and bulbs and hunting sites for game that foraged there. In recent times the fact that prairies sequester large amounts of carbon has become important. Though many prairies are now degraded from historic overgrazing and invasive species, many prairies still contain pockets of native flora, including rare plants and sensitive natural communities. As such, prairies have biological value higher than their acreage suggests. Prairies, along with oak woodlands, are being lost to development (easier to build where no trees), agriculture (easier to plow where no trees), livestock grazing (bringing in aggressive, non-native plant species), and lack of burning (trees and shrubs sprout and take over). Protecting remaining prairies should be a conservation priority for the County. The Rolling Meadow project does the opposite. The 16 greenhouses, clustered in four places, each with water tanks, a processing plant, a septic field, parking area, road, and path, are all proposed to be built in prairie habitat. Compared to the total area of prairie on the property, as viewed in the aerial photos, the area for development is small. Whether this loss is significant depends on other cumulative effects. Will the remaining prairies be maintained? With cattle grazing removed, the likelihood of forest encroaching the prairies is high. The County should evaluate the effects of the project on prairie habitat to understand whether the effects are significant and require mitigation. The most meaningful mitigation for project impacts on prairie would be a properly researched and professionally executed prairie restoration. Restoring prairies is a developing science and art. Non-native species are aggressive and often outgrow the native species planted. Growing deep roots or developing turf takes many years. The diverse mix of species requires attention to many species, not just seeding with one grass. Techniques used in grassland restoration include weeding, fertilizing, Weed-eating, mowing, grazing, controlled burning, and planting. We recommend requiring prairie restoration at a minimum 2:1 ratio for any prairie impacts caused by this project. 2. Sensitive Natural Communities. Two kinds of prairie that are classed as Sensitive Natural Communities in California, and therefore afforded special protections, are directly in this project's footprint: California Oatgrass Prairie and Blue Wildrye Prairie. While the patches of these Sensitive Natural Communities are small, and the prairies in which they occur are somewhat degraded by non-native grasses and forbs, they are highly significant, as they are the legacy of past, native prairies, and they hold the seeds of future native prairies. The proposed plan to enhance these kinds of prairie elsewhere on the property by seeding, weeding, and planting plugs, is a good step toward mitigation. Collecting the seeds on site, as proposed, is essential. Salvaging and transplanting the desired grasses and any desirable, native, non-grass species (e.g. native bulbs) during construction would increase the value. 3. Prime Agricultural Soils. The county requirement that cannabis cultivation be on Prime Agricultural Soils dictated the dispersed plan of this cannabis grow in these prairies. On this property the Prime Ag Soils are in the prairies, so the greenhouses are placed there. In the face of this consequence, the County should consider adjusting this Prime Ag requirement. In fact, most of the greenhouses are not entirely on the Prime Ag Soil. The structures are too big to fit in the small, irregular patches of this soil. For example, facility #1 is only about half on Prime Ag Soil. To fit on the Prime Ag Soils, the facilities would have to be much smaller and irregularly shaped. By this criterion the project does not comply with county regulations. To meet the other part of the requirement, that less than 20% of the available Prime Ag Soil be in "cannabis cultivation," the plan includes in its calculation only the footprint of the actual cannabis plants, not the paths, etc., around them, as though the associated infrastructure were not part of the cultivation. (page 46) Including the entire footprint of the greenhouses puts this project well over the 20% limit. The more complex calculation of exactly how much Prime Ag Soil is occupied, given that most greenhouses include area not on such soils, is beyond the scope of this review (and probably the County's). The County should require the project to be downscaled for compliance with applicable code requirements, which would better protect remaining prairie habitats. This project claims it will preserve 99.5% of the defined Prime Ag Soil by growing cannabis directly in holes in the prairie soil rather than grading and pouring a hardened floor. Conceivably that is true, depending on the definition of Prime Ag Soil and of "preserve." For preserving the prairie soil for possible future daylighting, it is false. Soil heavily amended and irrigated and compacted by foot and vehicle traffic will give rise to non-native weeds, not native prairie. 4. Tree removal. Some of the trees that might be removed are large enough to be considered legacy trees: a 36-inch California Bay, two 30-inch Douglas-fir, and a 25-inch Madrone. Large California Bay were valued trees by the Native Americans. This slow-growing species could have shaded Native American camps and provided them with nuts. Planting groves of trees in no way mitigates for removing trees of this age. The County should evaluate alternatives to the removal of legacy trees and consider whether there are any feasible alternatives that would avoid tree removal. Planting groves of trees in this forest-prairie mosaic might actually be futile or harmful. Where there is already forest, there is no room and no sun for new trees. Where there is not forest, there is prairie, which should not be planted with trees. The proposed planting plan mistakenly calls for Laurus nobilis and Quercus alba, probably intending Umbellularia californica and Quercus garryana. The botanist's report says that Quercus kelloggii is the more common oak existing there, so it might be the more appropriate choice. Any mitigation for this project should be of prairie. (See above) Conclusion. We urge the County to evaluate fully the project effects on the ranch's prairies and require appropriate mitigation in the form of prairie enhancement and restoration. This project does not meet the County's requirement for new cannabis grows to be on Prime Ag Soils, and it exceeds the 20% limit. It removes irreplaceable trees. It removes, with mitigation, patches of Sensitive Natural Communities while failing to consider alternatives that would avoid impacts to Sensitive Natural Communities. The County should consider the cumulative effect of this and many other farms being planned on the County's natural prairie habitats. The County's requirement that new cannabis cultivation be on Prime Ag Soils is leading directly to the careful destruction of these prairies. The County should explore ways to modify this regulation to avoid serious, cumulative impacts to this important natural resource. On behalf of our chapter members and of future generations of members, we thank you for your careful consideration. Sincerely, Carol Ralph Carol Ralph President North Coast Chapter California Native Plant Society 707-822-2015 | cannabis, prairie, vegetation, rare plants, sensitive natural communities, habitat, prime agriculture soil, trees, mitigation, agriculture | N/A | N/A | N/A | https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2020070339/3 | 40.33 | -123.78 | |
| 2009_ArcataCorridor_DraftEIR/EIS | Eureka-Arcata Corridor Improvements | 2009 | 2001092035 | CEQA/NEPA | EIR/EIS | N/A | Draft | State | California Department of Transportation, District 1 | Humboldt | North Coast Chapter | N/A | California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Northern Region 1 | Transportation | Approved | Flex your State of California Department of Fish and Game POWER Memorandum Date: October 15, 2009 To: Mr. Charles Fielder, District 1 Director CA Department of Transportation - District 1 Post Office Box 3700 Eureka, CA 95502-3700 kemuk E Moore From:100 GARY B. STACEY, Regional Manager Northern Region, Department of Fish and Game 601 Locust Street Redding, CA 96001 Subject: Eureka - Arcata Corridor Improvement Project - Draft EIR/EIS SCH # 2001092035-Impacts Related to Sea Level Rise and Climate Change On July 3, 2009, the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) received a request from your agency for comments and concurrence on the preliminary Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) determination for the proposed Route 101 Eureka-Arcata Corridor Improvement Project (project). On July 21, 2009, DFG received a draft prospectus for a Humboldt Bay Transportation Mitigation Bank, which includes a conceptual wetland mitigation plan for this project. As a trustee for the State's fish and wildlife resources, DFG has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants and the habitat necessary to sustain their populations. As a responsible agency, DFG administers the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and other provisions of the Fish and Game Code that afford protection to the State's fish and wildlife public trust resources. While DFG is not a signatory agency to the National Environmental Policy Act and Clean Water Act Section 404 process, the refinement of the scope of the project to LEDPA Alternative 3(a), is an appropriate opportunity for DFG to provide additional comments and recommendations regarding impacts on Humboldt Bay habitats and species under the most recent sea level rise (SLR) scenarios. DFG is currently reviewing the wetland bank prospectus and comments on it will be included in a separate memorandum. DFG has written two previous memoranda on this project, including one on the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement (DEIR/S). DFG Staff Environmental Scientists Craig Martz and Gordon Leppig have also attended a number of meetings with Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and wildlife agency staff to review potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures for this project. Mr. Charles Fielder, District 1 Director October 15, 2009 Page Two DFG offers these comments pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in our role as a responsible and trustee agency for California's fish and wildlife. Project Scope According to the LEDPA determination, major project features may include: closing all Route 101 median openings; extending acceleration and deceleration lanes at existing intersections, constructing a Route 101/Indianola Cutoff interchange; realigning and signalizing Airport Road at Route 101, constructing an additional lane fron Cole Avenue acceleration lane to the Mid City Motor World entrance; replacing the bridge rails on the northbound Jacoby Creek and Gannon Slough Bridges; and replacing the southbound Jacoby Creek Bridge. The total estimated project cost ranges from $39 million to $62 million. The project includes a section of highway approximately 10 kilometers (six miles) long. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tide station elevation data indicates land within or adjacent to a majority of the project site's length is below year 2000 mean higher high water (MHHW) tidal elevation and a projected 1.4-meter sea level rise places nearly the entire project area below Humboldt Bay's MHHW. The MHHW is a 19-year average of the higher of the two daily high tides. Nearly all of the project area is former tidal saltmarsh or intertidal mudflat. Open water in the form of sloughs, streams, and tidal drainage canals, or coastal wetlands, including subtidal mudflat, saltmarsh, brackish marsh, and freshwater palustrine wetlands occur directly adjacent to the majority of the project's length. The Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge borders the project site to the north and east for approximately four kilometers (2.5 miles) and the DFG Fay Slough Wildlife Area borders the project site to the south-southeast for approximately two kilometers (1.25 miles). Project Setting and Biological Significance of Humboldt Bay Humboldt Bay is California's second largest estuary and provides regionally significant fish and wildlife habitat. Humboldt Bay provides refuge and nursery habitat for more fish species, many with important commercial and recreational fisheries value Humboldt Bay is also a biodiversity hotspot in that its wetlands and dunes are habitat for at least 20 State-and federally-listed or otherwise sensitive species. Humboldt Bay is also California's largest producer of oysters and a vital nursery for juvenile Dungeness crab (Cancer magister). Mr. Charles Fielder, District 1 Director October 15, 2009 Page Three Jacoby Creek is habitat for the State and federal "threatened" coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), as well as coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki), a California species of special concern; steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) a federal "threatened” species; and tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) a federal "endangered" species and California species of special concern. Longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys), a State "threatened" species, is documented in Humboldt Bay and its major tributaries. Areas within the project site, including Jacoby Creek, appear to provide habitat for this species. The coho salmon population in Jacoby Creek has been designated by DFG as a key population to maintain or improve as part of the Recovery Strategy of California Coho Salmon (DFG 2004). Coho salmon have undergone at least a 70% decline in abundance since the 1960s, and is currently at 6 to 15% of its abundance during the 1940s (DFG 2004). Humboldt Bay contains more than half of all the native eelgrass (Zostera marina) in . California. Native eelgrass beds are highly productive nurseries and refuge areas that are widely recognized for their critically important ecological function in Pacific Northwest estuaries (Phillips 1984). The Pacific Flyway population of black brant (Branta bernicla) is dependent upon the eelgrass in Humboldt Bay because it has the greatest amount of eelgrass between the black brant wintering areas in Baja California and Willapa Bay in Washington. Native eelgrass may not be cut or disturbed (Title 14, California Code of Regulations $30.10) and is considered Essential Fish Habitat under the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. More than two hundred species of birds have been recorded in the north Humboldt Bay area, including a wide variety of wetland, riparian and migratory species. The coastal wetlands around Humboldt Bay are essential habitat for shorebirds and more than one hundred thousand shorebirds winter in or migrate through Humboldt Bay annually (Galbraith et al., 2002; WHSRN 2009). Humboldt Bay, combined with the Eel River delta, is recognized as a site of national and international importance for shorebirds by the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network (WHSRN 2009) and is used by greater than 10% of Pacific Flyway shorebirds. Climate Change-Induced Sea Level Rise (SLR) Information presented below is guided by the analysis and conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2001), U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP 2009), and reports produced by the California Energy Commission for the California Climate Change Center (CEC 2005, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c). The research funded and produced by the California Energy Commission is the leading authoritative body of work on direct and indirect climate change effects on the Mr. Charles Fielder, District 1 Director October 15, 2009 Page Four State's resources, infrastructure and economy. SLR is of significant concern to the State's leadership and in November 2008 the Governor signed Executive Order S-13-08 to create the first state-wide SLR assessment report to advise how California should plan for future SLR, as well as initiating the State's first climate change adaptation planning effort. During the last 100 years, globally-averaged sea level has risen approximately 10 to 20 centimeters (approximately 4 to 8 inches), or about 1.0 to 2.0 millimeters/year (IPCC 2001). Tidal gauge data for California and the west coast of the United States have shown a similar trend in SLR during this period (CEC 2005). Current scenarios for the California coast project an increase in sea level from 1.0 to 1.4 meters (approximately 3.2 to 4.6 feet) by the year 2100 (CEC 2009a). Current SLR scenarios are roughly linear throughout their projected horizon, thus approximately half of the anticipated 2100 sea level rise is likely to occur by year 2050 (CEC 2009a). Global warming is expected to result in an acceleration of current rates of SLR, resulting in inundation of many low-lying coastal areas (IPCC 2001; CEC 2005, 2009a; Nicholls and Tol 2006; USGCRP 2009). Throughout the current century, coastal areas worldwide are expected to experience higher rates of coastal erosion, flooding, inundation storm surges as a result of SLR (EPA 1988; IPCC 2001; CEC 2005, 2009a; USGCRP 2009). There is strong scientific consensus that coastal marine ecosystems, along with the goods and services they provide, are threatened by climate change-induced SLR (IPCC 2001; Scavia et al., 2002; Harley et al., 2006; Nicholls and Tol 2006; CEC 2009a; USGCRP 2009). By the 2080s, sea level rise could cause the loss of up to 22% of the world's coastal wetlands, according to a global analysis done by Nicholls et al., (1999). The most recent and authoritative synthesis of future climate change and SLR scenarios and anticipated consequences for California come from the California Climate Change Center (CEC 2005, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c); some of their key findings include: During the last 100 years, sea level has risen nearly eight inches along the California coast, and general circulation model scenarios suggest very substantial increases in sea level as a significant impact of climate change over the coming century. Under medium to medium-high greenhouse-gas emissions scenarios, mean sea level along the California coast is projected to rise from 1.0 to 1.4 meters (approximately 3.2 to 4.6 feet) by the year 2100. National studies on the economic cost of sea-level rise suggest that while adapting to climate change will be expensive, so are the costs of doing nothing, as substantial investments are already at risk and vulnerable. Mr. Charles Fielder, District 1 Director October 15, 2009 Page Five Sea level rise must be integrated into the design of all coastal structures. Current efforts to build, maintain, or modify structures in coastal areas at risk of sea-level rise must be based on current estimates of a projected 1.4-meter sea level rise by the year 2100. This project includes the replacement of the southbound Route 101 Bridge over Jacoby Creek and construction of a Route 101/Indianola Cutoff interchange. Caltrans currently designs bridges and overpasses with a 75-year design life (AASHTO 2007). Given a 75 year design life for these structures, if construction of this project is not scheduled to be completed until 2015, then the project life-span squarely overlaps with current SLR projections for this century. Climate change, and consequent SLR, is principally driven by greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (IPCC 2001). Given current and on-going state, national, and international efforts, GHG emissions during coming decades could be substantially reduced and climate change scenarios modified accordingly. However, even if GHG emissions are stabilized, the rate of SLR will likely continue to increase beyond 2100 because of the time it takes for oceans and ice sheets to approach equilibrium with the atmosphere (Scavia et al., 2002; CEC 2009a). Changes in the rate of SLR at a given site will vary from global averages based upon local and regional variability in tectonic uplift, land subsidence, post-glacial isostatic rebound, compaction of sedimentary soils, and oil, natural gas, and water withdrawal (EPA 1988; Galbraith et al., 2002; Scavia et al., 2002). Increased sea levels, especially in combination with storm-driven surges, extreme waves, intense low-pressure autumn or winter storms, high tides, and El Niño conditions, are predicted to result in extensive flooding in coastal regions of California and the Pacific Northwest and significant damage to coastal infrastructure (CEC 2005; USGCRP 2009). Kelvin waves, for instance, are generated in the tropical western Pacific during El Niño events and can intensify the impact of Northcoast winter storms. These waves move northward up the California coast bringing an influx of warm water and raising sea level by 15-25 cm (6-10 inches) as they pass (CEC 2005). The wave climate at Humboldt Bay is currently described as "extreme” in comparison to most inlets in the United States, and the Bay's orientation combines with prevailing winds to produce significant wind-generated waves within the Bay (Costa and Glatzel 2002; Claasen 2003). In an analysis of 140 years of tidal data from central California, Bromirski et al., (2003) found that since about 1950, California has experienced a significant increasing trend in extreme winter storms resulting in extreme high sea level residuals. Intense storm events cause the greatest coastal erosion and have the greatest impact on coastal Mr. Charles Fielder, District 1 Director October 15, 2009 Page Six development (Bromirski et al., 2003). In the past two decades, California has experienced significant increases in annual maximum wave heights and in the number of waves classified as extreme as a result of more intense El Niño events (Seymour 2003). The lower sloughs of the largest bay tributaries presently experience seasonal fluctuations in tidal height of up to 3 meters (Wallace and Allen 2009). Despite considerable uncertainty in State-wide climate model predictions (CEC 2009b), regional climate studies project an increase in the frequency and intensity of high precipitation and high runoff storm events in Northern California and the northern Coast Range in the next 50 years (Kim et al., 2002; Snyder et al., 2002; Bell et al., 2004; Kim 2005; CEC 2009c). By projecting changes in streamflow output for eighteen stream gauging stations statewide, California Energy Commission scenarios show all California rivers studied will have an increase in average flow during January to April by the end of the century (years 2070–2099) compared to historical periods (CEC 2009c). Projections under certain high greenhouse gas emission scenarios predict spikes in February river flows of 60% above historic levels, and increases in December river flows of 20% to almost 40% in other scenarios (CEC 2009c). Climate models predict the number of occasions when high sea levels and high river flows coincide will increase markedly in this century (CEC 2009b). According to CEC (2009b), “The combined impacts of sea level rise (and high sea-level stands) with concurrent flood flows have the potential to imperil many smaller coastal and estuarine settings and communities along the California coast." According to CEC (2009a), to guard against flooding from a 1.4-meter sea level rise, Humboldt County will need an estimated 58 kilometers (36 miles) of new levees and 10.6 kilometers (6.6 miles) of new seawalls, with an estimated capital cost of $460 million (in year 2000 dollars). State wide, the estimated capital cost to guard against flooding from a 1.4-meter sea level rise will be $14 billion (in year 2000 dollars) (CEC 2009a). According to the National Research Council (1987) and Nicholls and Tol (2006), the main environmental effects of SLR on coastal communities include: Inundation and flooding including storm damage from sea surges and backwater effects from rivers and steams, Wetland loss and change, Beach and shoreline erosion, Saltwater intrusion to surface waters and groundwater, and Rising water tables and impeded drainage. Mr. Charles Fielder, District 1 Director October 15, 2009 Page Seven According to the National Research Council (1987), there are two major options for addressing flooding and erosion caused by SLR: stabilize the shoreline either through beach nourishment or by new or augmented coastal armoring, or retreat from the shoreline, maintaining a more-or-less equal elevation above local sea level. Potential Indirect Project Impacts and Ecosystem Interactions Given the State-wide efforts to incorporate climate change into all levels of State Government planning activities, and Caltrans' specific role in the statewide adaptation planning effort, DFG is concerned this project's DEIR/S, Draft Biological Assessment, and LEDPA determination include no mention of SLR, despite the project's large size, significant cost, and close proximity to current sea level. While the project description includes no SLR adaptation strategy, it is reasonable to assume that future abandonment of this section of highway is not being considered. Therefore, new or augmented armoring can be anticipated during the life of the project. According to the Humboldt Bay Management Plan Final EIR (HBHRCD 2006), "While the appropriate solutions to the quandaries posed by sea level rise are currently not known, these solutions almost certainly will involve placing fill into the bay's waters and/or into other wetlands behind the levees." According to the preliminary recommendations in the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy Discussion Draft (California Natural Resources Agency 2009): "State agencies should generally not plan, develop, or build any new significant structure in a place where that structure will require significant protection from sea-level rise, storm surges, or coastal erosion during the expected life of the structure. However, vulnerable shoreline areas containing existing and proposed development that have regionally significant economic, cultural, or social value may have to be protected, and in-fill development in these areas should be accommodated." The Eureka-Arcata 101 Corridor is currently prone to overtopped levees, coastal erosion and flooding. The railroad levee, which follows the project site to the west, occurs between Humboldt Bay and the highway and has been out of use and unmaintained for more than a decade. This levee is currently ineffective in protecting the proposed project alignment from erosion, storm surges, and flood inundation. A storm on New Year's Eve 2005/2006 caused Humboldt Bay's surface elevation to overtop the railroad levee and partially Mr. Charles Fielder, District 1 Director October 15, 2009 Page Eight inundate the southbound lanes of Highway 101. Erosion of the ballast material from beneath the rails locally has reduced the effective levee height by as much as a foot in some locations, potentially increasing the risk of future flooding on the project site because of increased tidal elevations (HBHRCD 2006). Based upon the above climate change and SLR data and the project's size, location, design life, and reasonable foreseeable adaptation strategy, there is a fair argument this project could have the following significant impacts on the Humboldt Bay ecosystem: Direct Loss and Impacts to Wetlands Much of the project site is directly adjacent to wetlands. Given the project site's current and accelerating risk of erosion and flooding, it is reasonably foreseeable that construction or reconstruction of armoring such as seawalls, levees, or rock slope protection is likely to result in wetland loss. As a result of SLR-related armoring, this project's wetland impacts are likely greater than those disclosed or evaluated by the project's current environmental documents. DFG believes further losses of Humboldt Bay saltmarsh should be considered cumulatively significant given diking and filling have already reduced bay saltmarsh habitat by 85 to 90% since 1897 (Barnhart et al., 1992). The final EIS/EIR must evaluate the impacts to wetlands from the anticipated armoring and wetland filling needed to protect the project from SLR-related flooding and damage during its design life. Indirect Habitat Loss by Prevention of Landward Migration Coastal wetlands and subtidal habitats can adjust to changes in sea level when they are capable of remaining at the same elevation relative to the tidal range (EPA 1988; NOAA 2000). This can occur if sediment buildup (accretion) equals the rate of relative SLR or if the wetland is able to migrate landward (NOAA 2000; Morris et al., 2002; Scavia et al., 2002; CEC 2009a). If wetlands are unable to keep pace with relative SLR, or if their migration is blocked by coastal development or shoreline protection structures, then it will become immersed and eventually lost as rising seas submerge it (Titus 1991; NOAA 2000: Galbraith et al., 2002: CEC 2009a). The greatest loss and ecological impacts to intertidal habitats from future SLR is likely to occur at sites where the tidal zone is not allowed to migrate inland either by topography or by coastal protections such as seawalls, roads, and other infrastructure (Galbraith et al., 2002). Humboldt County ranks third among California counties for total area of existing coastal wetlands, and second among California counties for both percentage and total area of coastal wetlands that can viably migrate upslope as a result of rising sea level (CEC 2009a). Of the approximately 52 square kilometers (20 square miles) of potential Mr. Charles Fielder, District 1 Director October 15, 2009 Page Nine coastal wetland migration area in Humboldt County, 39% is viable wetland habitat post SLR (undeveloped), and an additional 54% is viable but with some economic loss to property owners (CEC 2009a). At least 7.8 square kilometers (three square miles) of potential wetland and intertidal mudflat migration area lies landward (east-southeast) of the project site. Galbraith et al., (2002) conducted an analysis of the loss of intertidal shorebird habitat in Humboldt Bay based upon lower SLR estimates found in EPA (1995). Their model predictions assume that no new coastal protection structures will be installed. They project that by 2100, Humboldt Bay will lose approximately 29% of its intertidal habitat. This scale of habitat loss is highly likely to impair Humboldt Bay's ability to continue to support its current number of shorebirds (Galbraith et al., 2002). Under current SLR scenarios, this project has the potential to block the landward migration of saltmarsh and subtidal mudflats, and must be addressed in the final EIR. Alterations to Humboldt Bay's Hydrology and Physical Processes Construction of coastal armoring such as seawalls modifies waves that interact with them causing wave refraction, reflection, and changes in energy patterns (Sylvester and Hsu 1993). This in turn can alter numerous physical processes in the Humboldt Bay, including: circulation patterns; sediment transport and rates and patterns of deposition/accretion; current patterns and velocity; tidal exchange, mixing, and timing; and ultimately, Humboldt Bay's bathymetry (depth and topography) and shoreline erosion patterns and intensity (Sylvester and Hsu 1993; Claasen 2003). These alterations to Humboldt Bay's physical processes are likely to affect wetland and intertidal habitats and their vital fisheries and wildlife values. Changes in marine and estuarine physical processes can affect, for instance, Humboldt Bay's ecological keystone eelgrass beds (Zostera marina). Eelgrass is sensitive to alterations in estuarine processes such as water depth, turbidity, substrate size and sorting, and current velocities (Phillips 1984). The project's potential impacts on Humboldt Bay's sediment transport and deposition patterns, and erosion patterns and rates, combined with impediments to habitat likely to impact habitat for saltmarsh plants such as Humboldt Bay owl's clover (Castilleja ambigua var. humboldtiensis) and Point Reyes bird's beak (Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. palustris), both of which are present on the project site. Humboldt Bay owl's clover and Point Reyes bird's beak are listed by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) as 1B species and have a State rank of S2.2. DFG believes these species meet the criteria of rare as provided by CEQA 15380. Adverse impacts to these species could potentially constitute a significant effect on the environment. Mr. Charles Fielder, District 1 Director October 15, 2009 Page Ten Given the importance of the fish and wildlife habitat within and adjacent to the project site and the potentially significant SLR-related adaptation (armoring) impacts on Humboldt Bay's physical processes, DFG recommends the final EIR include these impacts in its environmental analysis. Flooding The DEIR/S states “Most of the existing Route 101 roadway and bridges within the project limits are either adjacent to, or within the 100-year floodplain. Any improvements to this facility to avoid floodplain encroachment would not be feasible." The DEIR/S (pages 164-165) states: 1) the proposed drainage improvements for this project will result in no decrease in capacity, 2) the proposed work would not have a substantial effect on base flood elevations, and 3) there would be no increase in flooding risks because of this project. However, the environmental analysis for this project does not utilize the most current (CEC 2009a; 2009b) climate change and SLR projections to determine the project's hydrologic impacts on the flooding regime and drainage capacity of adjacent wetlands and streams. Periodic flooding is an essential characteristic of wetlands (Titus 1991). In all floodplains, hydrology is a major driving ecological force and changes in the amplitude, duration, shape, frequency, and timing of flood events can have significant consequences for wetland habitat quality and biodiversity (Junk and Wantzen 2006). As stated in DFG's September 28, 2007 memorandum, the Jacoby Creek Route 101 road crossing immediately downstream currently constrict flood flows on Jacoby Creek, resulting in channel aggradation and backwater flooding upstream. The project design remains unclear as to whether the new southbound Jacoby Creek bridge design will result in increased channel capacity. The DEIR/S does not indicate the return frequency of the discharge the new Jacoby Creek structure will be designed to pass. A recommended management action for North Coast estuaries is to assure adequate tidal circulation in estuarine restoration or enhancement projects through levee removal or setback, tidegate removal, and tidal circulation improvement (Waterboards 2009). An inadequate tidal prism has been identified as a principal limiting factor in a number of Humboldt Bay saltmarsh restoration projects. Without utilizing the most current 2100 SLR hydrologic projections, Caltrans cannot adequately evaluate what effect this project will have on adjacent floodplain hydrology and biodiversity, including the tidal circulation of existing, on-going, and future wetland, estuarine and riparian restoration pro Mr. Charles Fielder, District 1 Director October 15, 2009 Page Eleven The Recovery Strategy for California Coho Salmon (DFG 2004) includes the following specific watershed recommendations to promote coho salmon recovery in the Humboldt Bay Hydrologic Unit: work with agencies and landowners to re-establish estuarine function, maintain and restore a functioning flood plain and natural channel processes where practicable, and maintain functional riparian habitat. The Humboldt Bay Watershed Salmon and Steelhead Conservation Plan (RCAA 2005) stuary habitat as a limiting factor for steelhead trout in Jacoby Creek Specific habitat goals for Jacoby Creek include the restoration of floodplain and estuarine processes that benefit salmonids (RCAA 2005). We reiterate here the concerns expressed in DFG's 2007 memorandum, that to benefit future riparian, floodplain, and wetland functions adjacent to the project site, the Jacoby Creek bridge and all of the project's other stream crossings and drainage facilities should provide adequate channel or flow capacity based upon calculations using current SLR and climate change projections. By using the most current SLR and climate change projections, the project will have the highest likelihood of protecting and maintaining adjacent wetland and riparian habitats and preventing project structures from impeding flow and becoming bottlenecks during high flow or high tide events. Without incorporating SLR into the hydrologic analysis of this project, it is difficult to assess with a high degree of confidence the project's impacts on the numerous State and federal-listed fish species documented as occurring in the project area. Humboldt Bay Sea Level Rise Adaptation Strategy The integration of SLR into the design of coastal structures and local coastal plan and general plan updates is currently recommended by the State (CEC 2009a; California Natural Resources Agency 2009). However, effective adaptation to climate change and sea level rise requires a coordinated regional or community-level planning approach (see for example van Aalst et al., 2008). This is especially important when the area at risk is covered by multiple plans implemented by numerous local, State, and federal agencies. Therefore, DFG recommends Caltrans participate in a Humboldt Bay SLR adaptation planning process with agencies such as the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation, and Conservation District; the Cities of Arcata and Eureka; the County of Humboldt; the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board; DFG; the National Marine Fisheries Service; and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, among others. While the process to develop an adaptation strategy is not currently underway, DFG encourages its establishment, looks forward to participating, and anticipates it will soon begin. Mr. Charles Fielder, District 1 Director October 15, 2009 Page Twelve Conclusions Based upon the most current, reasonably foreseeable and State-adopted SLR scenarios, DFG makes a fair argument supported by substantial evidence that this project is likely to have significant environmental impacts that are not analyzed or addressed in its current CEQA documents. Furthermore, this project does not appear to comply with State recommendations that SLR be integrated into the design of all coastal structures (CECa 2009). The ecological impacts of SLR and its engineering implications for coastal ecosystems and structures have been well known for over 20 years (EPA 1988; National Research Council 1987). Likewise, local agencies in California and elsewhere have incorporated SLR into coastal development for more than 20 years. By 1987, California's Bay Area Conservation and Development Commission was requiring an additional one foot of elevation on any newly reclaimed land in San Francisco Bay, based on a scenario of a one-foot rise in fifty years (EPA 1995). Reclamation in Hong Kong also includes a safety margin for accelerated sea level rise, as do the design of new seawalls in eastern Britain and the Netherlands (EPA 1995). DFG recommends this project's Final EIR evaluate how this project will adapt to SLR. While adaptation options are reasonably foreseeable, they need not be undertaken in the current project. However, given that potentially significant indirect environmental impacts from such adaptations are reasonably foreseeable, they should be evaluated during the current environmental review for this project. According to CEQA Section 15378(a), the definition of a project includes, “...a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment." DFG believes this project's impacts on coastal wetlands and marine, brackish, and freshwater species in Humboldt Bay, when analyzed using current SLR and climate change scenarios are both reasonably foreseeable and significant. Specific Recommendations 1) The project's bridges, culverts and other drainage facilities should be evaluated and designed to provide adequate channel or flow capacity based upon calculations using current year 2100, 1.4-meter SLR and climate change hydrology projections. The final EIR should describe and evaluate the following potential direct and indirect SLR-related impacts: a) How and where will the project be protected from SLR-induced flooding, inundation, and erosion, and what impacts or loss will this protection have on intertidal, wetland, riparian, and other sensitive habitats and the species that depend on them? Mr. Charles Fielder, District 1 Director October 15, 2009 Page Thirteen b) Under a 1.4-meter year 2100 SLR scenario, what is the project's potential to block the landward migration of saltmarsh and intertidal habitat? blonde en la momenten years c) How will the project's new and augmented armoring such as seawalls and rock slope protection affect the Humboldt Bay's hydrology and physical processes? d) The hydrology and floodplain evaluation (Section 3.2.1) should be revised to evaluate the project's floodplain impacts in relation to year 2100, 1.4-meter SLR and climate change hydrology projections. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this project. For questions or additional information, contact Staff Environmental Scientist Gordon Leppig at 441-2062 or via e-mail at gleppig@dfg.ca.gov. References AASHTO, 2007. AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications, SI Units, 4th Edition. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Washington, DC Barnhart, R.A, M.J. Boyd, and J.E. Pequegnat, 1992. The ecology of Humboldt Bay, California: an estuarine profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 1. Bell, J.L., L.C. Sloan, and M.A. Snyder, 2004. Regional changes in extreme climate events: a future climate scenario. Journal of Climate 17:81-87. Bell, events a future Clim Bromirski, P.D., R.E. Flick, and D.R. Cayan, 2003. Storminess variability along the California coast: 1858-2000. Journal of Climate 16:982-993. California Natural Resources Agency, 2009. 2009 California climate adaptation strategy discussion draft. CNRA-1000-2009-027. California Resources Agency, Sacramento, CA http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009 publications/CNRA-1000-2009 027/CNRA-1000-2009-027-D.PDF Cayan, D.R., E.P. Maurer, M.D Dettinger, M. Tyree, and K. Hayhoe, 2008. Climate change scenarios for the California region. Climate Change 87 (Suppl 1):S21-S42. CEC, 2005. Projecting future sea level. CEC-500-2005-202-SD. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA. CEC, 2009a. The impacts of sea-level rise on the California coast. CEC-500-2009-024 D. March 2009. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA. Mr. Charles Fielder, District 1 Director October 15, 2009 Page Fourteen . Distict 1 Director CEC, 2009b. Projections of potential flood regime changes in California. CEC-500 2009-050-D. March 2009. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA. CEC, 2009c. The impact of climate change on California's ecosystem services. CEC 500-2009-025-D. March 2009. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA. Claasen, N.J., 2003. Modeling wave-current interaction in the vicinity of Humboldt Bay, California. Masters thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. Costa, S.L. and K.A. Glatzel, 2002. Humboldt Bay, California, Entrance channel report 1: Data Review. ERDC/CHL CR-02-1 U.S. Army Engineer Research Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. DFG, 2004. Recovery strategy for California coho salmon. Report to the California Fish and Game Commission. Sacramento, CA. EPA, 1988. Greenhouse effect sea level rise and coastal wetlands. J.G. Titus (ed.). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-230-05-86-013. Washington D.C. EPA, 19. Cironmental EPA, 1995. The probability of sea level rise. J.G. Titus and V.K. Narayanan (eds.). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-230-R-95-08. Washington D.C. Galbraith, H., R. Jones, R. Park, J. Clough, S. Herrod-Julius, B. Harrington, and G. Page, 2002. Global climate change and sea level rise: potential losses of intertidal habitat for shorebirds. Waterbirds 25:173-183. Harley, C.D.G., A.R. Hughes, K.M. Hultgren, B.G. Miner, C.J.B. Sorte, C.S. Thornber, L.F. Rodriguez, L. Tomanek, and S.L. Williams, 2006. The impacts of climate change in coastal marine systems. Ecology Letters 9:228-241. HBHRCD, 2006. Humboldt Bay management plan draft environmental impact report RKA 05-03. Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation, and Conservation District, Eureka, CA. IPCC, 2001. Climate Change 2001: The scientific basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Houghtin, J.T., Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, and C.A. Johnson (eds.) Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY. Mr. Charles Fielder, District 1 Director October 15, 2009 Page Fifteen Junk, W.J. and K.M. Wantzen, 2006. Flood pulse and the development and maintenance of biodiversity in floodplains. pp. 407-435 (in) D.P. Batzer and R.R. Sharitz (eds.) Ecology of freshwater and estuarine wetlands. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA. Kim, J., T. Kim, R.W. Arritt, and N.L. Miller, 2002. Impacts of increased CO2 on the hydroclimate of the western United States. Journal of Climate 15:1926-1942. Kim, J., 2005. A projection of the effects of the climate change induced by increased CO2 on extreme hydrologic events in the western U.S. Climate Change 68:153 168. Morris, J.T., P.V. Sundareshwar, C.T. Nietch, B. Kjerfve, and D.R. Cahoon, 2002. Responses of coastal wetlands to rising sea level. Ecology 83:2869-2877. National Research Council, 1987. Responding to changes in sea level. National Academy Press. Washington D.C. Nicholls, R.J., F.M.J. Hoozemans, and M. Marchand, 1999. Increasing flood risk and wetland losses due to global sea-level rise: regional and global analysis. Global Environmental Change 9:S69-587. Nicholls, R.J. and R.S.J. Tol, 2006. Impacts and responses to sea-level rise: a global analysis of the SRES scenarios over the Twenty-first Century. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. 364:1073-1095. NOAA, 2000. The potential consequences of climate variability and change on coastal areas and marine resources. D.F, Boesch, J.C. Field, and D. Scavia (eds.). NOAA's coastal ocean program decision analysis series #21. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C. Phillips, R.C., 1984. The ecology of eelgrass meadows in the Pacific Northwest: a community profile. FWS/OBS-84/24. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. RCAA, 2005. Humboldt Bay Watershed salmon and steelhead conservation plan. Redwood Community Action Agency, Natural Resources Services Division. Eureka, CA. Scavia, D., J.C. Field, D.F. Boesch, R.W. Buddemeier, V. Burkett, D.R. Cyan, M. Fogarty, M.A. Harwell, R.W. Howarth, C. Mason, D.J. Reed, T.C. Royer, A.H. Sallenger, and J.G. Titus, 2002. Climate change impacts on U.S. coastal and marine ecosystems. Estuaries 25:149-164. Red, T.C. Royer, Author Mr. Charles Fielder, District 1 Director October 15, 2009 Page Sixteen Seymour, R.J., 2003. The influence of global climate change on extreme wave occurrence on the west coast of the United States. Pp. 52-60 (in) J. McKee Smith (ed.) Coastal Engineering 2002. World Scientific Publishing, Singapore. Snyder, M.A., J.L. Bell,. L.C. Sloan, P.B. Duffy, and B. Govindasamy, 2002. Climate responses to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide for a climatically vulnerable region. Geophysical Research Letters 29:1-4. Sylvester, R. and J.R.C. Hsu, 1993. Coastal stabilization innovative concepts. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Titus, J.G., 1991. Greenhouse effect and coastal wetland policy: how Americans could abandon an area the size of Massachusetts at minimum cost. Environmental Management 15:39-58. USGCRP, 2009. Global climate change impacts in the United States. U.S. Global Change Research Program. T.R. Karl, J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson (eds.) Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. van Aalst, M.K., T. Cannon, and I. Burton, 2008. Community level adaptation to climate change: the potential role of participatory community risk assessment. Global Environmental Change 18:165-179. Wallace, M. and S. Allen, 2009. Juvenile salmonid use in the tidal portions of selected tributaries to Humboldt Bay, California 2007-2009. Final Report for Contract P0610522. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA Waterboards, 2009. The Status of Perennial Estuarine Wetlands in the State of California. State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento CA. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/swamp/docs/wetlandslew f actsheet.pdf WHSRN, 2009. WHSRN List of Sites. Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network. Manomet, MA. http://www.whsrn.org/western-hemisphere-shorebird reserve-network. WE Network. Manomet, MA. hteo cc: Laurie Harnsberger Department of Fish and Game Northern Region 619 Second Street Eureka, CA 95501 Mr. Charles Fielder, District 1 Director October 15, 2009 Page Seventeen ec: Messrs. Kenneth Moore, William Condon, Scott Downie, Gary Flosi, Eric Haney, Richard Macedo, Michael Wallace, Scott Bauer, Michael van Hattem, Craig Martz, Bruce Webb, Steve Burton, Mark Smelser, and Gordon Leppig Mss. Gayle Garman, Vicki Frey, Michele Gilroy, Laurie Harnsberger, Karen Kovacs, and Amber Pairis Department of Fish and Game kmoore@dfg.ca.gov, wcondon@dfg.ca.gov, sdownie@dfg.ca.gov, gflosi@dfg.ca.gov, ehaney@dfg.ca.gov, rmacedo@dfg.ca.gov, mwallace@dfg.ca.gov, sbauer@dfg.ca.gov, mvanhattem@dfg.ca.gov, ggarman@dfg.ca.gov, vfrey@dfg.ca.gov, mgilroy@dfg.ca.gov, Iharnsberger@dfg.ca.gov, cmartz@dfg.ca.gov, bwebb@dfg.ca.gov, kkovacs@dfg.ca.gov, sburton@dfg.ca.gov, msmelser@dfg.ca.gov, apairis@dfg.ca.gov, gleppig@dfg.ca.gov Kim Floyd, Gary Berrigan, Mitch Higa California Department of Transportation kim floyd@dot.ca.gov, gary_berrigan@dot.ca.gov, mitch higa@dot.ca.gov Jimmy Smith, Clif Clendenen, Mark Lovelace, Bonnie Neely, Jill Duffy Humboldt County Board of Supervisors irsmith@co.humboldt.ca.us, cclendenen@co.humboldt.ca.us, mlovelace@co.humboldt.ca.us, bonnie.neely@co.humboldt.ca.us, jduffy@co.humboldt.ca.us Bob Merrill, John Dixon, Melanie Faust California Coastal Commission bmerrill@coastal.ca.gov, idixon@coastal.ca.gov, mfaust@coastal.ca.gov Catherine Kuhlman, Mark Neely, Jeremiah Puget North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board ckuhlman@waterboards.ca.gov, mneely@waterboards.ca.gov. ipuget@waterboards.ca.gov Susan Schlosser U.C. Sea Grant Office scschlosser@ucdavis.edu Adam Wagschal Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation, and Conservation District Adam@portofhumboldtbay.org Mr. Charles Fielder, District 1 Director October 15, 2009 Page Eighteen ec: Diane Ashton, Dan Free National Marine Fisheries Service diane.ashton@noaa.gov, dan.free@noaa.gov Ray Bosch, Andrea Pickart, Eric Nelson, Paula Golightly U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ray bosch@fws.gov, andrea pickart@fws.gov, eric nelson@fws.gov, Paula Golightly@fws.gov Carol Heidsiek, David Ammerman, Kelley Reid U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Carol.A. Heidsiek@usace.army.mil, David.A.Ammerman@usace.army.mil, Kelley.E.Reid@usace.army.mil Thomas Mattson and Kirk Girard tmattson@co.humboldt.ca.us, kgirard@co.humboldt.ca.us | sea level rise, climate change, threatened species, wetlands, habitat | N/A | N/A | N/A | https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2001092035/3 | 40.82 | -124.10 | |
| 2008_BeauPreHeight_MND | Beau Pre Heights Subdivision | 2008 | N/A | CEQA | MND | N/A | Draft | County | Humboldt County Planning Department | Humboldt | North Coast Chapter | N/A | California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Northern Region 1 | Residential | Approved | NORTHERN REGION 601 Locust Street Redding, CA 96001 (530) 225-2300 March 20, 2008 Mr. Michael Wheeler, Senior Planner Humboldt County Planning and Building Department 3015 H Street Eureka, CA 95501-4484 Dear Mr. Wheeler: Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration: Beau Pre Heights Subdivision, McKinleyville On July 5, 2007, the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) received a referral from your office that included an initial study, proposed mitigated negative declaration (MND), and a request for comments for the proposed Beau Pre Heights Subdivision (project), in McKinleyville. The intent of the referral is to solicit DFG’s comments and recommendations for conditions of approval. The referral also requests DFG’s assessment of whether the mitigations proposed in the MND will reduce the potential environmental impacts of this project to a less than significant level and therefore not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). DFG staff has reviewed the initial study, proposed MND, site plans, botanical report, vertebrate report, and wetland delineation. DFG staff also conducted site visits on February 8 and September 11, 2007. DFG offers the following comments and recommendations in our role as a trustee and responsible agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Project Description The project proposes subdividing approximately 191 acres of forestland into a private gated residential community comprised of 80 parcels ranging in size from 1.1 to 7.6 acres. The majority of the parcels (62) are between one and two and one half acres. The project also proposes a road system and a 3.4-acre community park. The project site is zoned Agricultural General with 0.5-acre minimum parcel size, with Airport, Noise and Wetland/Riparian Habitat Combining Zones. Each parcel will have its own onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS). Mr. Michael Wheeler March 20, 2008 Page Two Project Setting The project site is primarily a mosaic of open-canopy second growth forest stands dominated by red alder (Alnus rubra), Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) and scattered Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), and grand fir (Abies grandis) (Winzler and Kelly Consulting Engineers 2006). The project site also includes a distinct 36-acre forest dominated by mature Sitka spruce. This Sitka spruce-dominated forest is primarily closed- canopy and includes scattered Douglas-fir, grand fir, and red cedar (Thuja plicata). Land uses adjacent to the project site include low-density rural residential development to the northwest, industrial timberlands to the north, east and south, and a public golf course to the west. Sensitive Species Winzler and Kelly Consulting Engineers (2007a) identified ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) on site. On the September 11, 2007 field visit, DFG staff identified breeding habitat for and adult individuals of the northern red-legged frog (Rana aurora). Both these species are California Species of Special Concern (SSC). DFG designates certain vertebrate species as SSC because declining population levels, limited ranges, and/or continuing threats have made them vulnerable to extinction. Though not listed pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act or the California Endangered Species Act, the goal of designating taxa as SSC is to halt or reverse these species’ decline by calling attention to their plight and addressing the issues of conservation concern early enough to secure their long-term viability. Botanical surveys identified five populations of running pine (Lycopodium clavatum) and one population of marsh violet (Viola palustris). The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) creates lists in an effort to categorize degrees of conservation concern. Running pine and marsh violet are CNPS List 2 plants, which they determine to be rare, threatened or endangered in California but are more common elsewhere. Based upon information complied by CNDDB and DFG staff in Eureka, DFG finds running pine and marsh violet meet the definition of rare pursuant to CEQA §15380, which highlights the need for impacts to these species be mitigated to a less than significant level. To mitigate impacts to these occurrences to a less than significant level, DFG recommends structures be placed at least 100 feet away from these populations or a specific sensitive plant consultation with DFG be completed prior to project approval. Mr. Michael Wheeler March 20, 2008 Page Three The project site provides aquatic habitat, including palustrine scrub/shrub wetlands and headwater tributaries to Norton Creek. Norton Creek, a tributary to Widow White Creek and the Mad River estuary, contains coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii clarkii), a SSC, coho salmon (O. kisutch) a State- and federally-threatened species and steelhead trout (O. mykiss) a federally- threatened species. Coho salmon have undergone at least a 70% decline in abundance since the 1960s, and is currently at 6 to 15% of its abundance during the 1940s (DFG 2004). Activities in the watershed currently underway to help conserve these species include restoration projects by the Redwood Community Action Agency in Widow White Creek to improve fish habitat and reduce urbanization-related erosion. Loss and Degradation of Forested Wildlife Habitat This project will result in the direct replacement of forest wildlife habitat. The MND does not specify the total forested acreage proposed for conversion, but based upon 80 building lots and a road system being proposed, it appears this project will convert a minimum of 80 forested acres to a rural residential landscape of homes and related structures, lawns, roads and appurtenant public infrastructure. In addition to the direct permanent conversion of forest habitat, this project will also fragment and degrade the wildlife habitat value of the remaining on-site and adjacent forestlands. Rural residential development has three principal effects on adjacent forest habitat: 1) structures, roads, driveways, yards and associated facilities degrade natural wildlife habitat by fragmenting what forest remains into smaller, less contiguous areas of functional habitat; 2) it results in the introduction or increased prevalence of exotic species or species that are habitat generalists, termed “human adapted” or “urban exploiters”, and 3) it diminishes native species abundance and biodiversity resulting in a loss of “human-sensitive” species that require natural habitats. In general, these effects occur because development tends to favor species well-adapted to human habitation with subsequent negative effects on sensitive species and those species best adapted to natural habitats (Hansen et al., 2005; Marzluff and Neatherlin 2006). The impacts of urban and rural development on fish and wildlife habitat in adjacent natural areas are well documented (Hansen et al., 2005). The development-related loss of native species abundance and diversity or the increase in exotic and native generalist species has been shown for bird assemblages (Beissinger and Osborne 1982; Wilcove 1985; Crooks and Soulé 1999; Luginbuhl et al., 2001; Odell et al., 2003), mammals (Maestas et al., 2001), fish (Paul and Meyer 2001), amphibians (Davidson et al., 2001; Ridley et al., 2005), terrestrial and freshwater invertebrates (Miyashita et al., 1998; Paul and Meyer 2001; Ridley et al., 2004), and plants (Galatowitsch et al., 1999; Mack and Lonsdale 2001; Reichard and White 2001). Mr. Michael Wheeler March 20, 2008 Page Four Additionally, this project is likely to negatively impact wildlife through increased road-kill (Trombulak and Frissell 2000; Malo et al., 2004), light pollution (Rich and Longcore 2006), the killing of and disturbance to wildlife by domestic animals such as house cats, and increased human conflict with wildlife such as black bear, mountain lion, and fox, which often results in killing (depredation) of these animals. To minimize project impacts to terrestrial and aquatic habitat, including sensitive plant populations, the MND states building areas on each parcel shall be restricted to designated building footprints and driveways plus a 30-foot-wide defensible space area and that no clearing or vegetation removal will be allowed on the remainder of each parcel. To implement this mitigation, the MND states: “A notation to this effect shall appear on the development plan.” Given the sensitive plant populations and prevalence of wetland, riparian, and forest wildlife habitat on the project site, DFG supports mitigations that minimize vegetation clearing on individual parcels. However, from the information provided in the MND, it is unclear by what process proposed restrictions on vegetation clearing will be enforced and what entity could feasibly enforce them. It is unclear from the MND if second units and additional structures such as garages, barns and stables will be restricted on the proposed parcels once the project is approved or if individual parcel owners could apply for a timberland conversion exemption pursuant to the California Forest Practice Rules. To ensure this mitigation cited in the MND remains in place and effective, what ordinance, code, standard, or other regulation would be feasibly enforced, and by whom, if a parcel owner were to progressively clear their land over the years? Given the above information and based upon the information presented in the MND, DFG believes there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that this project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, despite proposed mitigations. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA §15065, the preparation of an EIR is required. DFG recommends the EIR disclose in greater detail how this project’s restrictions on individual parcel vegetation clearing will be enforced. Wildlife Corridors The MND states “There is no evidence that the site is utilized as a significant wildlife dispersal or migration corridor,” and that “the project will not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife Mr. Michael Wheeler March 20, 2008 Page Five corridors...” However, the MND provides no analysis or discussion to substantiate this claim. DFG believes the MND does not adequately evaluate the project site’s use by wildlife for dispersal and migration. The MND states that wildlife movement corridors will be available along the steep portions of the western property line and through east-west-trending stream setback areas, but north-south wildlife movement (following the ridgeline) is not discussed. Given the project’s size, its present forested condition, and its location along the first forested ridge from the coast between the Little River and Mad River watersheds, DFG believes this project has the potential to substantially restrict or interfere with the movement of native resident wildlife species such as black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus). The MND does not include information on the placement of fences or walls around the project’s borders. Because a gated development is proposed, it appears probable that long sections, or all of the project’s borders, may be walled or fenced. The placement of walls or fences is likely to result in alteration, disruption, or barriers to wildlife dispersal and migration patterns. The potential effects on the dispersal and migration patterns of wildlife are compounded by the project’s adjacency on three sides by extensive contiguous forestlands, and the project’s southern boundary on Murray Road, a major county artery connecting the communities of McKinleyville and Fieldbrook. DFG recommends the project utilize landscape features such as stream setback corridors and wetland setback areas to maintain wildlife corridors through the project site and that the project be unfenced or utilize wildlife- permeable fencing. DFG recommends that areas on a given parcel fenced specifically to exclude wildlife or enclose livestock (deer-proofed garden areas or horse paddocks) be minimized on each parcel, and that parcel boundaries be unfenced or use wildlife-permeable fencing. To be effective, fencing standards must be made enforceable. DFG recommends the EIR disclose if and how the project will be walled or fenced and how wildlife-permeable fencing standards will be made enforceable as individual parcels are developed. Sitka Spruce Natural Community Sitka spruce is an endemic Pacific Northwest species with a native range from Alaska to northern California. In California it occupies a narrow coastal band and its southernmost contiguous range terminates in central Humboldt County. A disjunct population in central Mendocino County near Russian Gulch forms the southern terminus of its range. Mr. Michael Wheeler March 20, 2008 Page Six CNDDB classifies vegetation for the primary purpose of assisting in determining significance and rarity of various vegetation types. Sitka spruce forest associations are recognized by the CNDDB as a natural community considered rare and of high priority for inventory. The DFG List of California Vegetation Alliances assigns Sitka spruce forests a rarity rank of G5S2. This designation means that Sitka spruce forests are considered globally common but rare in California. Large, contiguous stands of mature Sitka spruce are uncommon in the region due to this species’ limited range and because agricultural and residential development in the coastal zone have resulted in removal of these forests and because of timberland silvicultural practices that have converted them to more economically valuable species such as redwood and Douglas-fir. The initial study states Sitka spruce was once an extensive forest type in the project area extending from the project site west to Central Avenue and east to the ridge-crest (approximately one kilometer in each direction). Two comparative genetic studies found rare and localized alleles (genetic variation) only in peripheral and disjunct populations of Sitka spruce, such as those occurring near its southern terminus in California, and that these rare alleles were not found in more central populations (Gapare et al., 2005). Peripheral populations of Sitka spruce are also shown to have strong spatial genetic structure (an arranged demographic pattern of genetic variation) not found in more central Sitka spruce populations and unusual in conifers and other temperate tree species (Gapare and Aitken 2005). These genetic findings heighten the conservation value of Sitka spruce stands occurring near the edge of their range (Leppig and White 2006). A 1941, 1948, 1965, and 2005 CAL FIRE aerial photo sequence of the project site shows that in 1941 the project area had been recently clearcut, though some residual trees remained. Therefore, this forest stand is approximately 70 years old with some of the residual trees likely to be 80-90 years old. During one of DFG’s site visits, numerous trees were measured with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of greater than 50 inches, with larger trees having DBHs of 70-80 inches. Based upon DFG’s limited field review, it appears this mature Sitka spruce forest meets the definition of a late successional forest stand as defined by Title 14, CCR, §895. The Humboldt County General Plan §3420 et. seq., McKinleyville Community Plan states: “When habitat for a specific species of plant or wildlife are in short supply because either the habitat is limited to a small geographic area or is threatened by rapidly changing conditions, then the habitat is Mr. Michael Wheeler March 20, 2008 Page Seven designated sensitive.” The McKinleyville Community Plan also defines a sensitive habitat as those habitats and communities listed by CNDDB. The Biological Resources section (b) of the environmental checklist form included with the initial study asks if the project would have a substantial adverse effect on a sensitive natural community identified by DFG. To this question, the initial study has the box checked that indicates the project will have potentially significant impacts unless mitigation is incorporated. However, the initial study does not identify Sitka spruce forest associations as being listed by CNDDB or meeting the McKinleyville Plan’s definition of a sensitive habitat, and therefore does not address potential impacts to this habitat. According to the initial study, 36 acres of the 191-acre project site are composed of mature Sitka spruce forest. Of these 36 acres, 20 acres are proposed to be cleared for parcel development. DFG believes it is highly likely that additional mature Sitka spruce trees will be cleared after homes are built due to homeowners’ desire for increased solar gain and because large trees in close proximity to homes will be designated as hazards. DFG believes there is substantial evidence that the placement of residences within a Sitka spruce forest is not compatible with the maintenance of that forest. Sitka spruce has a shallow root systems and is prone to fragmentation-related wind-throw (blow-down). Large-scale Sitka spruce wind- throw, and accompanying property damage in a fragmented residential setting occurred in the Stage Coach Road area of Trinidad during a 2006 winter storm. This storm induced a number of Stage Coach Road area residents to remove many potentially hazardous Sitka spruce trees. In 2007, the Big Lagoon Park Company applied to the County for a Coastal Development Permit and Special Permit for major vegetation removal to cut down 43 mature Sitka spruce that were determined to be a hazard to residences and community water facilities. The removal of trees to create a 100-foot-wide defensible space fire-safe area around structures pursuant to Public Resources Code §4291, and continual vegetation clearing to maintain this area, will also reduce this stand and diminish its habitat quality. Based upon our preliminary assessment of this Sitka spruce stand, DFG has determined the proposed removal of 20 acres of this 36-acre forest and the resulting habitat degradation and fragmentation of the remnant forest, is likely to have a significant effect on the environment. DFG recommends the project avoids direct and indirect impacts to this Sitka spruce forest to the greatest extent practicable. To mitigate impacts to this forest, DFG recommends some combination of placing it in a conservation trust or easement, designating it as a Mr. Michael Wheeler March 20, 2008 Page Eight park or open space, configuring it and its buffer on one developable parcel, or as few parcels as practicable, and situating residence locations at a sufficient distance from the forest so that the trees are unlikely to be designated as hazards and removed in the future. Wetland and Riparian Setbacks The wetland delineation map provided in the referral information shows five headwater streams originating from the project site. The project proposes 50 foot riparian setbacks from stream transition zones. DFG supports the use of riparian setbacks that effectively minimize disturbance by human activities. Pursuant to Public Resources Code §4291, structures must have 100- foot-wide defensible space fire-safe areas. Defensible space areas typically require ongoing vegetation management to reduce fuel loads. If residences are proposed within 100 feet of wetlands and streams, the maintenance of fire safe areas are likely to result in the removal of riparian vegetation and a significant loss of wildlife habitat quality. DFG therefore recommends that structures be located such that their defensible space areas are placed outside of wetland and riparian protection setbacks. Five discrete wetlands occur within the project site and for identification purposes are numbered 1-5 (Winzler and Kelly Consulting Engineers 2007b). Wetland 1 is centrally located within the project site and covers 1.26 acres, while wetlands 2 through 5 combined, total approximately 0.25 acres and are dispersed throughout the remainder of the project site. The project proposes 50 foot setbacks on all wetlands within the project site. The State of California has a “no net loss” wetland policy. Wetlands provide essential habitat for a wide variety of important resident and migratory fish and wildlife species. Therefore, it is the policy of the Fish and Game Commission to provide for the protection, preservation, restoration, enhancement and expansion of wetland habitat in California. Potential direct and indirect effects from development adjacent to wetlands include, but are not limited to: altered hydrology; diminished water quality from the discharge of pollutants such as sediment, pesticides, petroleum products, pathogens and other toxic substances; vegetation removal; disturbance to wildlife from noise, night lighting, and domestic animals; introduced invasive plant and animal species; altered microclimate; and human intrusion such as off-road vehicle use, trash dumping, and illegal filling. Mr. Michael Wheeler March 20, 2008 Page Nine DFG finds that a 50 foot setback is inadequate to minimize disturbance to the centrally located 1.26-acre wetland. To adequately minimize disturbance to this wetland and best maintain wetland function and wildlife value, DFG recommends a 100 foot setback. This 100 foot setback will more effectively minimize impacts to this wetland by maintaining forest canopy, microclimate, water temperature, hydrology, and native plant and animal diversity. To maintain wetland and riparian water quality, DFG recommends that OWTS be placed outside of wetland and riparian setbacks. DFG had determined that in general, the quality of sensitive habitats such as wetlands and riparian corridors is best and most effectively maintained when they are owned or managed as larger contiguous areas on as few parcels as possible, rather than fragmented into many smaller ownerships. Therefore, DFG recommends the subdivision parcels be configured in such a way as to best consolidate riparian corridors and the large central wetland into as few parcels as practicable. Stormwater Management and Non-point Source Pollution The project proposes utilizing low-impact development (LID) strategies such as permeable pavement, vegetated stormwater bio-swales and retention basins to treat retain and infiltrate stormwater runoff on site. These stormwater facilities and strategies are designed to prevent project-generated stormwater runoff from exceeding that of a 2-year storm event. DFG supports the use of LID strategies because they minimize impacts to aquatic habitats by filtering out pollution, preventing increased peak flows and related erosion, and because they increase ground water recharge and therefore help maintain biologically- important summer low flows. As a mitigation for impacts to streams flowing from the project site, the initial study states the subdivider shall prepare and submit a stormwater management plan to the Regional Water Quality Control Board. It is unclear from the initial study if the LID strategies proposed for this project pertain to the development of individual parcels or are restricted to public facilities. DFG recommends the project include post-project stormwater performance criteria and enforceable LID strategies for individual parcels that minimize the introduction of non-point source pollution into streams while maintaining pre-project stormwater runoff volume, rate, and duration. By mimicking the sites’ natural hydrology to the greatest extent practicable, the project will minimize its erosion potential on streams as well as minimize its potential effects on downstream flooding. Mr. Michael Wheeler March 20, 2008 Page Ten Exterior Lighting Standards and Photo-pollution The project, as proposed, does not describe exterior lighting specifications. The adverse ecological effects of artificial night lighting on terrestrial and aquatic resources such as fish, birds, mammals, and plants are well documented (Rich and Longcore 2006). Some of these effects include altered migration patterns and reproductive rates, changes in foraging behavior and predator-prey interactions, altered wildlife species richness and community composition, and phototaxis (attraction and movement towards light). The project is located on and adjacent to land with significant wildlife habitat values. DFG recommends this project minimize exterior lighting and that any exterior lighting be designed to minimize the potential of light pollution by following the exterior lighting standards included in the McKinleyville Community Services District Ordinance 51.07. Specific Recommendations: 1. An EIR must be prepared for this project. 2. Locations of proposed structures shall be at least 100 feet from running pine and marsh violet populations or a specific sensitive plant consultation with DFG shall be completed prior to project approval. 3. The project perimeter and parcel boundaries shall not be fenced or walled or shall utilize wildlife-permeable fencing. Areas on individual parcels fenced specifically to exclude wildlife or enclose livestock (e.g. deer-proof garden areas or horse paddocks) shall be minimized to the greatest extent practicable. Parcel fencing standards must be enforceable. 4. The EIR must evaluate this project’s potential effects on wildlife dispersal and migration. 5. The EIR must evaluate the projects impacts to the Sitka spruce forest. 6. The project must include some combination of placing this Sitka spruce forest in a conservation trust or easement, maintaining the stand and buffer on one parcel, or as few parcels as practicable, and designating proposed structure locations at a sufficient distance from the stand so that the trees are unlikely to be designated as hazard trees and removed in the future. Mr. Michael Wheeler March 20, 2008 Page Eleven 7. Fire-safe defensible space areas must be placed outside of wetland and riparian setbacks. 8. Designate at least a 100 foot setback on the perimeter of the 1.26-acre wetland. This wetland and its 100 foot setback should be consolidated into one parcel or as few parcels as practicable. 9. Consolidate riparian and wetland habitats and their setbacks into as few parcels as practicable. 10. OWTSs must be placed outside of wetland and riparian setbacks. 11. The EIR must disclose how this project’s restrictions on vegetation clearing will be effectively enforced. 12. Provide post-project stormwater performance criteria that maintains pre- project runoff volume, rate, and duration. 13. Include enforceable LID strategies for individual parcels that prevent post- project introduction of non-point source pollution to streams. 14. Exterior lighting standards must meet or exceed the light pollution mitigation standards in McKinleyville Community Services District Ordinance 51.07. If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please contact Staff Environmental Scientist Gordon Leppig at 619 Second Street, Eureka, California, 95501 or telephone (707) 441-2062. Sincerely, GARY B. STACEY Regional Manager cc: See Page Mr. Michael Wheeler March 20, 2008 Page Twelve References Beissinger, S.R. and D.R. Osborne, 1982. Effects of urbanization on avian community organization. The Condor 84:75-83. Crooks, K.R. and M.E. Soulé, 1999. Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a fragmented system. Nature 40:563-566. Davidson, C., H.B. Shaffer, and M.R. Jennings, 2001. Declines of the California red-legged frog: climate, UV-B, habitat, and pesticide hypotheses. Ecological Applications 11:464–479. DFG, 2004. Recovery Strategy for California Coho Salmon. Report to the California Fish and Game Commission, Sacramento, CA. Galatowitsch, S.M., N.O. Anderson, and P.D. Ascher, 1999. Invasiveness in wetland plants in temperate North America. Wetlands 19:733-755. Gapare, W.J. and S.N. Aitken, 2005. Strong spatial genetic structure in peripheral but not core populations of Sitka spruce [Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr.]. Molecular Ecology 14:2659-2667. Gapare, W.J., S.N. Aitken, and C.E. Ritland, 2005. Genetic diversity of core and peripheral Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr.) populations: implications for conservation of widespread species. Biological Conservation 123:113-123. Hansen, A.J., R.L. Knight, J.M. Marzluff. S. Powell, K. Brown, P.A. Gude, and K. Jones, 2005. Effects of exurban development on biodiversity patterns, mechanisms, and research needs. Ecological Applications 15:1893-1905. Leppig, G. and J.W. White, 2006. Conservation of peripheral plant populations in California. Madrono 53:264-274. Luginbuhl, J.M., J.M. Marzluff, J.E. Bradley, M.G. Raphael, and D.E. Varland, 2001. Corvid survey techniques and the relationship between corvid relative abundance and nest predation. Journal of Field Ornithology 72:556-572. Mack, R.N., and W.M. Lonsdale, 2001. Humans as global plant dispersers: getting more than we bargained for. BioScience 51:95-102. Mr. Michael Wheeler March 20, 2008 Page Thirteen Maestas, J.D., R.L. Knight, R.L. Gilgert, and C. Wendell, 2001. Biodiversity and land-use change in the American mountain west. Geographical Review Geographical Review 91:509-525. Malo, J.E., F. Suarez, and A. Diez, 2004. Can we mitigate animal-vehicle accidents using predictive models? Journal of Applied Ecology 41:701- 710. Marzluff, J.M., and E. Neatherlin. 2006, Corvid response to human settlements and campgrounds: causes, consequences, and challenges for conservation. Biological Conservation 130:301-314. Miyashita, T., A. Shinkai, and C. Takafumi, 1998. The effects of forest fragmentation on web spider communities in urban areas. Biological Conservation 86:357-364. Odell, E.A., D.M. Theobald, and R.L. Knight, 2003. Incorporating ecology into land use planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 69:72-82. Paul, M.J., and J.L. Meyer, 2001. Streams in the urban landscape. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32:333-65. Reichard, S.H., and P. White, 2001. Horticulture as a pathway of invasive plant introductions in the United States. BioScience 51:103-113. Rich, C., and T. Longcore, 2006. Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting. Island Press. Washington, DC. Ridley, S.P.D., G.T. Busteed, L.B. Kats, T.L. Vandergon, L.F.S. Lee, R.G. Dagit, J.L. Kerby, R.N. Fischer, and R.M. Sauvajot, 2005. Effects of urbanization on the distribution and abundance of amphibians and invasive species in southern California streams. Conservation Biology 19:1894-1907. Trombulak, S.C., and C.A. Frissell, 2000. Review of the ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14:18-30. Wilcove, D.S. 1985. Nest predation in forest tracts and the decline of migratory songbirds. Ecology 66:1211-1214. Mr. Michael Wheeler March 20, 2008 Page Fourteen Winzler and Kelly Consulting Engineers, 2006. Beau Pre Heights Proposed Development Plan APN # 510-011-015, 017, 511-111-059, 511-161-004 Rare Plant Survey Results. Winzler and Kelly Consulting Engineers, 2007a. Vertebrate Survey for the Proposed McKinleyville Murray Road LLC, Beau Pre Heights Subdivision, APN 510-011-015, 017, 511-111-059, 511-161-004. Winzler and Kelly Consulting Engineers, 2007b. Wetland Delineation For McKinleyville-Murray Road LLC/Danco Development Beau Pre Heights T7N, R1E, Portions of Section 28, 29, 32 and 33 A.P.N. #s 510-011-015 and 017, 511-111-059, 511-161-004 and Portions of A.P.N. # 511-161- 005 and 006 McKinleyville, California. cc: Ms. Laurie Harnsberger Department of Fish and Game 619 Second Street Eureka, California 95501 Board of Directors McKinleyville Community Services District 1656 Sutter Road McKinleyville, California 95519 ec: Messrs. Mark Stopher, William Condon, Scott Osborn, Richard Macedo, Bruce Webb, Gordon Leppig, Richard Lis, Tony LaBanca, Scott Bauer, and Michael van Hattem Ms. Laurie Harnsberger Department of Fish and Game mstopher@dfg.ca.gov, wcondon@dfg.ca.gov, sosborn@dfg.ca.gov, rmacedo@dfg.ca.gov,bwebb@dfg.ca.gov, gleppig@dfg.ca.gov, tlabanca@dfg.ca.gov, sbauer@dfg.ca.gov, mvanhattem@dfg.ca.gov, lharnsberger@dfg.ca.gov Messrs. John Short and Paul Keiran North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 5550 Skylane Boulevard, Suite A Santa Rosa, California 95403 jshort@waterboards.ca.gov, pkeiran@waterboards.gov GL:dw\W:\Correspondence\2008\Habitat Conservation\Beau Pre Heights Proposed MND Comments March 17 08.doc | sensitive species, rare plants, habitat, biological corridor, wetlands, setbacks | N/A | CEQA §15380 | N/A | N/A | 40.96 | -124.09 | |
| 2019_MinorSubdivisionMendocino_Application | Minor Subdivision MS 2018-0001 | 2019 | 2019069030 | CEQA | Permit Application | N/A | Scoping | County | Mendocino County Planning & Building Services Department | Mendocino | Dorothy King Young Chapter | N/A | California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Northern Region 1 | Local Planning Action | Approved | CALIFORNIA GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director FISH & WILDLIFE State of California - Natural Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Northern Region 601 Locust Street Redding, CA 96001 www.wildlife.ca.gov March 25, 2019 Brent Schultz, Director Mendocino County Planning and Building Services 860 N. Bush St. Ukiah, CA 95482 Subject: Minor Subdivision MS 2018-0001 (Scott Brown) at 31120 Thomas Lane, Mendocino County Dear Mr. Schultz: On July 8, 2018, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a referral for a minor subdivision application (MS 2018-0001) for APN 019-333-19 (Project), submitted by Scott Brown (Applicant). The Project proposes the subdivision of a 10.3-acre parcel into three parcels of 2.0, 2.0, and 6.3 acres. CDFW has substantial concerns that this project will result in significant impacts to Mendocino Cypress Woodland Alliance (MCW), which is a Sensitive Natural Community (vegetation type). Furthermore, this project is representative of the broader threat of development and vegetation clearing resulting in on-going and continued loss of MCW in Mendocino County (County) outside the Coastal Zone. This Project demonstrates that despite strong conservation policies in the County 2008 General Plan Update, the County continues to have no effective land use or zoning overlay, regulation, or ordinance to prevent or mitigate the loss of MCW and other Sensitive Natural Communities from development or conversion outside of the Coastal Zone. As a Trustee for the State's fish and wildlife resources, CDFW has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants and the habitat necessary to sustain their populations. As a Responsible Agency, CDFW administers the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and other provisions of the Fish and Game Code that conserve the State's fish and wildlife public trust resources. CDFW offers the g comments and recommendations in our role as a Trustee and Responsible Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; California Public Resource Code $ 21000 et seq.). Project History Prior to receiving the Project referral, CDFW provided comments to Mendocino County Planning staff on June 18, 2018, which noted the likelihood of wetlands and rare plants on this parcel and recommended both a wetland delineation and a rare plant survey be completed. At that time, both the County and CDFW were unaware the Applicant had Brent Schultz, Director Mendocino County Planning and Building Services March 25, 2019 Page 2 of 8 already cleared approximately 90 percent of the parcel vegetation prior to submitting the Project application (see Table 1 for Project timeline and agency involvement). Table 1: Parcel History and Agency Involvement May 7, 2017 Aerial imagery shows the parcel approximately 90% forested May 10, 2017 Parcel purchased by Applicant October 27, 2017 Aerial imagery shows the parcel cleared, 10% remaining forested January 4, 2018 Applicant files application for minor subdivision June 8, 2018 County refers MS 2018-001 to CDFW for comment June 18, 2018 CDFW provides informal comment requesting a wetland delineation and floristic surveys; CDFW was unaware that the parcel has been cleared September 5, 2018 County contacts CDFW regarding unpermitted clearing and grading at parcel September 10, 2018 County issues Notice of Violation to Applicant for trailers, shipping container, solar panels, water lines, and grading. Resolution of this Notice of Violation will be the application for these permits September 14, 2018 Preliminary biological scoping cites presence of rare plants and suggests presence of wetlands December 4, 2018 Interagency site visit to parcel December 5, 2018 North Coast Regional Water Quality Board (NCRWQB) requests wetland delineation be submitted within 60 days December 17, 2018 County informs CDFW that they will consider the Application once a wetland delineation is completed February 7, 2019 Applicant provides wetland delineation that depicts a large wetland in the northeast corner of the parcel and a small wetland on the southern edge Current vegetation mapping identifies this parcel and adjacent parcels as dominated by MCW, a Sensitive Natural Community with a global rank of G1 and State rank of S1, signifying it is rare and threatened both globally and statewide. As a Sensitive Natural Community, potential Project impacts to MCW must be evaluated during CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Appendix G, Section IV. Sensitive Natural Resources and Potential impacts Mendocino Cypress Woodland, previously known as Mendocino Pygmy Cypress een designated a Sensitive Natural Community for at least 10 years (Sawyer et al. 2009). In 2018, CDFW's Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program Brent Schultz, Director Mendocino County Planning and Building Services March 25, 2019 Page 3 of 8 (VegCAMP) completed a three-year vegetation analysis and mapping study of MCW and related natural communities on nutrient-poor (oligotrophic) soils on Mendocino County and northern Sonoma County coastal terraces. The study classified eight natural community associations. Due to their rarity and restricted range, all eight associations are designated as Sensitive Natural Communities. Mendocino Cypress Woodland, dominated by Mendocino cypress (Hesperocyparis pygmaea) and Bolander pine (Pinus contorta spp. bolander) only occurs in Mendocino County between Pudding Creek and the Navarro River, and with approximately 4,950 acres remaining, it is among the rarest of natural communities in the world (Keeler-Wolf et al. 2019). Mendocino Cypress Woodland is often considered to be a wetland based on hydrology (perched water table), the presence of poorly drained, shallow soils with underlying hardpan, and the dominance of wetland plants. The parcel directly east of the Project site contains Sholars Bog, a rare sphagnum fen wetland habitat surrounded by intact MCW. Land clearing, ditching, and septic systems result in altered hydrology and increased nutrient inputs, which have been identified as threats that can substantially degrade wetland and MCW habitat values (CDFW 2014, Keeler-Wolf et al. 2019). The residential development resulting from this Project, including installation of drainage ditches and septic systems and impervious surfaces such as structures and driveways, and additional vegetation clearing, will further directly impact onsite and adjacent MCW and wetlands, including Sholars Bog. The biological scoping report identified four rare plant species on the Project parcel, including Mendocino cypress (State Heritage Rank S1), Bolander Pine (State Heritage Rank S2), California sedge (Carex californica, State Heritage Rank S2), and hair-leaves rush (Juncus supiniformis, State Heritage Rank S1). According to the California Natural Diversity Database, plants with a State Heritage Rank of S1 are critically imperiled and plants designated the $2 Rank are imperiled. Thus, the Project appears highly likely to directly impact several rare plant populations. To assess the potential presence of additional rare plants and better describe the known rare plant occurrences, CDFW recommends rare plant surveys be conducted that adhere to the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW 2018), and impacts to rare plants be analyzed in the Project's CEQA document. During a site visit on December 5, 2018, NCRWQB requested a wetland delineation be conducted. The wetland delineation documented an approximately 0.67-acre wetland on the northeastern section of the Project site, and an approximately 850-square-foot wetland in the southern section of the Project site ( Wynn Coastal Planning and Biology 2019). The wetland delineation acknowledged that the prior vegetation clearing was "problematic," and confounded conducting an accurate delineation. Clearly a wetland delineation should have been conducted prior to the Project proponent clearing the vegetation and draining the site with extensive drainage ditches. Brent Schultz, Director Mendocino County Planning and Building Services March 25, 2019 Page 4 of 8 CDFW recommends this Project's CEQA document include an analysis of the Project's potential impact to both onsite and adjacent wetland habitat. This impact analysis should include an assessment of appropriate wetland development setbacks (buffers) or other onsite and offsite mitigation measures to prevent further wetland degradation or loss through development conversion, altered hydrology, point and nonpoint source pollution, light pollution, invasive species, etc. In a review of wetland and riparian buffers (CDFW 2014), CDFW concludes that failure to maintain buffers connecting wetland and upland features "will result in the creation of isolated wetland enclaves scattered throughout highly urbanized areas and result in indirect loss of wetland habitat values." A review by the Coastal Commission showed that 30 to 59 meter-wide (100 to 195 foot-wide) buffers are generally accepted in the scientific literature as effectively protecting aquatic resources (California Coastal Commission 2007). CDFW typically recommends habitat buffer widths of at least 150 feet for streams and wetlands (CDFW 2014). Development setbacks of at least 100 feet are commonly employed to minimize indirect impacts to rare plant populations and Sensitive Natural Communities; however, the width and placement of effective and appropriate development setbacks should be site- and project-specific, and thus, should be developed in consultation with CDFW and analyzed and mapped in the Project CEQA document. Mendocino County Protections of Wetlands and Sensitive Natural Communities Of paramount concern to CDFW is the continued threat of development and vegetation clearing to wetlands and Sensitive Natural Communities in Mendocino County. The clearing of this 10-acre parcel prior to CEQA review and County permitting is a compelling example of the lack of deterrence or consequences for those causing significant environmental effects and subverting CEQA. It appears the County does not have sufficient enforcement authority in these situations because the County is without a land use or zoning overlay, regulation, or ordinance to prevent or mitigate the loss of wetlands and other Sensitive Natural Communities outside the Coastal Zone. The County does not have a discretionary grading permit process or adequate violation fines to dissuade or prevent individuals from removing substantial habitat without adequate environmental review and mitigation. In the past six years, CDFW and Mendocino County Planning and Building Services staff have met numerous times to discuss the County's lack of effective environmental protections outside of the Coastal Zone. These meetings have been productive and have resulted in minor changes to the County's permit review process in inland areas, elevating some ministerial projects to discretionary projects. Currently, County permitting of clearing and grading activities is a ministerial action, which does not include environmental review, Brent Schultz, Director Mendocino County Planning and Building Services March 25, 2019 Page 5 of 8 CDFW remains concerned Mendocino County may be years out from developing effective Sensitive Natural Community conservation measures. Approximately 70 percent of MCW is located outside the Coastal Zone (Keeler-Wolf et al. 2019), where much development is ministerial and extensive land clearing receives little environmental review or oversight. As indicated by CDFW'S CEQA comment letters on this topic (Table 2), the decline of Sensitive Natural Communities such as MCW and Northern Bishop Pine Forest Alliance is a significant and on-going issue, which, without imminent solutions, will continue unabated. Table 2: CDFW Letters to Mendocino County, Joint Powers Authorities and Special Districts on the Conservation Value and Threats to Wetlands, MCW, and other Sensitive Natural Communities. January 2006 CDFW letter to Mendocino Coast Parks and Recreation District regarding the draft EIR for Golf Course November CDFW letter to Mendocino County on General Plan Update 2008 recommending County adopt a grading ordinance February CDFW letter to Caspar Joint Powers Authority regarding Notice 2014 of Preparation for Central Coast Transfer Station March 2015 CDFW letter to Caspar Joint Powers Authority regarding draft EIR for Central Coast Transfer Station September CDFW letter to Mendocino County Planning and Building 2015 Services regarding the need for conservation of MCW March 2018 CDFW letter to Mendocino Coast Parks and Recreation District regarding Notice of Preparation for Fort Bragg OHV Park In the September 14, 2015 letter, for instance, CDFW reminded Mendocino County that residential development and land use activities are the major threats to the continued existence of MCW and pointed out policies within the Mendocino County General Plan that provide conservation guidelines for MCW. This 2015 letter cited Mendocino County General Plan Resource Management Policy RM-84: "Protect "pygmy" ecosystems ("pygmy" and "transitional pygmy" vegetation and soils) through the use of measures that include minimizing: • Vegetation removal, • Disruption of vegetation community, and • The introduction of water and nutrients due to human activity, sewage disposal systems, animals or agricultural uses. Also: • Limit subdivision of land on agricultural lands adjacent to “pygmy" ecosystems, and • Promote best management practices to minimize impacts" Brent Schultz, Director Mendocino County Planning and Building Services March 25, 2019 Page 6 of 8 This 2015 letter cited the lack of a grading ordinance in Mendocino County and how this hinders the County's ability to implement its General Plan policies and protection of MCW and other Sensitive Natural Communities. The 2015 CDFW letter also stated that impacts from future projects could be found to be cumulatively considerable as defined in CEQA section 15065 and would potentially require an Environmental Impact Report for future projects impacting these habitats. CEQA section 15065(a)(3) describes cumulative impacts occurring when: " The project has possible environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects." CDFW continues to be concerned that the cumulative impacts of development within and adjacent to MCW and other Sensitive Natural Communities remains a continuous threat to these habitats, and thus necessitates cumulative impact analyses in CEQA documents for projects impacting these habitats, such as this Project. Recommendations 1. Mendocino County should consult with CDFW and file an appropriate CEQA document with the State Clearinghouse for public and agency review and comment. This CEQA document should include: a. An analysis of impacts to onsite and adjacent MCW, wetlands, and rare plant populations. b. The results of rare plant surveys conforming to Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW 2018) and the results of the wetland delineation on the Project site. C. Effective avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures that address both cumulative and Project-specific significant impacts to resources on this and neighboring parcels resulting from further development and subdivision of this parcel. 2. Mendocino County should evaluate an array of effective riparian, wetland, and Sensitive Natural Community conservation strategies, such as a land use or zoning overlay, changes in building code, and grading permit changes or ordinances, consult with CDFW, and take the required steps to implement one or more effective conservation strategies. Brent Schultz, Director Mendocino County Planning and Building Services March 25, 2019 Page 7 of 8 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this permit application. CDFW staff are available to meet with Mendocino County Planning staff to consult with or address the contents of this letter in greater depth. If you have questions on this matter or would like to discuss these recommendations, please contact Environmental Scientist Daniel Harrington at (707) 456-0335 or by e-mail at daniel.harrington@wildlife.ca.gov. Sincerely, Curt Babcock Habitat Conservation Program Manager ec: Brent Schultz, Julia Acker, Sam Vandewater Mendocino County Planning and Building Services schultzb@mendocinocounty.org, ackeri@mendocinocounty.org, vandewaters@mendocinocounty.org Carre Brown, John McCowen, John Haschak, Dan Gjerde, Ted Williams Mendocino County Board of Supervisors brownci@mendocinocounty.org, mccowen@mendocinocounty.org, haschaki@mendocinocounty.org, gjerde@mendocinocounty.org, williamst@mendocinocounty.org Jacob Shannon, Ryan Bey North Coast Regional Water Quality Board jacob.shannon@waterboards.ca.gov, ryan.bey@waterboards.ca.gov Keith Hess, Holly Costa U.S. Army Corps of Engineers keith.d.hess@usace.army.mil, holly.n.costa@usace.army.mil State Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research state.clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov Gordon Leppig, Jennifer Garrison, Daniel Harrington, Angela Liebenberg, Dana Mason California Department of Fish and Wildlife gordon.leppig@wildlife.ca.gov, jennifer.garrison@wildlife.ca.gov, daniel.harrington@wildlife.ca.gov, angela.liebenberg@wildlife.ca.gov, dana.mason@wildlife.ca.gov Brent Schultz, Director Mendocino County Planning and Building Services March 25, 2019 Page 8 of 8 References California Coastal Commission. 2007. Policies in Local Coastal Programs Regarding Development Setbacks and Mitigation Ratios for Wetlands and Other Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas. California Coastal Commission, San Francisco, CA. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2014. Technical Memorandum: Development, Land Use, and Climate Change Impacts on Wetland and Riparian Habitats - A Summary of Scientifically Supported Conservation Strategies, Mitigation Measures, and Best Management Practices. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Redding, CA. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, CA. California Native Plant Society. 2019. A Manual of California Vegetation, Online Edition. http://www.cnps.org/cnps/vegetation. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Keeler-Wolf, T., D. Hickson, R. Yacoub and M.J. Colletti. 2019. Classification and Mapping of Mendocino Cypress (Hesperocyparis pygmaea) Woodland and Related Vegetation on Oligotrophic Soils, Mendocino and Sonoma Counties, California. Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, CA. Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf and J.M. Evans. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Wynn Coastal Planning and Biology. 2018. Preliminary Scoping Letter, September 10, 2018. Wynn Coastal Planning and Biology. Fort Bragg, CA. Wynn Coastal Planning and Biology. 2019. Wetland Delineation Report, February 7, 2019. Wynn Coastal Planning and Biology. Fort Bragg, CA. | sensitive natural communities, vegetation, wetlands, survey | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 39.42 | -123.77 | |
| 2019_MinorSubdivisionMendocino_MND | Minor Subdivision MS 2018-0001 | 2019 | 2019069030 | CEQA | MND | N/A | Draft | County | Mendocino County Planning & Building Services Department | Mendocino | Dorothy King Young Chapter | N/A | California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Northern Region 1 | Local Planning Action | Approved | CALIFORNIA GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director DEPARTMENT OF FISH & WILDLIFE State of California - Natural Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Northern Region 601 Locust Street Redding, CA 96001 www.wildlife.ca.gov July 8, 2019 Sam Vandewater County of Mendocino Planning and Building Services 860 North Bush Street Ukiah, CA 95482 Subject: Notice of Completion of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for MS 2018-0001 (Brown), SCH#2019069030 Dear Mr. Vandewater: On June 10, 2018, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a Notice of Completion (NOC) for a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) regarding the Minor Subdivision MS 2018-0001 (Project). The County of Mendocino (County) is the Lead Agency for this Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As a Trustee for the State's fish and wildlife resources, CDFW has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and the habitat necessary to sustain their populations. As a Responsible Agency, CDFW administers the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and other provisions of the Fish and Game Code that conserve the State's fish and wildlife public trust resources. CDFW offers the following comments and recommendations in our role as a Trustee and Responsible Agency under CEQA, California Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.). CDFW has three principal concerns with this MND: 1. The MND's impact analysis determinations are informed only by a cursory biological assessment of conditions at the Project site. Botanical surveys for rare plants and Sensitive Natural Communities (SNC) were not conducted. Only preliminary biological scoping resulting in a "Preliminary Biological Scoping Letter" was conducted, which were not intended to follow standard CDFW botanical survey guidance. 2. The building envelope and 50-foot buffer mitigations for rare plants, wetlands, and SNCs lack sufficient detail or feasibly enforceable conditions, and the buffers are too narrow to effectively mitigate impacts to less than significant. 3. The MND does not adequately analyze stormwater, altered hydrology, and disturbance impacts to onsite and adjacent wetland and SNC habitats. Sam Vandewater County of Mendocino Planning and Building Services July 8, 2019 Page 2 of 7 Therefore, CDFW disagrees with the MND's significance determinations and finds the proposed mitigations and conditions of approval will not be effective in reducing impacts to a less than significant level. CDFW recommends the County not approve the Project as proposed. If the County were to approve the Project, CDFW recommends the County revise the MND with the results of botanical surveys and a revised analysis of environmental impacts, and CDFW is consulted on feasible and effective mitigations. If the revision is substantial, or there may be a significant impact, the MND should be recirculated or an environmental impact report (EIR) prepared (see CEQA Guidelines $ 15073.5) Project Description The Project is a minor subdivision request to subdivide an existing parcel of approximately 10 acres into three parcels of approximately 2 acres, 2 acres, and 6 acres. Prior to applying for the subdivision, the Project applicant cleared and graded the property, removed rare plants and Mendocino cypress woodland (MCW) habitat, a SNC, and impacted wetlands. The installation of Project infrastructure without permits resulted in the County issuing code violations to the applicant. However, CDFW understands the violations were resolved through the applicant applying for the required permits within 30 days. No fines or penalties were levied by the County to disincentive this or other project ents from conducting Project activities without permits or before CEQA review The parcel east of the Project parcel supports several SNCs, including a sphagnum fen and MCW. Parcels surrounding the Project site are dominated by MCW, much of which is severely degraded by development. MCW is a SNC with a global rank of G1, and State rank of S1, signifying it is rare and threatened both globally and statewide. As a SNC, potential Project impacts to MCW must be evaluated during CEQA project review pursuant to CEQA Appendix G, Section IV. Consultation History CDFW provided early consultation and recommendations to the County on this Project in a March 25, 2019 letter (Attachment 1). The substantial evidence and more detailed background information to support CDFW's environmental concerns for the Project and the adequacy of the MND is found in Attachment 1. None of the recommendations made in our March consultation letter were incorporated into the MND. In our March consultation letter, CDFW summarized six previous CDFW letters regarding continuing development-related loss and degradation of MCW, wetlands, and other SNCs outside the Coastal Zone, bringing attention to the fact the County has no effective ordinance, regulation, or land-use code that effectively implements or enforces the conservation policies in the County General Plan. Sam Vandewater County of Mendocino Planning and Building Services July 8, 2019 Page 3 of 7 Scoping and Buffers The MND references the Preliminary Scoping Letter as a principal means of assessing the presence, abundance, and distribution of rare plants and SNCs at the Project site (Wynn Coastal Planning 2018). However, this Preliminary Scoping Letter was intended only as a preliminary investigation and as a means of providing counsel to the Project proponent. It was based on a single site visit in July 2018, and was not intended to nor does it meet professional botanical survey standards found in CDFW's guidance document Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW 2018). However, this Preliminary Scoping Letter does document rare plants, SNCs, and wetlands that occur extensively throughout the Project site. The principal MND mitigation (County Staff Report Attachment O) and conditions of approval is the strategic placement of building envelopes with 50-foot development buffers intended to avoid wetlands, rare plants, and SNCs. The Project's required buffers are enforced through a note placed on the parcel map limiting development to mapped building envelopes. Other mitigations include native plant revegetation of cleared areas and restrictions on tree and vegetation removal unless there are safety or disease concerns documented by a certified arborist or registered professional forester. CDFW has two substantial concerns that these mitigations will be ineffective in meeting their primary conservation objectives: (1) the buffers are not wide enough, and (2) the allowable uses both within and outside the buffers are not defined and will have little likelihood of being enforced. CDFW's March 25 letter (Attachment 1) includes substantial evidence why 50-foot buffers are typically not effective at minimizing impacts from adjacent development and why minimum buffers of 100 feet or wider were recommended by CDFW for this project. Beyond the buffer width analysis included in Attachment 1, and found in CDFW (2014), the heightened concern for fire-safe buffers around structures is another compelling reason why 50-foot development buffers are problematic. CAL FIRE recommends, and insurance companies increasingly require, 100-foot fire-safe buffers around structures. Thus, future homeowners in this subdivision will immediately have justification and perhaps an obligation to remove or minimize native vegetation within 100 feet of structures. Except for the conditions for vegetation clearing and planting, the MND does not include a prescriptive definition of land uses allowed or prohibited within the 50-foot protective buffers or within the rare plant, wetland, and SNC habitats. Curtilage, the land immediately adjacent to a home, typically includes a wide array of expected uses and land disturbance, including resident and guest parking, recreational vehicle and boat storage, ancillary structures such as garden and storage sheds, kennels, coops, children's play equipment, compost and brush piles, etc. All of these activities Sam Vandewater County of Mendocino Planning and Building Services July 8, 2019 Page 4 of 7 whether inside the 50-foot buffer or in areas intended for protection are highly likely to degrade and replace the rare plant populations and wetlands on the Project site. MND Exhibit A, "Conditions of Approval," states conditions of approval and mitigation measures are indicated by ***". Exhibit A, “Conditions of Approval," Condition 9, which states, "Native vegetation shall be reestablished in all areas of disturbed soil outside of the building envelopes," does not have the "**" designation. Thus, although Condition 9 is listed in Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures, the MND does not stipulate Condition 9 as a condition of approval or a mitigation measure. Thus, revegetating the Project site appears to be voluntary and unenforceable. Furthermore, Condition 9 does not define native vegetation, i.e., would the planting of only one or two herbaceous species be considered native vegetation? Further, the MND does not define "native,"i.e., is the vegetation native to the Project site, to Mendocino County, California, or western North America? The MND does not require replanting with the MCW species, or the broad assortment of trees, shrubs, and herbs that were cleared from the Project site prior to permit submittal. The MND's replanting condition does not include success criteria or monitoring requirements. CDFW can find no requirement or feasible and effective means to ensure that the re implemented or that the revegetation will persist after five years (typical standard for revegetation success). The MND also does not include enforcement measures or consequences for the future parcel owners if the replanting fails, is invaded by exotic species, or is intentionally replaced by lawns or ornamental species. Based on the above, and given the typical ways that homeowners use their yards, CDFW finds the MND's conditions of approval and mitigations for wetlands and rare plants are unenforceable, ineffective, and unlikely to succeed. Thus, the Project has a high likelihood of further degrading or ultimately eliminating the wetland and rare plant populations on the Project site. California Sedge The California sedge (Carex californica) is present within or immediately adjacent to all the identified building envelopes. The California sedge has a State Heritage Rank of S2, defined as "imperiled in the state because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations, steep declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation from the state." The California sedge has a California Rare Plant Rank of 2B.3. This ranking (2B) is defined as "rare or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere." This plant, as indicated in the MND, has a Threat Code extension of (.3), signifying that it is "not very threatened in California, with less than 20% of occurrences being threatened/low degree and immediacy of threat" (CNDDB 2019). Based upon this Threat Code, the perceived adequacy of the building envelopes and buffers, and restrictions on Sam Vandewater County of Mendocino Planning and Building Services July 8, 2019 Page 5 of 7 vegetation removal, the MND determined the impacts to the California sedge are less than significant. In addition to the buffer and vegetation removal condition concerns discussed above, CDFW has substantial evidence the California sedge should have a higher threat level than (.3) due to the on-going and extensive degradation and removal of its primary California habitat: MCW. According to Keeler-Wolf (2019), between 20-44 percent of MCW and related SNCs have been lost to development in the past 150 years. CDFW has recently submitted data to the California Native Plant Society that demonstrates a higher threat level is warranted and requests that its Threat Code be reevaluated. For these reasons, CDFW recommends the MND treat impacts on the California sedge as potentially significant and propose mitigations. Altered Hydrology and Stormwater Runoff The MND does not analyze the Project's altered hydrology and water quality impacts to onsite and directly adjacent offsite SNCs and wetlands. CDFW's March 25 letter (Attachment 1, page 3, and Recommendation (a)), describes a sphagnum fen and intact MCW adjacent to this project, and provides substantial evidence of known stormwater and nutrient impacts to these habitat types from adjacent development runoff. Recommendations 1. The County should not approve the Project as proposed. 2. The MND should be revised to address the issues raised in this letter. The MND should include the results of botanical surveys, a revised analysis of environmental impacts, and the results of CDFW consultation on feasible and effective mitigations. If the revision is substantial, or there may be a significant impact, the MND should be recirculated or an EIR prepared (see CEQA Guidelines $ 15073.5). 3. CDFW and County staff should meet to discuss the issues raised in this letter and work to develop effective long-term solutions to the continued loss and degradation of MCW habitats. As a Trustee Agency, CDFW remains concerned about the continuing and unabated loss and degradation of MCW and wetlands outside of the Coastal Zone. Despite strong conservation policies in the County 2008 General Plan Update, the County does not have an effective land use or zoning overlay, regulation, or ordinance to prevent or mitigate the loss of MCW and other SNC from development or conversion outside of the Coastal Zone. Sam Vandewater County of Mendocino Planning and Building Services July 8, 2019 Page 6 of 7 As stated in our March 2019 letter, if effective conservation measures are not developed, CDFW is likely to find that future projects resulting in the loss or degradation of MCW has cumulatively considerable impacts. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this MND. As offered in our March 2019 letter, CDFW staff look forward to meeting with County planning staff and policy makers to address the contents of this letter in greater depth. Given the complexity of this Project and the broader concerns over the conservation of SNCs in coastal Mendocino County, CDFW strongly recommends a face-to-face meeting between CDFW and County staff as an effective means to begin addressing the issues raised in this letter. If you have questions on this matter or would like to schedule a meeting to discuss these recommendations, please contact Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisor) Gordon Leppig at (707) 441-2062 or by e-mail at gordon.leppig@wildlife.ca.gov. Sincerely, st Curt Babcock Habitat Conservation Program Manager Attachment ec: Sam Vandewater, Brent Schultz, Julia Acker County of Mendocino Planning and Building Services vandewaters@mendocinocounty.org, schultzb@mendocinocounty.org, ackerj@mendocinocounty.org Carre Brown, John McCowen, John Haschak, Dan Gjerde, Ted Williams Mendocino County Board of Supervisors brownci@mendocinocounty.org, mccowen@mendocinocounty.org, haschaki@mendocinocounty.org, gjerde@mendocinocounty.org, williamst@mendocinocounty.org Connor Mclntee, Ryan Bey North Coast Regional Water Quality Board connor.mcintee@waterboards.ca.gov, ryan.bey@waterboards.ca.gov Keith Hess, William Connor U.S. Army Corps of Engineers keith.d.hess@usace.army.mil, william.m.connor@usace.army.mil State Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research state.clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov Sam Vandewater County of Mendocino Planning and Building Services July 8, 2019 Page 7 of 7 Gordon Leppig, Jennifer Garrison, Daniel Harrington, Angela Liebenberg, Dana Mason California Department of Fish and Wildlife gordon.leppig@wildlife.ca.gov, jennifer.garrison@wildlife.ca.gov, daniel.harrington@wildlife.ca.gov, angela.liebenberg@wildlife.ca.gov, dana.mason@wildlife.ca.gov References California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2014. Technical Memorandum: Development, Land Use, and Climate Change Impacts on Wetland and Riparian Habitats - A Summary of Scientifically Supported Conservation Strategies, Mitigation Measures, and Best Management Practices. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Redding, CA. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Regions/1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, CA. California Native Plant Society. 2019. A Manual of California Vegetation, Online Edition. http://www.cnps.org/cnps/vegetation. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. CNDDB. 2019. California Natural Diversity Database. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. March 2019. Sacramento, CA. Keeler-Wolf, T., D. Hickson, R. Yacoub and M.J. Colletti. 2019. Classification and Mapping of Mendocino Cypress (Hesperocyparis pygmaea) Woodland and Related Vegetation on Oligotrophic Soils, Mendocino and Sonoma Counties, California. Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, CA. Wynn Coastal Planning and Biology. 2018. Preliminary Scoping Letter, September 10, 2018. Wynn Coastal Planning and Biology. Fort Bragg, CA. CALIFORNIA GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director FISH & WILDLIFE State of California - Natural Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Northern Region 601 Locust Street Redding, CA 96001 www.wildlife.ca.gov March 25, 2019 Brent Schultz, Director Mendocino County Planning and Building Services 860 N. Bush St. Ukiah, CA 95482 Subject: Minor Subdivision MS 2018-0001 (Scott Brown) at 31120 Thomas Lane, Mendocino County Dear Mr. Schultz: On July 8, 2018, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a referral for a minor subdivision application (MS 2018-0001) for APN 019-333-19 (Project), submitted by Scott Brown (Applicant). The Project proposes the subdivision of a 10.3-acre parcel into three parcels of 2.0, 2.0, and 6.3 acres. CDFW has substantial concerns that this project will result in significant impacts to Mendocino Cypress Woodland Alliance (MCW), which is a Sensitive Natural Community (vegetation type). Furthermore, this project is representative of the broader threat of development and vegetation clearing resulting in on-going and continued loss of MCW in Mendocino County (County) outside the Coastal Zone. This project demonstrates that despite strong conservation policies in the County 2008 General Plan Update, the County continues to have no effective land use or zoning overlay, regulation, or ordinance to prevent or mitigate the loss of MCW and other Sensitive Natural Communities from development or conversion outside of the Coastal Zone. As a Trustee for the State's fish and wildlife resources, CDFW has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants and the habitat necessary to sustain their populations. As a Responsible Agency, CDFW administers the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and other provisions of the Fish and Game Code that conserve the State's fish and wildlife public trust resources. CDFW offers the following comments and recommendations in our role as a Trustee and Responsible Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; California Public Resource Code $ 21000 et seq.). Project History Prior to receiving the Project referral, CDFW provided comments to Mendocino County Planning staff on June 18, 2018, which noted the likelihood of wetlands and rare plants on this parcel and recommended both a wetland delineation and a rare plant survey be completed. At that time, both the County and CDFW were unaware the Applicant had Brent Schultz, Director Mendocino County Planning and Building Services March 25, 2019 Page 2 of 8 already cleared approximately 90 percent of the parcel vegetation prior to submitting the Project application (see Table 1 for Project timeline and agency involvement). Table 1: Parcel History and Agency Involvement May 7, 2017 | Aerial imagery shows the parcel approximately 90% forested May 10, 2017 Parcel purchased by Applicant October 27, 2017 Aerial imagery shows the parcel cleared, 10% remaining forested January 4, 2018 Applicant files application for minor subdivision June 8, 2018 County refers MS 2018-001 to CDFW for comment June 18, 2018 CDFW provides informal comment requesting a wetland delineation and floristic surveys; CDFW was unaware that the parcel has been cleared September 5, 2018 County contacts CDFW regarding unpermitted clearing and grading at parcel : September 10, 2018 County issues Notice of Violation to Applicant for trailers, shipping container, solar panels, water lines, and grading. Resolution of this Notice of Violation will be the application for these permits September 14, 2018 Preliminary biological scoping cites presence of rare plants and suggests presence of wetlands December 4, 2018 Interagency site visit to parcel December 5, 2018 North Coast Regional Water Quality Board (NCRWQB) requests wetland delineation be submitted within 60 days December 17, 2018 County informs CDFW that they will consider the Application once a wetland delineation is completed February 7, 2019 Applicant provides wetland delineation that depicts a large | wetland in the northeast corner of the parcel and a small wetland on the southern edge Current vegetation mapping identifies this parcel and adjacent parcels as dominated by MCW, a Sensitive Natural Community with a global rank of G1 and State rank of S1, signifying it is rare and threatened both globally and statewide. As a Sensitive Natural Community, potential Project impacts to MCW must be evaluated during CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Appendix G, Section IV. Sensitive Natural Resources and Potential Impacts Mendocino Cypress Woodland, previously known as Mendocino Pygmy Cypress Woodland, has been designated a Sensitive Natural Community for at least 10 years (Sawyer et al. 2009). In 2018, CDFW's Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program Brent Schultz, Director Mendocino County Planning and Building Services March 25, 2019 Page 3 of 8 (VegCAMP) completed a three-year vegetation analysis and mapping study of MCW and related natural communities on nutrient-poor (oligotrophic) soils on Mendocino County and northern Sonoma County coastal terraces. The study classified eight natural community associations. Due to their rarity and restricted range, all eight associations are designated as Sensitive Natural Communities. Mendocino Cypress Woodland, dominated by Mendocino cypress (Hesperocyparis pygmaea) and Bolander pine (Pinus contorta spp. bolanden) only occurs in Mendocino County between Pudding Creek and the Navarro River, and with approximately 4,950 among the rarest of natural communities in the world (Keeler-Wolf et al. 2019). Mendocino Cypress Woodland is often considered to be a wetland based on hydrology (perched water table), the presence of poorly drained, shallow soils with underlying hardpan, and the dominance of wetland plants. The parcel directly east of the Project site contains Sholars Bog, a rare sphagnum fen wetland habitat surrounded by intact MCW. Land clearing, ditching, and septic systems result in altered hydrology and increased nutrient inputs, which have been identified as threats that can substantially degrade wetland and MCW habitat values (CDFW 2014, Keeler-Wolf et al. 2019). The residential development resulting from this Project, including installation of drainage ditches and septic systems and impervious surfaces such as structures and driveways, and additional vegetation clearing, will further directly impact onsite and adjacent MCW and wetlands, including Sholars Bog. The biological scoping report identified four rare plant species on the Project parcel, including Mendocino cypress (State Heritage Rank S1), Bolander Pine (State Heritage Rank S2), California sedge (Carex californica, State Heritage Rank S2), and hair-leaved rush (Juncus supiniformis, State Heritage Rank S1). According to the California Natural Diversity Database, plants with a State Heritage Rank of $1 are critically imperiled and plants designated the S2 Rank are imperiled. Thus, the Project appears highly likely to directly impact several rare plant populations. To assess the potential presence of additional rare plants and better describe the known rare plant occurrences, CDFW recommends rare plant surveys be conducted that adhere to the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW 2018), and impacts to rare plants be analyzed in the Project's CEQA document. During a site visit on December 5, 2018, NCRWQB requested a wetland delineation be conducted. The wetland delineation documented an approximately 0.67-acre wetland on the northeastern section of the Project site, and an approximately 850-square-foot wetland in the southern section of the Project site (Wynn Coastal Planning and Biology 2019). The wetland delineation acknowledged that the prior vegetation clearing was "problematic," and confounded conducting an accurate delineation. Clearly a wetland delineation should have been conducted prior to the Project proponent clearing the vegetation and draining the site with extensive drainage ditches. Brent Schultz, Director Mendocino County Planning and Building Services March 25, 2019 Page 4 of 8 CDFW recommends this Project's CEQA document include an analysis of the Project's potential impact to both onsite and adjacent wetland habitat. This impact analysis should include an assessment of appropriate wetland development setbacks (buffers) or other onsite and offsite mitigation measures to prevent further wetland degradation or loss through development conversion, altered hydrology, point and nonpoint source pollution, light pollution, invasive species, etc. In a review of wetland and riparian buffers (CDFW 2014), CDFW concludes that failure to maintain buffers connecting wetland and upland features "will result in the creation of isolated wetland enclaves scattered throughout highly urbanized areas and result in indirect loss of wetland habitat values." A review by the Coastal Commission showed that 30 to 59 meter-wide (100 to 195 foot-wide) buffers are generally accepted in the scientific literature as effectively protecting aquatic resources (California Coastal Commission 2007). CDFW typically recommends habitat buffer widths of at least 150 feet for streams and wetlands (CDFW 2014). Development setbacks of at least 100 feet are commonly employed to minimize indirect impacts to rare plant populations and Sensitive Natural Communities; however, the width and placement of effective and appropriate development setbacks should be site- and project-specific, and thus, should be developed in consultation with CDFW and analyzed and mapped in the Project CEQA document. Mendocino County Protections of Wetlands and Sensitive Natural Communities Of paramount concern to CDFW is the continued threat of development and vegetation clearing to wetlands and Sensitive Natural Communities in Mendocino County. The clearing of this 10-acre parcel prior to CEQA review and County permitting is a compelling example of the lack of deterrence or consequences for those causing significant environmental effects and subverting CEQA. It appears the County does not have sufficient enforcement authority in these situations because the County is without a land use or zoning overlay, regulation, or ordinance to prevent or mitigate the loss of wetlands and other Sensitive Natural Communities outside the Coastal Zone. The County does not have a discretionary grading permit process or adequate violation fines to dissuade or prevent individuals from removing substantial habitat without adequate environmental review and mitigation. In the past six years, CDFW and Mendocino County Planning and Building Services staff have met numerous times to discuss the County's lack of effective environmental protections outside of the Coastal Zone. These meetings have been productive and have resulted in minor changes to the County's permit review process in inland areas, elevating some ministerial projects to discretionary projects. Currently, County permitting of clearing and grading activities is a ministerial action, which does not include environmental review. Brent Schultz, Director Mendocino County Planning and Building Services March 25, 2019 Page 5 of 8 CDFW remains concerned Mendocino County may be years out from developing effective Sensitive Natural Community conservation measures. Approximately 70 percent of MCW is located outside the Coastal Zone (Keeler-Wolf et al. 2019), where much development is ministerial and extensive land clearing receives little environmental review or oversight. As indicated by CDFW's CEQA comment letters on this topic (Table 2), the decline of Sensitive Natural Communities such as MCW and Northern Bishop Pine Forest Alliance is a significant and on-going issue, which, without imminent solutions, will continue unabated. Table 2: CDFW Letters to Mendocino County, Joint Powers Authorities and Special Districts on the Conservation Value and Threats to Wetlands, MCW, and other Sensitive Natural Communities. January 2006 CDFW letter to Mendocino Coast Parks and Recreation District regarding the draft EIR for Golf Course November CDFW letter to Mendocino County on General Plan Update 2008 recommending County adopt a grading ordinance February CDFW letter to Caspar Joint Powers Authority regarding Notice 2014 of Preparation for Central Coast Transfer Station March 2015 CDFW letter to Caspar Joint Powers Authority regarding draft EIR for Central Coast Transfer Station September CDFW letter to Mendocino County Planning and Building 2015 Services regarding the need for conservation of MCW March 2018 CDFW letter to Mendocino Coast Parks and Recreation District regarding Notice of Preparation for Fort Bragg OHV Park In the September 14, 2015 letter, for instance, CDFW reminded Mendocino County that residential development and land use activities are the major threats to the continued existence of MCW and pointed out policies within the Mendocino County General Plan that provide conservation guidelines for MCW. This 2015 letter cited Mendocino County General Plan Resource Management Policy RM-84: "Protect "pygmy" ecosystems (“pygmy" and "transitional pygmy" vegetation and soils) through the use of measures that include minimizing: • Vegetation removal, • Disruption of vegetation community, and • The introduction of water and nutrients due to human activity, sewage disposal systems, animals or agricultural uses. Also: • Limit subdivision of land on agricultural lands adjacent to pygmy" ecosystems, and • Promote best management practices to minimize impacts" Brent Schultz, Director Mendocino County Planning and Building Services March 25, 2019 Page 6 of 8 This 2015 letter cited the lack of a grading ordinance in Mendocino County and how this hinders the County's ability to implement its General Plan policies and protection of MCW and other Sensitive Natural Communities. The 2015 CDFW letter also stated that impacts from future projects could be found to be cumulatively considerable as defined in CEQA section 15065 and would potentially require an Environmental Impact Report for future projects impacting these habitats. CEQA section 15065(a)(3) describes cumulative impacts occurring when: "The project has possible environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. "Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects." CDFW continues to be concerned that the cumulative impacts of development within and adjacent to MCW and other Sensitive Natural Communities remains a continuous threat to these habitats, and thus necessitates cumulative impact analyses in CEQA documents for projects impacting these habitats, such as this Project. Recommendations 1. Mendocino County should consult with CDFW and file an appropriate CEQA document with the State Clearinghouse for public and agency review and comment. This CEQA document should include: a. An analysis of impacts to onsite and adjacent MCW, wetlands, and rare plant populations. b. The results of rare plant surveys conforming to Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW 2018) and the results of the wetland delineation on the Project site. C. Effective avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures that address both cumulative and Project-specific significant impacts to resources on th and neighboring parcels resulting from further development and subdivision of this parcel. 2. Mendocino County should evaluate an array of effective riparian, wetland, and Sensitive Natural Community conservation strategies, such as a land use or zoning overlay, changes in building code, and grading permit changes or ordinances, consult with CDFW, and take the required steps to implement one or more effective conservation strategies. Brent Schultz, Director Mendocino County Planning and Building Services March 25, 2019 Page 7 of 8 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this permit application. CDFW staff are available to meet with Mendocino County Planning staff to consult with or address the contents of this letter in greater depth. If you have questions on this matter or would like to discuss these recommendations, please contact Environmental Scientist Daniel Harrington at (707) 456-0335 or by e-mail at daniel.harrington@wildlife.ca.gov. Sincerely, Curt Babcock Habitat Conservation Program Manager ec: Brent Schultz, Julia Acker, Sam Vandewater Mendocino County Planning and Building Services schultzb@mendocinocounty.org, ackeri@mendocinocounty.org, vandewaters@mendocinocounty.org Carre Brown, John McCowen, John Haschak, Dan Gjerde, Ted Williams Mendocino County Board of Supervisors brownci@mendocinocounty.org, mccowen@mendocinocounty.org, haschaki@mendocinocounty.org, gjerde@mendocinocounty.org, williamst@mendocinocounty.org Jacob Shannon, Ryan Bey North Coast Regional Water Quality Board jacob.shannon@waterboards.ca.gov, ryan.bey@waterboards.ca.gov Keith Hess, Holly Costa U.S. Army Corps of Engineers keith.d.hess@usace.army.mil, holly.n.costa@usace.army.mil State Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research state.clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov Gordon Leppig, Jennifer Garrison, Daniel Harrington, Angela Liebenberg, Dana Mason California Department of Fish and Wildlife gordon.leppig@wildlife.ca.gov, jennifer.garrison@wildlife.ca.gov, daniel.harrington@wildlife.ca.gov, angela.liebenberg@wildlife.ca.gov, dana.mason@wildlife.ca.gov Brent Schultz, Director Mendocino County Planning and Building Services March 25, 2019 Page 8 of 8 References California Coastal Commission. 2007. Policies in Local Coastal Programs Regarding Development Setbacks and Mitigation Ratios for Wetlands and Other Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas. California Coastal Commission, San Francisco, CA. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2014. Technical Memorandum: Development, Land Use, and Climate Change Impacts on Wetland and Riparian Habitats - A Summary of Scientifically Supported Conservation Strategies, Mitigation Measures, and Best Management Practices. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Redding, CA. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, CA. California Native Plant Society. 2019. A Manual of California Vegetation, Online Edition. http://www.cnps.org/cnps/vegetation. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Keeler-Wolf, T., D. Hickson, R. Yacoub and M.J. Colletti. 2019. Classification and Mapping of Mendocino Cypress (Hesperocyparis pygmaea) Woodland and Related Vegetation on Oligotrophic Soils, Mendocino and Sonoma Counties, California. Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, CA. Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf and J.M. Evans. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Wynn Coastal Planning and Biology. 2018. Preliminary Scoping Letter, September 10, 2018. Wynn Coastal Planning and Biology. Fort Bragg, CA. Wynn Coastal Planning and Biology. 2019. Wetland Delineation Report, February 7, 2019. Wynn Coastal Planning and Biology. Fort Bragg, CA. | survey, mitigation, sensitive natural communities, vegetation, wetlands, rare plants | N/A | CEQA §15073.5 | N/A | https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2019069030/2 | 39.42 | -123.77 | |
| 2020_GetawayHouse_MND_CDFW | Getaway House | 2020 | 2020040111 | CEQA | MND | N/A | Draft | County | Mendocino County Planning & Building Services Department | Mendocino | Sanhedrin Chapter | N/A | California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Northern Region 1 | Local Planning Action, Recreational | Ongoing | Jessie Davis, Senior Planner County of Mendocino Planning and Building Services November 23, 2020 Page 2 of 8 lodge and up to 45 semi-permanent micro-cabins placed on the ridges across 90.87-acre site (APNs 048-270-24, 048-270-23, and a portion of 048-270-22). The cabins will sit on pads that include an outdoor picnic area and fire pit; most will have adjacent parking areas, but some will be designated as ‘walk-in’ with parking located away from the cabin. Each cabin will have water, wastewater disposal, and electric provided by underground utilities. Development will include installation of a well, septic system, and underground utilities, in addition to construction of walking trails, access roads to the cabins, a lodge parking area with secondary site ingress/egress, and widening of an existing road to access the site from Old Toll Road. The yearly average occupancy rate is expected to be 85 percent with the maximum capacity of 110 guests. Conservation Value of Oaks and Oak Woodlands As stated in CDFW’s May 7, 2020 comment letter, oak woodlands are extremely valuable wildlife habitat. In California, oak woodlands have the greatest wildlife species richness of any other habitat in the state with over 330 species of amphibians, birds, and mammals relying upon these habitats at some point during their lives (CalPIF 2002). Oak woodlands have experienced ongoing declines due to conversion for agricultural uses, and oak woodlands are also impacted by low recruitment, novel pathogens, competition from invasive species, and fire suppression (Whipple et al. 2011). California has lost approximately 1/3 of its of historic oak woodland habitat statewide (CalPIF 2002). Because oaks are slow-growing trees, the substantial habitat and ecosystem value that mature trees provide is difficult to replace. Impacts to Oaks and Oak Woodlands According to Table 1 in the Biological Report, over 80 percent of the Project site is oak woodland. The Biological Report describes the Project site as forested with blue oak woodlands dominated by mature blue oak (Quercus douglasii) and mixed oak woodlands dominated by interior live oak (Q. wislizeni), white oak (Q. garryana), and California black oak (Q. kelloggii). The Biological Report’s Mitigation Measure 3 states “the Project engineers and surveyors should map any trees within the oak woodlands that will be removed during construction.” The revised IS/MND states tree and vegetation removal will be restricted to “the footprints of the micro-cabin RV pads, access roads/trails, lodge facility and parking area, and as required by CalFire for fire suppression.” Based upon the size and scope of the Project and the prevalence of oak woodlands on the Project site, even with restricted trimming and removal, a substantial removal of oak woodlands will likely result in a significant impact. However, despite the recommendation in CDFW’s May 7, 2020 comment letter, the revised IS/MND does not quantify or describe the number of individual oak trees removed or the area of oak woodland cleared by this Project. Consequently, neither CDFW, the Lead Agency, or the public can assess the significance of the loss or oak woodlands from this Project if that loss is not adequately described and analyzed by this IS/MND. Instead, the revised IS/MND defers the impact analysis to oaks and oak woodlands to Mitigation Measure BIO-4 through the drafting of the Oak Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (Oak MMP). Pursuant to CEQA section 21083.4(b), “...a county shall determine whether a project with its jurisdiction may DocuSign Envelope ID: D2FDF2C9-82B6-4B6C-A167-9E8B04C71785 Jessie Davis, Senior Planner County of Mendocino Planning and Building Services November 23, 2020 Page 3 of 8 result in the conversion of oak woodlands that will have a significant effect on the environment.” An inventory of oaks should be included in the revised IS/MND to disclose the number, species, and size of oak trees that will be removed. The inventory should include all oak trees with a diameter breast height (DBH) of 5-inch or greater within 50-feet of areas of proposed disturbance or current fire-safe buffer area. The inventory should inform a quantified analysis of the loss, degradation, and fragmentation of oak woodlands; this analysis should presume that vegetation will be substantially cleared, and trees removed, pursuant to current fire-safe buffer standards. The IS/MND should propose effective mitigations for impacts identified in this analysis. A map showing location of the inventoried trees overlain by the site plans should be included (Recommendation 1). Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Oak Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (Oak MMP) CEQA Sec. 15126.4 states: “Formulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future time. However, measures may specify performance standards, which would mitigate the significant effect of the project...” CEQA Sec. 15126.4(a)(2) states “Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments.” Several of the oak woodland mitigations included in the Oak MMP are vague and speculative and lack critical implementation details to adequately assess their feasibility or effectiveness in reducing impacts to a less than significant level. Of the suite of oak woodland mitigations listed in Mitigation Measure BIO-4, only the 3:1 mitigation ratio (discussed below) includes a performance standard; the remaining mitigation measures are sufficiently lacking in detail to make them enforceable pursuant to CEQA Sec.15126.4(a)(2). Importantly, a meaningful evaluation of the adequacy and effectiveness of a project’s mitigations is predicated in large part on fully understanding a Projects’ impacts on a given resource. Thus, as mentioned above, without the MND’s analysis of impacts to oak woodlands, CDFW can likewise have little confidence in, or understanding of, how the proposed mitigations will be sufficient or effective to reduce those impacts to a less than significant level. Some examples: 12-Inch Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) Mitigation Threshold The revised IS/MND Mitigation BIO-4 states that only removed oak trees with a DBH of 12- inches or more will receive mitigation. However, as stated above, the IS/MND does not quantify how many oak trees will be removed, list their DBH, or provide any other quantification of the relative size of the oak trees being removed. Consequently, a large percentage of the oak trees potentially removed by the project may likely receive no mitigation whatsoever, but the revised IS/MND is silent on this issue. The revised IS/MND provides no biological justification or rational for this 12-inch DBH mitigation exemption threshold, or why the removal of potentially many oak trees less than 12-inch DBH has no environmental significance. Oak trees are notoriously slow growing, thus even trees with a small DBH can be quite old. While diameter-age correlation data are DocuSign Envelope ID: D2FDF2C9-82B6-4B6C-A167-9E8B04C71785 Jessie Davis, Senior Planner County of Mendocino Planning and Building Services November 23, 2020 Page 4 of 8 scarce, blue oak trees in California with a 10-inch DBH have been shown to have an age range of 80-120 years, and those with a 14-inch DBH, with age range of 85-135 years (McDonald undated). Furthermore, Mitigation BIO-4, states that oak trees 12-inches or more in DBH that “have poor health or poor structure,” as determined by a qualified arborist, are exempt from compensatory mitigation requirements. This mitigation exemption appears without biological merit or justification. Both Oregon white oaks and blue oaks can live over 500 years, thus, “ poor health” if construed as fire and storm damage, disease, dead limbs, or general senescence are a natural part of oak life history and rather than diminish, can in many ways enhance their value as wildlife habitat. The mitigation exemption for an arborists’ determination of oaks with “poor structure” is likewise without biological merit or justification. “Poor structure” appears to be an entirely aesthetic and subjective term. Trees having deformed structures or limbs, broken top, burn scars, or basal hollows typically have enhanced wildlife value. Thus this “poor structure” exemption substantially diminishes the value of oak tree replacement mitigation, increasing, rather than decreasing the Project’s impacts to oak woodland wildlife values. Replanting and Maintaining Oak Trees The IS/MND Mitigation BIO-4 states that removed oak trees will be replaced at a 3:1 ratio, on-site, if feasible, and if not feasible, the Project applicant will propose and receive approval from the County of Mendocino for an off-site mitigation location. Table 1 in the Biological Report shows the Project property is approximately 85 percent oak woodland, 13 percent wild oat grassland, and 2 percent ruderal (disturbed areas). Given that 85 percent of the Project site is already oak woodland, that oak woodlands do not already occur in the wild oat grassland and ruderal disturbed areas, are also an unlikely location to attempt oak woodland mitigations, it appears highly likely that this replanting mitigation will occur off-site. The revised IS/MND provides no information on where the off-site mitigation will occur; its distance from the Project site; who will own or manage this mitigation site; whether, how, or by whom the off-site location is deemed an appropriate site to establish an oak woodland; or by what timeframe this mitigation will occur. This 3:1 replanting mitigation measure also does not specify a performance standard for the replanting stock. In other words, will mature oak trees be replaced by acorns or by oak saplings? If replaced by saplings, what size or age class will the saplings be, what will be the replanted species composition, and will the replacement oaks be of local genetic stock? Importantly, while the mature oak trees at the Project site may be 100 years old or much older, the revised IS/MND only requires that proposed mitigation replacement trees be maintained and survive for three years, which substantially diminishes this mitigation’s effectiveness. Establishing Conservation Easements Conservation easements held by third parties can be a highly effective means to protect and restore many habitat types, including oak woodlands. However, Mitigation BIO-4 simply states: “Conservation easements or funds for off-site oak woodlands conservation shall be DocuSign Envelope ID: D2FDF2C9-82B6-4B6C-A167-9E8B04C71785 Jessie Davis, Senior Planner County of Mendocino Planning and Building Services November 23, 2020 Page 5 of 8 proposed to and approved by the Director of PBS or his/her designee.” This proposed mitigation measure, while feasible, is absent any details on the amount of funds to be contributed for the purpose of oak woodland conservation, what entity might receive the funds, where this oak woodland conservation might occur, how the funds would be utilized, and what legal and financial means would assure this mitigation measure is both feasible and effective. Absent this information, CDFW finds this proposed mitigation to be speculative and infeasible. Contributing funds for off-site oak woodlands conservation This mitigation appears to reference CEQA Sec. 21083.4(b)(3), but merely lists this above header without any detail or discussion. For the same reasons listed in the above proposed conservation easement mitigation, CDFW finds this mitigation, as proposed and absent any details or specific monetary contribution, to be unenforceable and speculative. Designation and Protection of Natural Recruitment Areas. Mitigation BIO-4 states “The Oak MMP shall identify natural areas, if any, to be established in areas where no development is proposed.” The biological purpose of this proposed mitigation is unclear, and the clause “if any” renders it unenforceable. The mitigation proposes using split rail fences to discourage people from entering oak woodlands on the Project site where natural oak regeneration may be taking place. Given that 85 percent of the Project site is already oak woodland, oak woodlands would be the most probable place for oak woodland recruitment. The revised IS/MND provides no data or analysis that people walking in an oak woodland is a significant threat to natural oak woodland recruitment, or that excluding passive oak woodland foot traffic use substantially increases natural oak woodland recruitment or seedling/sapling survival. For this reason, CDFW finds this proposed mitigation will have little effect in mitigating for this Project’s loss of oak trees. Based upon the above analysis, CDFW recommends the IS/MND include more detailed, effective, and enforceable oak woodland mitigation measures (Recommendation 2). Summary As outlined above, based upon the Project description, the Biological Report, the revised IS/MND and CDFW site visit in November 2019, it appears the Project is highly likely to remove a significant number of mature oak trees. The revised IS/MND has determined this impact to oak woodlands to be “less than significant with mitigations incorporated,” but does not describe or quantify this loss of oak woodland habitat. The revised IS/MND’s proposed mitigations lack performance standards and are primarily deferred to a future MMP, which will be developed after the Project is approved, thus denying CDFW and the public the meaningful ability to review and comment on the mitigations or assess their effectiveness and feasibility. The mitigations outlined in the revised IS/MND, as discussed above, are either 1) concepts lacking in detail or description, 2) vague and absent performance standards, which renders DocuSign Envelope ID: D2FDF2C9-82B6-4B6C-A167-9E8B04C71785 Jessie Davis, Senior Planner County of Mendocino Planning and Building Services November 23, 2020 Page 6 of 8 them highly unlikely to be feasible or enforceable, or 3) have little or no biological justification or merit, making them ineffective in mitigating Project impacts to a less than significant level. Additionally, the revised IS/MND does not meet the minimum requirements of CEQA Section 21083.4. The IS/MND and the Oak MMP should incorporate CDFW recommended replacement mitigation ratios and follow the criteria to meet CEQA Section 21083.4. requirements that help ensure success of oak mitigations: Mitigation plantings should be maintained for a minimum of seven years (CEQA 21083.4 2(a)) or until it can be demonstrated trees are established. Performance standards and protection in perpetuity. Planting of oaks should not fulfill more than 50 percent of the required mitigation (Section 21083.4 2(c)). To reduce the significance of impact to oak woodlands, CDFW recommends the following mitigation oak tree replacement ratios: o 5 -11” diameter at breast height (DBH) replaced at a minimum 6:1 mitigation ratio o 12 -18” DBH replaced at a minimum 8:1 mitigation ratio o 18” DBH replaced at a minimum 10:1 mitigation ratio These ratios help address the temporal loss of oak woodland habitat values to wildlife due to replacing mature oak trees with acorns or saplings, which will take decades to mature. These ratios are consistent with prior CDFW recommendations for projects with oak woodland impacts and may be modified upon further consultation with CDFW. (Recommendation 3). Pursuant to CEQA Sec.15074(b), a decision-making body of a lead agency shall adopt a proposed MND only if it finds that on the whole of the record before it, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Given the revised IS/MND’s inadequate analysis of impacts to oak woodlands and deferred mitigations, which lack biological justification, essential implementation components, performance standards, and enforceability, CDFW is providing the Lead Agency substantial evidence that this Project, if approved as proposed, will have a significant effect on the environment. Summary of Recommendations 1) The revised IS/MND should be further revised to include an analysis of the oak trees that will be potentially removed by the Project. This analysis should include the number of trees to be removed by species and DBH and include a map. All oak trees with a DBH of 5-inches or greater within 50-feet of areas of proposed development or in current fire-safe buffer areas should be included in this analysis. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2FDF2C9-82B6-4B6C-A167-9E8B04C71785 Jessie Davis, Senior Planner County of Mendocino Planning and Building Services November 23, 2020 Page 7 of 8 2) The IS/MND should include clear and effective mitigation measures for impacts to oaks and oak woodlands. Oak woodland mitigation measures can be explicitly described in an Oak MMP. However, requisite mitigation measures, explicit performance standards, enforceability measures, and a biological justification for how mitigations will avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate for Project impacts should be included in the IS/MND and not deferred to the Oak MMP. 3) The IS/MND should use the oak tree replacement mitigation ratios recommended above and follow the criteria in CEQA Section 21083.4. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this revised IS/MND. CDFW staff are available to meet with you to consult with or address the contents of this letter in greater depth. If you have questions on this matter or would like to discuss these recommendations, please contact Environmental Scientist Rhiannon Korhummel at (707) 799-7106 or by email at Rhiannon.Korhummel@wildlife.ca.gov. Sincerely, Curt Babcock Habitat Conservation Program Manager Ec: Jesse Davis County of Mendocino davisj@mendocinocounty.org Gordon Leppig, Rhiannon Korhummel, Jennifer Garrison, Dana Mason, Jon Hendrix California Department of Fish and Wildlife Gordon.Leppig@wildlife.ca.gov,Rhiannon.Korhummel@wildlife.ca.gov, Jennifer.Garrison@wildlife.ca.gov, Dana.Mason@wildlife.ca.gov, Jon.Hendrix@wildlife.ca.gov The State Clearinghouse state.clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov DocuSign Envelope ID: D2FDF2C9-82B6-4B6C-A167-9E8B04C71785 Jessie Davis, Senior Planner County of Mendocino Planning and Building Services November 23, 2020 Page 8 of 8 References McDonald, P.M. Undated. Quercus douglasii Hook. & Arn. Blue Oak. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Miscellaneous Pub. 654. Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC. https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/misc/ag_654/volume_2/quercus/douglasii.htm CalPIF (California Partners in Flight). 2002.The oak woodland bird conservation plan: a strategy for protecting and managing oak woodland habitats and associated birds in California. Version 2.0 (S. Zack, lead author). Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA. http://www.prbo.org/calpif/plans.html. Whipple A.A., Grossinger R.M., and Davis F.W. 2011. Shifting baselines in a California oak savanna: nineteenth century data to inform restoration scenarios. Restoration Ecology 19 (101):88-101. | mitigation, survey, mapping, analysis | N/A | CEQA §15126.4(a)(2) | N/A | https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2020040111/2 | 38.97 | -123.06 | |
| 2018_FortBraggOHV_PEIRScoping_CDFW | Fort Bragg OHV Park | 2018 | 2018022040 | CEQA | EIR | Program EIR | Scoping | Other | Mendocino Coast Recreation and Park District | Mendocino | Dorothy King Young Chapter | N/A | California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Northern Region 1 | Recreational | Paused | CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director DEPARTMENT OF FISH & WILDLIFE State of California – Natural Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Region 1 - Northern 601 Locust Street Redding, CA 96001 www.wildlife.ca.gov March 19, 2018 Dan Keyes Mendocino Coast Recreation and Parks District 300 S. Lincoln Street, Fort Bragg, CA 95437 Subject: Notice of Preparation for the Fort Bragg OHV Park Program Environmental Impact Report (State Clearing House Number 2018022040) Dear Mr. Keyes: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a Notice of Preparation (NOP) from the Mendocino Coast Recreation and Parks District (MCRPD) for the Fort Bragg Off-Highway (OHV) Park Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR). CDFW staff reviewed the NOP and maps, attended the NOP Public Scoping meeting on February 28, 2018, and submitted initial comments at that time. CDFW is California's Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources, and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State. (Fish & G. Code, $$ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, $ 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a).) CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species. (Id., § 1802). As a Responsible and Trustee Agency, CDFW administers the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and other provisions of the Fish and Game Code (FGC) that conserve the State's fish and wildlife public trust resources. CDFW is familiar with the proposed OHV Park location (Site) and has provided written comments on previously-proposed projects on the Site. The development map provided at Public Scoping meeting included development throughout the Site that would be within or encroaching on Mendocino Pygmy Cypress Woodland, Northern Bishop Pine Forest, and wetland habitats. These rare and endemic sensitive natural communities and wetlands occur throughout the Site, making avoidance of these resources and minimization of impacts difficult. Due to the sensitivity of these habitats, it will be extremely challenging to mitigate impacts to a less-than-significant threshold. CDFW's primary concerns include: a) MCRPD's preparation of a PEIR instead of a Project EIR, b) significant loss or degradation of Mendocino Pygmy Cypress Woodland (MPCW) and Northern Bishop Pine Forest (NBPF) habitats c) Direct and indirect impacts to special-status plant and wildlife species, d) Direct and indirect Impacts to aquatic habitats including streams, ponds, and wetlands and e) Increased erosion and associated water quality impacts. Dan Keyes Mendocino Coast Recreation and Parks District March 19, 2018 Page 2 CDFW offers the following comments and recommendations on this PEIR in our role as a trustee and responsible agency pursuant to CEQA (California Public Resource Code $ 21000 et seq.). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Program is for the development of an OHV recreational park located on Fort Bragg-Willits Road (State Route 20) and Summers Lane in Fort Bragg, California. 586-acre park would include a trail network using existing logging roads and skid trails, a campground, OHV unloading area(s), bathroom facilities, safety training course, motor-cross (MX) track, and parking lots and access areas from both SR 20 and Summers Lane. In addition to OHV trails, other trails would be designated for equestrian, mountain biking, and hiking use. Additional future development on the Site may also include sports fields and associated facilities. However, it is also CDFW's understanding that in addition to this PEIR, MCRPD, partnered with the California Recreation Alliance, has received grants to conduct restoration activities on the Site and to develop a feasibility report, but the scope and nature of any proposed restoration at the Site or the feasibility report are unclear. DEVELOPMENT OF PEIR MCRPD intends to prepare a PEIR for the 586-acre Site. Program EIRs are typically prepared for large, multi-site or multi-regional projects when specific, individual project sites have not yet been identified. While MCRPD has not finalized a Site development plan, it is reasonable and foreseeable for MCRPD to identify the scope and scale of the Site's resources in a project EIR and determine the potential impact upon them, even if the Site will be developed over time (phased approach). While site-specific impacts are currently unknown for subsequent project activities, the PEIR should disclose that impacts on these resources have not been fully disclosed and the requirement for additional environmental documents that may be required. CDFW recommends MCRPD evaluate the suitability of using a Project EIR instead of a PEIR for this Site. (Recommendation 1). CDFW has provided guidance on the environmental information to be included in the PEIR, including detail about significant environmental issues and mitigation measures for subsequent project activities (CEQA Guidelines, S$15082 & 15375). See Attachment A for this guidance. Dan Keyes Mendocino Coast Recreation and Parks District March 19, 2018 Page 3 PEIR and Tiering of Subsequent Project Activities The PEIR should describe the intended uses of the PEIR and specify that CDFW is anticipated to be a Responsible Agency who will use the PEIR in its decision making for the any subsequent project activities. (CEQA Guidelines, $15124). The PEIR should include information at a level of detail that is feasible at the “program level” to avoid siting subsequent Project activities where sensitive biological resources occur and to target areas that may require additional analysis. To evaluate subsequent project impacts on biological resources, it will be necessary for the PEIR to include these subsequent project activities that may result in a potentially significant impact on biological resources. The PEIR should adequately describe the biological resources that will likely be impacted by multiple subsequent project activities on the Site. Additionally, the PEIR should stipulate that the MCRPD will use the checklist appended to the PEIR and file a Notice of Determination to the State Clearinghouse for each subsequent project activity. (Recommendation 2). PROGRAM-LEVEL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES CDFW has substantial evidence to conclude that the Site is dominated by sensitive natural communities, contains wetlands, and is habitat for numerous special-status plants. The PEIR should analyze impacts to these resources and include detailed feasible mitigations for impacts determined to be significant from subsequent project activities under the Program. As subsequent project activities most likely will impact natural communities, wetlands, or special-status species, the PEIR impact analysis and mitigation should be adequate to later support any subsequent project activity's site-specific analyses. The PEIR should include a description and map of sensitive natural communities, special-status species, and wetlands and riparian habitats. (Recommendation 3). The PEIR should also establish 100-foot setbacks from sensitive natural communities, wetlands, and streams. (Recommendation 4). Mendocino Pygmy Cypress Woodland and Northern Bishop Pine Forest Habitats While the Site has had some alterations from preparations made for the golf course (prepping of fairways) and while certain areas have been substantially degraded by illegal OHV use, the vast majority of the Site maintains high quality MPCW and NBPF habitat. Since 2015, CDFW has been mapping MPCW and associated NBPF habitats in Mendocino County. In a 2006 comment letter on the golf course EIR, CDFW estimated that there was approximately 4,200 acres of MPCW habitat remaining. Based on mapping in 2016, CDFW estimates only 1,480 acres of MPCW habitat remain and the Site contains approximately 20 percent of that remaining habitat. CDFW contends that reduction in acreage or quality would be a significant impact and warrants avoidance and conservation for any impacts associated with this Site's development. Dan Keyes Mendocino Coast Recreation and Parks District March 19, 2018 Page 4 CDFW's Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program (VegCAMP) develops and maintains California's version of the National Vegetation Classification System. VegCAMP maintains and updates natural communities lists based on quantitative data after it is collected, analyzed, and vetted. When assessing potential impacts to sensitive plant alliances, CDFW ranks the alliances according to their degree of imperilment as measured by rarity, trends, and threats. MPCW and NBPF are sensitive natural communities with a State rank of S2, which defines these habitats as highly imperiled or “rare and threatened in California."1 MPCW habitat also has a G2 Global ranking defining it as a natural community that is imperiled, at high risk of extinction due to a very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors. The understanding of MPCW and NBPF habitat types' unique characteristics has increased in the last ten years. MPCW and associated vegetation and habitat types previously described as "traditional pygmy" and "transitional pygmy," are not recognized by CDFW, or in the scientific literature. CDFW has concerns that MPCW and NBPF habitats may be substantially impacted by changes made to the Site's hydrology, such as changes related to the Site's development, on-going use, or maintenance. The nature of habitats is complex and little is known about the relationship between hydrology and habitat viability. Grading, vegetation removal, irrigation, and stormwater water run-off may have negative impacts on MPCW, NBPF, and aquatic habitats. CDFW is specifically concerned with potential impacts associated with the staging, parking, refueling, and use of off-highway vehicles in and adjacent to these habitats. The MPCW habitat type is frequently classified as a wetland based on hydrology (perched water table) due to the presence of poorly drained, shallow soils with underlying hardpan, and the dominance of wetland vegetation. All wetlands on the Site should be clearly delineated prior to the finalization of the Site's development plan and wetland impacts should be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. Due to the unusual hydrologic characteristics of wetlands associated with MPCW, direct and indirect impacts from altered hydrology and decreased water quality may be prove difficult to avoid and effective mitigations challenging to develop. The PEIR should assess indirect impacts to aquatic habitats on adjacent properties, including the hydrologically-connected Sholars Bog, an important conservation area. (Recommendation 5). CDFW is unware of any documented successful, large-scale restoration of MPCW habitat. Consequently, if the subsequent project activities done pursuant to this PEIR cannot avoid significant impacts to MPCW habitat then acquisition and protection in perpetuity of additional high-quality habitat may be the only feasible mitigation strategy. 1 https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities/Background Dan Keyes Mendocino Coast Recreation and Parks District March 19, 2018 Page 5 The PEIR should include a detailed conservation plan which outlines the measures for avoidance, minimization, and monitoring of affected sensitive natural communities and should also include a mitigation plan for areas where significant impacts are unavoidable. (Recommendation 6). Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species In addition to sensitive natural communities, the Site likely contains special-status plant and wildlife species. Thus, subsequent project activities may have direct and indirect impacts on these species. A biological resources assessment should be prepared for the entire property to document all special status plants and wildlife. Botanical surveys should follow CDFW's Botanical Survey protocols. (Recommendation 7). For the golf course EIR, several botanical assessments and surveys were conducted in 2003 within the current Program area which detected the presence of several rare plants. These surveys detected sensitive plant populations on this site, however detailed information on these populations was not disclosed in the Project's final EIR. In order to adequately disclose the potential impacts of the Program on sensitive plants, a seasonally appropriate plant survey should be conducted and the presence of and impacts to sensitive species disclosed within the PEIR and these species population should be avoided. If significant impacts to sensitive plant populations cannot be avoided by subsequent project activities, then the PEIR should include mitigation. (Recommendation 8). Wetlands California's remaining wetlands provide significant and essential habitat for a wide variety of plant and wildlife species. It is the policy of the Fish and Game Commission (Commission) to seek to provide for the protection, preservation, restoration, enhancement, and expansion of wetland habitat in California. It is the policy of the Commission to strongly discourage development in, or conversion of wetlands. It opposes, consistent with its legal authority, any development or conversion which would result in a reduction of wetland acreage or wetland habitat values. To that end, the Commission opposes wetland development proposals unless, at a minimum, project mitigation assures there will be “no net loss" of either wetland habitat values or acreage. All wetlands and watercourses, intermittent or perennial, on the Site should be retained and provided with minimum 100-foot setbacks from development. The PEIR should prepare a detailed conservation plan which outlines measures for avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and monitoring of affected wetland habitat and maps and describes these aquatic habitats, which include: streams, riparian habitat, gulches, onally and permanently wetted channels, depressions, spring seeps, and ponds. (Recommendation 9). CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Dan Keyes Mendocino Coast Recreation and Parks District March 19, 2018 Page 6 A key PEIR advantage is that the MCRPD can ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be missed in a case-by-case analysis. (CEQA Guidelines, $15168, subd. (b)(2).) The PEIR must consider past, existing, and reasonably foreseeable impacts when evaluating whether the Program and its reasonably foreseeable future ect activities (CEQA Guidelines $15355) may significantly impact each resource in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. (CEQA Guidelines, $15130.) (Recommendation 10). Mendocino County currently lacks a comprehensive plan for protecting sensitive species and habitats including MPCW and NBPF habitat types. Impacts to these rare and endemic sensitive habitats are on-going, especially outside the Coastal Zone. There are past activities associated with the golf course pre-development and other uses, including OHV use, that have impacted the biological resources on the Site. Many impacts are exacerbated because they are not addressed by current regulatory processes of CDFW and other agencies. ALTERNATIVES A PEIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code $ 21002.1). This PEIR must include feasible alternatives and alternative Program locations, which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening the significant effects of the anticipated subsequent project activities, even if those alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the Program's objectives, or would be more costly (CEQA § 15126.6(b)). As the proposed Program Site will most likely result in significant, unavoidable impacts, the PEIR should include at least one feasible alternative location that would avoid or substantially lessen the impacts to biological resources. Numerous sports fields, including soccer, baseball, and softball are an anticipated subsequent project activity under the PEIR. Given the dominance of sensitive natural communities and other biological resources at the Site and the likely substantial cost and complexity in mitigating for their loss, CDFW suggests alternative project locations, such as the already disturbed 415-acre Georgia Pacific Mill site currently being developed by City of Fort Bragg. (Recommendation 11). CDFW recommends the PEIR analyze an alternative that limits development to the heavily-disturbed southwest section of the Site where sensitive natural communities have already been degraded or removed and the potential for impacts to sensitive species and aquatic habitats may be diminished. Under this alternative, the vast majority of the rest of the Site could be put under a program that emphasizes, sensitive natural community conservation, habitat restoration, education, and limited non motorized trails and public access. CDFW staff are available to consult with MCRPD to further explore aspects of this alternative. (Recommendation 12). Dan Keyes Mendocino Coast Recreation and Parks District March 19, 2018 Page 7 RECOMMENDATIONS 1) MCRPD should re-evaluate the suitability of a PEIR for the development of this Site and instead utilize the more appropriate Project EIR. 2) The PEIR should include all subsequent project activities that may result in a potentially significant impact on the Site's biological resources and stipulate that the MCRPD will file a Notice of Determination with the State Clearinghouse for each subsequent Project activity. 3) The PEIR should disclose and map the Site's sensitive natural communities, including MPCW and NBPF, any special-status species, and wetlands and riparian habitats. 4) The PEIR should require 100-foot setbacks from sensitive natural communities, and aquatic habitats, including wetlands, streams, (perennial and episodic), riparian habitat, and ponds. 5) The PEIR should analyze the indirect impacts to wetlands, streams, and other aquatic habitats on adjacent parcels to the Site, including the Sholars Bog directly to the west. 6) The PEIR should include a detailed conservation plan that details measures for mitigation, avoidance, minimization, and monitoring of sensitive natural communities, and sensitive species on the Site. 7) A biological resources assessment should be prepared for the entire Site to map and document all special-status plants and wildlife. 8) If significant impacts to sensitive plant populations cannot be avoided by subsequent project activities, then the PEIR should include mitigation. 9) The PEIR should prepare a detailed conservation plan that describes avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and monitoring measures for aquatic habitats that may be impacted, including wetlands, streams, riparian habitat, gulches, springs, seeps, and ponds. 10) The PEIR should include in the cumulative impacts analysis from past, present, and future impacts and should analyze cumulative impacts on sensitive biological resources, including but not limited to special-status species and their habitats, and sensitive natural communities, specifically MPCW and NBPF stands. 11) As the proposed Site development will most likely result in significant, unavoidable impacts, the PEIR should include at least one feasible alternative Dan Keyes Mendocino Coast Recreation and Parks District March 19, 2018 Page 8 location that would avoid or substantially lessen the impacts to biological resources. 12) MCRPD should consider a Program alternative to modify and manage the existing trails for non-motorized, recreational activities including opportunities for hiking, equestrian, mountain bike use and place the remaining Site into conservation. SUMMARY CDFW finds that this Program Site has substantial biological constraints that will greatly complicate development of the Site and likely result in challenging, expensive, and time consuming environmental review, permitting, and mitigation costs for the anticipated subsequent project activities. Because of the Site appears be dominated by at least two sensitive natural community types, as well as supporting, a number of sensitive aquatic habitats, it appears highly likely that many, and perhaps most subsequent project activities will result in significant impacts that will be difficult to mitigate. CDFW welcomes the opportunity to discuss Program alternatives or design modifications with MCRPD that could substantially avoid significant impacts to the Site's rare and endemic sensitive natural communities. If you have questions or comments regarding this letter, or wish to consult on any of these recommendations, please contact Senior Environmental Scientist Specialist Jennifer Garrison at (707) 964-1476, or by e-mail at Jennifer. Garrison@wildlife.ca.gov. Sincerely, Curt Babcock Habitat Conservation Program Manager Northern Region Dan Keyes Mendocino Coast Recreation and Parks District March 19, 2018 Page 9 ec: Dan Keyes Mendocino Coast Recreation and Parks District dkeyes@mcrpd.com California Department of Fish and Wildlife Curt Babcock, Gordon Leppig, Jennifer Garrison, Jon Hendrix, Daniel Harrington, Dana Mason curt.babcock@wildlife.ca.gov, gordon.leppig@wildlife.ca.gov, jennifer.garrison@wildlife.ca.gov, jon.hendrix@wildlife.ca.gov, daniel.harrington@wildlife.ca.gov, dana.mason@wildlife.ca.gov North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Gil Falcone gil.falcone@waterboards.ca.gov California Department of Parks and Recreation, OHMVR Division Dan Canfield dan.canfield@parks.ca.gov County of Mendocino Planning and Building Services. Julia Acker ackerj@mendocinocounty.org State Clearinghouse state.clearinghouse@opr.gov Dan Keyes Mendocino Coast Recreation and Parks District March 19, 2018 Page 1 Attachment 1: PEIR and SUBSEQUENT PROJECT ACTIVITIES CDFW anticipates MCRPD will develop subsequent activities to implement the Program on the Site; for these subsequent Project activities, additional project environmental documents will mostly likely be required. (CEQA Guidelines, $$15152 & 15162). The PEIR should describe the PEIR's intended uses and as soon as MCRPD has determined that an additional environmental document may be required for a subsequent Project activity, MCRPD should informally consult with all Responsible and Trustee agencies, including CDFW, to obtain recommendations as to whether an additional environmental document should be prepared. (CEQA Guidelines, $15063, subd. (g).) To ensure adequate analysis of impacts on biological resources, it is critical that a procedure be established in the PEIR to determine if each subsequent Project activity is within the scope of the PEIR or requires an additional environmental document. CEQA Guidelines § 15168 states: "where the subsequent activities involve site-specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the Site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were covered in the program EIR.” The PEIR should stipulate that the MCRPD will use the checklist appended to the PEIR and file a Notice of Determination to the State Clearinghouse for each subsequent project activity that could affect biological resources The checklist will cite the specific portions of the PEIR, including page and section references, containing the analysis of the subsequent Project activities' impacts and its significant impacts, and indicate whether it incorporates all applicable PEIR mitigation measures. The checklist should be accompanied by enough relevant information and reasonable inferences based on this information to support each conclusion concerning biological resources. For subsequent Project activities that may affect biological resources, MCRPD should prepare a site-specific analysis, from which the supporting information would be derived. CEQA Appendix G Biological Resources Checklist CDFW provides the following guidance using the CEQA Appendix G Biological Resources Checklist when preparing documents for subsequent Project activities that may be tiered from the PEIR. a) Would the Project 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 CDFW or USFWS? Any subsequent activities that may have direct and indirect impacts on each candidate, sensitive or special-status plant or wildlife species and their habitats or Dan Keyes Mendocino Coast Recreation and Parks District March 19, 2018 Page 2 Sensitive Natural Communities should be thoroughly addressed. Impacts are determined by the sensitivity of each biological resource; in this case, each identified species and habitat, including Sensitive Natural Communities. Examples are: Clearing and grading vegetation, and removing or diverting surface or ground water away from habitat that is dependent upon it, may degrade water quality, harm or destroy aquatic and Sensitive Natural Community habitats, and ultimately cause a reduction in plant and animal species abundance and diversity. The development of the Site, including a campground, MX course, and trails may introduce invasive species and result in colonization of invasive plant species. Erosion may result in sedimentation that leads to downslope impacts on terrestrial and aquatic habitats. Physical barriers such as perimeter fencing, screening, or other means to limit access by off-road vehicles, hikers, or equestrian users should be constructed and maintained to minimize and reduce hazards to wildlife and maintain wildlife movement corridors. An inspection checklist could be used to identify and address hazards when individual sites are approved for initial use, and through periodic inspections. Hazardous features could trap, displace, or lead to death of wildlife. Examples include: erosion control materials with plastic or nylon mesh, trash, garbage and open containers; vents on sheds and buildings; and hydrocarbon leaks from off-road vehicles and the OHV Park's equipment used for maintenance. These potential impacts should be evaluated to reduce or eliminate risks to wildlife. Noise at even moderate levels (40-60 dB) is associated with physiological and behavioral changes in birds, terrestrial mammals, amphibians, and bats. The PEIR should analyze subsequent Project activities' noise contributions to ensure activities, including those associated with operation, maintenance, and use of the Site do not significantly impact the local wildlife. Artificial night lighting may impact wildlife in several ways, including impacts to navigation, changes in foraging behavior, changes in circadian rhythms (both physiological and behavioral), predator-prey relationships, and suppressed immune response. Impacts have been observed in birds, insects, terrestrial mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and bats. To avoid potentially significant impacts in cases where artificial lighting would be used, the PEIR should require that night lighting be minimized and where used, light fixtures are shielded to prevent light pollution in adjacent natural areas. Anticoagulants and other rodenticides can have harmful impacts on non-target species, and secondary poisoning of wildlife may occur. Anticoagulants are Dan Keyes Mendocino Coast Recreation and Parks District March 19, 2018 Page 3 toxins found in major rodent poisons and prevent clotting, causing animals to bleed to death internally. As these poisons move up the food chain, other wildlife, including mammalian predators and raptors, are unintentionally poisoned. Mortality from secondary poisoning has been documented in several predators. CDFW recommends prohibiting anticoagulant use on the Site's facilities including the campground, bathrooms, and near trash receptacles. Pesticides with other targets than rodents may harm native insect pollinators and other desirable arthropods which can have cascading adverse ecosystem impacts in adjoining areas. Chemical pesticides should be prohibited. Site inspections, enforcement, and testing should occur to maintain pesticide-free products. Appropriate species-specific mitigation measures should be included for each potentially significant impact. Off-site mitigation through habitat creation and/or acquisition and preservation in perpetuity should be considered. Any on-site habitat restoration or enhancement should be considered and fully described. b) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other Sensitive Natural Community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS. Project direct and indirect impacts on Sensitive Natural Communities and riparian habitat should be evaluated and quantified at the Program level. Appropriate mitigation measures (e.g., restoration, permanent setbacks) should be included for each potentially significant impact. Plans for restoration and revegetation should be prepared by individuals with expertise in the local Mendocino County ecosystems, sensitive natural communities, and native plant revegetation techniques. Adjacent native vegetation contributes to the ecological the integrity of streams and help maintain natural sedimentation processes. The PEIR should require effective setbacks to maintain a 100-foot vegetated buffer areas along streams. The PEIR should require that, prior to the commencement of any subsequent Project activity that will substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream; substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river or stream; or deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake, the Project applicant must submit a complete Lake and Streambed Alteration notification package and fee to CDFW. In such cases, early consultation with CDFW is encouraged. c) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Dan Keyes Mendocino Coast Recreation and Parks District March 19, 2018 Page 4 As previously indicated, all resource agencies do not use the same criteria to delineate wetlands. The PEIR should analyze impacts on wetlands that may or may not be considered federally protected wetlands. Subsequent project activities' direct and indirect impacts on wetlands should be carefully evaluated. Impacts could include changes in drainage patterns on- and off-site; changes in the volume, velocity, and frequency of existing and post-development surface and subsurface flows; polluted runoff; and soil erosion and/or sedimentation in wetlands; and impacts on groundwater and aquifer sources. Protection of water quality and natural hydrology is a vital component for conserving biological resources. d) Would the project 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? Project direct and indirect impacts on wildlife movement areas, linkages, corridors, and nursery sites (e.g., bat maternity and roosting colonies; rookeries, amphibian breeding, rearing and dispersal sites; reptile burrow and nesting sites; and fish and other aquatic organism spawning, rearing, and movement habitat) should be analyzed. The PEIR should stipulate that clearing of vegetation, and other activities that may adversely affect breeding birds, should occur outside of the peak avian breeding season, which is generally from March 1 through August 31, or as early as January 15 for some raptors, as feasible. If vegetation clearing or other activities are necessary during breeding season, the PEIR should require that a qualified biologist, experienced with conducting breeding bird surveys, conduct such surveys prior to work in the area. The PEIR should also analyze the impact of project activities on the ability of aquatic organisms to migrate freely within their range. Improperly designed or constructed stream crossings and water diversions have often become barriers to the migration and passage of aquatic organisms. The PEIR should require that subsequent project activities involving stream crossings and water diversions be designed, constructed, and operated to maintain passage for aquatic organisms and that CDFW is notified pursuant to Fish and Game Code Code § 1600 et seq. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources (such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance)? The Project may conflict with several Mendocino County General Plan Resource Management Policies, including protection of "pygmy” ecosystems (RM-84), avoiding impacts "to the maximum extent feasible" (RM-28); "avoidance of sensitive resources and environments rather than their removal and replacement” (RM-73), "no net loss of sensitive resources” (RM-74) and the fact that “offsite replacement, protection or enhancement is less desirable” (RM-75). CDFW recommends that the PEIR require consistency with the aforementioned policies, ordinances, plans, and conversation land goals as part of the Program description. Dan Keyes Mendocino Coast Recreation and Parks District March 19, 2018 Page 5 f) Mandatory Findings of Significance: Would the project substantially degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species? The PEIR should specifically analyze the mandatory findings of significance for potential impacts on plant, fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. | habitat, special status plants, special status wildlife, wetlands, water quality, Program EIR, Project EIR, setbacks, sensitive natural communities, cumulative impacts, alternatives | N/A | CEQA §15168(b)(2), CEQA §15355 | N/A | https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2018022040 | 39.42 | -123.77 | |
| 2019_HumboldtWind_DraftEIR | Humboldt Wind Energy Project | 2019 | 2018072076 | CEQA | EIR | N/A | Draft | County | County of Humboldt Planning Division | Humboldt | North Coast Chapter | N/A | California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Northern Region 1 | Energy | Denied | State of California - Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor £ ' CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director * CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Northern Region 601 Locust Street f Redding, CA 96001 www.wildlife.ca.gov FISH 1 WILDLIFE * L -' O > June 14, 2019 Elizabeth Burks Senior Planner County of Humboldt Planning & Building Department 3015 H Street Eureka, CA 95501 CEQAResponses@co.humboldt.ca.us Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Humboldt Wind Energy Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2018072076) Dear Ms. Burks: On April 15, 2019, The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) from the Humboldt County Planning and Building Department (Lead Agency) for the Humboldt Wind Energy Project (Project) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code § 21000 et seq. and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14 § 15000 et seq.). CDFW provided comments on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Project on August 30, 2018. CDFW understands that the Lead Agency will accept comments on the DEIR through June 14, 2019. The Department recognizes producing electricity from renewable resources such as wind provides multiple and significant benefits to California's environment and economy including: improving local air quality and reducing global warming pollution, diversifying energy supply, improving energy security, enhancing economic development, and creating jobs. To achieve these goals while maintaining California’s diverse natural resources and meeting the Department’s mission, we have consulted regularly with the Project team during project development, and provide these comments and recommendations in order to address potential natural resource impacts. CDFW TRUSTEE AND RESPONSIBLE AGENCY ROLE CDFW is the Trustee Agency for the State’s fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State, pursuant to Fish and Game Code sections 711.7(a) and 1802 and CEQA sections 15386(a) and 21070. As such, CDFW has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management offish, wildlife, native plants and their habitat. CDFW is also a Responsible Agency pursuant to CEQA. As such, CDFW administers the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code § 2050 et seq.), the Lake or Streambed Alteration (LSA) program (Fish & G. Code § 1600 et seq.) and other provisions of Fish and Game Code that conserve the State’s fish and wildlife public trust Elizabeth Burks, Senior Planner Humboldt County Planning and Building Department June 14, 2019 Page 2 resources. CDFW offers the following comments and recommendations on this Project in our role as a Trustee and Responsible Agency pursuant to CEQA. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project consists of construction and operation of a wind energy facility with a nameplate capacity of up to 155 megawatts (MW). The Project site consists of an approximately 2,000-acre study corridor where various Project components would be constructed. Within that corridor, the Project would have approximately 900 acres of temporary or permanent impacts. The initial Project term is 30 years, and additional operation, expansion, or decommissioning at the end of the 30-year Project duration would require subsequent environmental review and permitting. The Project is in the Monument Ridge/Bear River Ridge area, south of the town of Scotia, Humboldt County, CA. According to the DEIR’s Project Description, Project components include: • Up to 60 turbines, each up to 600 feet in height and capable of generating 2-5 MW of electricity, erected on tubular steel towers set on concrete foundations, with associated turbine pads, temporary staging areas, and transformers. • Up to 17 miles of new access roads with potential maximum widths of 224 feet, consisting of the following: o Turbine string roads: 24-foot-wide gravel surface with 1-foot shoulder on both sides plus up to 12-feet on either side where required for stormwater management. Roads may be constructed with temporary widths of up to 50 feet for crane access, and 200 feet for grading and matching slopes, o Project access roads: 24-foot-wide gravel surface with 200-foot width for grading and matching slopes, for a total potential width of 224 feet. • Temporary improvements to public roads at two locations along U.S. 101 to facilitate the delivery of turbines from the Fields Landing Drive delivery site to the staging yard at Jordan Creek. • 80-foot wide corridor for a 25-mile long 115 kilovolt (kV) primarily overhead transmission line (gen-tie line) including an underground crossing of the Eel River, following Shively Ridge and eventually connecting to the existing Pacific Gas and Electric transmission system at the Bridgeville Substation. • Project substation located on-site. • Underground electrical collection system linking turbines to each other and to the Project substation. • Underground communication system (fiber optic cable) adjacent to the collection system. • Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition system between each turbine and the substation and between the Project substation and the Bridgeville Substation to monitor and control Project output and the transmission of energy into the system. Elizabeth Burks, Senior Planner Humboldt County Planning and Building Department June 14, 2019 Page 3 5-acre operations and management (O&M) facility, including an operations building, water and septic systems, a parking area, and an outdoor storage area with perimeter fencing. 10-acre temporary staging area and a construction trailer and parking area at the O&M facility. Component offloading site at Fields Landing. Two temporary bypasses off U.S. 101 (Hookton Overpass and 12th Street Bypass) for transporting oversize loads. Up to six temporary and six permanent meteorological towers. Three 5-acre, temporary staging areas distributed throughout the Project site, one of which would include one temporary cement batch plant on Monument Ridge. The Project footprint consists of 92 parcels, beginning west of State Highway 101, south of Rio Dell and Scotia, and terminating east of State Highway 101 in Bridgeville. The majority of the Project is proposed to be located on parcels owned by the Humboldt Redwood Company (HRC) and Russ Ranch and Timber, LLC., with the gen-tie transmission line crossing other privately-held parcels. The turbines and related components would enter Humboldt County by barge via Humboldt Bay with anticipated port of entry at Fields Landing. According to the DEIR, the Project proposes to begin construction in fall 2019, to ensure the Project is operational no later than December 30, 2020, and to achieve the maximum federal tax credit. Construction is projected to last 12-18 months. CONSULTATION HISTORY CDFW has consulted regularly with the Project team since late 2017, and CDFW staff have attended numerous meetings and site visits with Project proponents, the Lead Agency, and other regulatory agency staff. CDFW provided informal comments on various work plans, and formal comments on the Notice of Preparation (CDFW 2018). Here we provide additional comments specific to the DEIR and Project as currently proposed. CDFW PRIMARY CONCERNS CDFW’s primary concerns regarding the DEIR and proposed Project are as follows: • The DEIR was circulated prior to collection, study results, and analysis of Projectspecific data vital for the DEIR’s impact analyses primarily related to wind turbine facilities and operation impacts to State-and Federally-listed species, fully protected species and raptors, and sensitive birds and bats that may be impacted during certain phases of the Project implementation. o Specifically, CDFW recommends completing a second year of marbled murrelet (murrelet) (Brachyramphus marmoratus) radar surveys, adjusting Elizabeth Burks, Senior Planner Humboldt County Planning and Building Department June 14, 2019 Page 4 murrelet take estimates informed by this data and site-specific environmental factors, completing two years of protocol-level northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) surveys, and completing site-specific analyses for birds and bats based on a minimum of two-years of data. o A second year of survey data for murrelet, bats, and birds in relation to wind turbine facilities will facilitate the Lead Agency’s and CDFW’s assessment of the Project impacts. Northern spotted owl protocol surveys will be needed throughout the Project. As discussed within this letter and our NOP comments, reliance on one year of survey data and comparisons to similar and dissimilar projects rather than comprehensive site-specific data and analyses, impacts CDFW’s ability to determine the Project fully mitigates for take of listed species and has lessened impacts to a level of less than significant. • The CDFW provides recommendations on feasible alternatives within this letter related to listed species, birds, and bats that were previously recommended by CDFW, but were not considered in the DEIR. • Wind turbine siting and operation is likely to result in considerable take over the 30 year Project period via collisions with turbines for numerous special status species that are State-and Federally-listed, Fully Protected (FP), locally rare, and State Species of Special Concern (SSC). Based on Project-provided information and estimates, the potential take includes: o For State Endangered/Federally Threatened murrelets, the number may exceed the 20.86 murrelets that the DEIR estimates will be killed over the 30-year duration of the Project; o Bat fatalities could exceed the Project’s estimated maximum of 21,600 bats killed over the 30-year duration of the Project, due to documented “swarming” behavior by hoary bats (Lasiurus cinereus) near turbines; o Loss and possible extirpation of a disjunct population of horned larks (Eremophila . alpestris) that breed on the turbine siting and gen-tie portions of the Project; o Loss of over 3,400 raptors over the 30-year Project duration (based on Project-provided estimates) including State FP raptors such as golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) ', bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), white-tailed kites (Elanus leucurus), and peregrine falcons (Fa/co peregrinus anatum) as a result of collisions with turbines and power lines; o Passerine bird loss related to turbine collisions could exceed by 300 percent or more the Project’s estimate of up to 9,000 over the 30-year duration of the Project. • Surveys and mitigation for potentially significant impacts to Sensitive Natural Communities (SNCs) and rare plants are not adequate or are deferred. • Information or mitigation for potentially significant impacts related to removal, degradation, and fragmentation of habitat for special status species are not adequate or are deferred. Elizabeth Burks, Senior Planner Humboldt County Planning and Building Department June 14, 2019 Page 5 • The CDFW relies upon the a certified CEQA process, in this case the EIR, as the underlying environmental review and documentation for permitting under the CESA. Permits issued under the CESA are a discretionary action and the requirement for CEQA review. When a project EIR is sufficient to cover that review, we can rely upon it for issuing CESA permits. In the case of this Project, we are concerned the CEQA review is insufficient to support permit issuance and that additional CEQA review would be required if the applicant were to seek an Incidental Take Permit under CESA. Given the documented impacts to listed species identified in the DEIR, we believe an Incidental Take Permit would be necessary. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Project Siting The California Energy Commission (CEC) and CDFW developed the California Guidelines for Reducing Impacts to Birds and Bats from Wind Energy Development (Guidelines) to address coexisting and sometimes conflicting objectives: to encourage the development of wind energy in the state while minimizing and mitigating harm to birds and bats. As stated in the Guidelines, wind energy developers and Lead Agencies who use the methods described in the Guidelines will secure information on impact assessment and mitigation that would apply to CEQA and to the other wildlife protection laws and will demonstrate a good faith effort to develop and operate their projects in a fashion consistent with the intent of local, state, and federal laws. The DEIR includes Project siting and operational features that maximize the Project's objectives; however, the DEIR does not include or analyze in any detail potentially feasible siting, operational alternatives, and mitigation that would avoid or substantially lessen the Project's significant environmental impacts. CDFW continues to recommend that the DEIR include a more robust range of siting and operational alternatives, as discussed in its comments in response to the NOP, provided on August 30, 2018. The Guidelines contain preliminary site screening questions. CDFW previously commented that the siting impacts meet screening criteria for either the CDFW/CEC Guidelines’ Category 3 -Project Sites with High or Uncertain Potential for Wildlife Impacts, or Category 4 -Project Sites Inappropriate for Wind Development. The CDFW/CEC Guidelines state: “Sites for which existing data indicate unacceptable risk of bird or bat fatalities might also be appropriately classified as Category 4, particularly if no feasible avoidance or mitigation measures are available to reduce impacts." Based on our review of the Project’s scope, the substantial ecological data on the Project site, and the site screening criteria in the Guidelines, CDFW concluded that all or portions of the Project site fall into Category 4, “Project Sites Inappropriate for Wind Development." Elizabeth Burks, Senior Planner Humboldt County Planning and Building Department June 14, 2019 Page 6 As stated in the Guidelines, “if such a [Category 4] project moves forward despite indications that high levels of bird or bat fatalities might occur, operations avoidance and minimization options to reduce the impacts are limited, and the project may require costly, ongoing reassessment of impacts and adjustment of mitigation The DEIR should include robust wind turbine and powerline siting alternatives analysis, propose adequate avoidance and mitigation, monitoring, and provide for ongoing assessment and a suite of adaptive management strategies that would avoid or substantially lessen the Project’s significant impacts to birds and bats. Marbled Murrelet Wind Turbine Collision Risk Model and Take Estimate Radar data collected during pre-Project surveys indicate that take, defined by Fish and Game Code section 86 as to “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill,’' of murrelet is likely due to collisions with Project turbines as birds travel through the Project area between inland old-growth forest nesting sites and nearshore ocean foraging areas. Because of its unique life-history and old-growth forest nesting habitat requirements, it is extremely difficult to fully mitigate take pursuant to CESA for this State Endangered species. CDFW is aware Project approaches for modeling collision risk are still undergoing revisions. A collision risk nhodel is necessary to create an estimate of the number of murrelets that could be killed or injured by collision with turbines and other Project components. Currently, the Project has two collision risk reports. The first is included in the DEIR as Appendix O (Biological Resources: Marbled Murrelet Collision Risk Assessment Associated with the Humboldt Wind Project Proposed for Humboldt County, California, November 2018). However, this document has been replaced by a new Collision Risk Assessment Report that was provided to CDFW and United Stated Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on April 15, 2019 and was not included in the DEIR. CDFW is not yet confident with the model inputs nor with either collision risk modeling approach or the resulting take estimates. Additional model refinement may be needed, and this may result in a significantly higher take estimate than the 20.86 murrelets calculated in the DEIR. The 20.86 murrelet take estimate was developed by doubling the original model output to account for potential interannual variation in murrelet occurrence at the site, in part because the models utilize only one year of radar monitoring data that has been collected thus far (DEIR Appendix O), despite CDFW’s recommended two years of murrelet surveys (CDFW 2018). This 20.86 murrelet take estimate is substantially different from the take estimate in the “Biological Resources: Humboldt Wind Energy Project Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy" (DEIR Appendix S) which states, "...the anticipated level of take is set conservatively at 15 marbled murrelets over 30 years of project operation.” Elizabeth Burks, Senior Planner Humboldt County Planning and Building Department June 14, 2019 Page 7 The factor that most strongly influences the models’ collision risk and take estimate is the avoidance probability. The collision risk models assign an avoidance probability of 0.98 (DEIR Appendix O) and 0.997 (April 15 Report, not in DEIR), respectively. These avoidance probabilities assume that murrelets flying through the proposed Project site would avoid colliding with wind turbines 98 percent or 99.7 percent of the time. The model detailed in DEIR Appendix O also included a lower avoidance probability (0.95) for April only “with the presumption that inbound birds could include naive first-year birds that may be naive to turbines or other structures.” The avoidance probabilities used in the DEIR and April 15 Report models were based on studies primarily conducted at offshore wind facilities. Most of these studies focused on avoidance behaviors of species that have different wing-loading and flight patterns than murrelets. Further, the Project area is unique in that it experiences frequent fog and low cloud ceiling conditions, which increases risk of bird collisions (Aschwanden et al. 2018). United States Geological Survey data shows the Project site where turbines are proposed experiences an average of 9 -10.5 hours of fog and low cloud ceiling conditions per 24-hour period during summer (Torregrosa et al. 2016). Data summaries from the National Weather Service Forecast Office in Eureka, CA, show that the weather station on Woodley Island recorded fog on an average of 161 days per year between 2013 and 2018 (data summaries available: https://w2.weather.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=eka). This is supported by information in the DEIR (DEIR Appendix L) which states that surveys conducted for the Project encountered “moderate to heavy fog" that “periodically reduced visibility during 20 out of 59 survey-days.” Thus, it is reasonable to assume that collision risk, for murrelets and birds generally, is likely substantially higher at this site than at other wind facilities that do not experience weather conditions frequently resulting in poor visibility. Reliance on data and comparing birds flying over open ocean to birds flying over the complex topography of forested ridgelines with fog and low cloud ceiling is questionable. The collision risk models used here are highly sensitive to changes in bird avoidance probabilities, thus any change in avoidance probability model inputs substantially affects the resulting take estimate. Setting the avoidance probability lower than 0.98 results in an almost 50 percent increase in the estimated number of murrelets that could collide with a turbine for each 0.01 change in avoidance probability (DEIR Appendix O). For example, the original model used an avoidance probability of 0.98 and determined that 10.43 murrelets would collide with turbines over the 30-year duration of the Project. If an avoidance probability of 0.97 is used, the take estimate would increase to 15.29 birds (DEIR Appendix O). Using this approach, an avoidance probability of 0.90 results in projected take of 222 murrelets over the 30-year project. Given that no information exists on murrelet avoidance of terrestrial wind turbines, the complex weather and topography at the Project site, and given that there have been documented collisions of murrelets with stationary anthropogenic structures such as powerlines (DEIR Biological Elizabeth Burks, Senior Planner Humboldt County Planning and Building Department June 14, 2019 Page 8 Resources Chapter 3.5b page 3.5-77), the avoidance probability of 98 percent or higher is unsupported by adequate data. The Draft Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the Skookumchuck Wind Energy Project in Lewis County, WA, is the only other wind energy project currently being developed in the range of murrelet, and uses an avoidance probability of 0.75 during operational periods and an avoidance probability of either 0.95 or 0.99 during periods when rotors are not turning either due to wind conditions or curtailment (Chambers Group Inc. 2018). CDFW recommends the DEIR evaluate impacts using more conservative avoidance probabilities and associated take estimates. To propose measures that will be “roughly proportional’ to the impacts of the taking (CEQA § 15126.4(a)(4)(B)), and minimize and fully mitigate (Fish & G. Code § 2081(b)(2)), the Project must provide a sound estimate of potential take. Further, CDFW cannot issue an Incidental Take Permit pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 (b) “if issuance of the permit would jeopardize the continued existence of the species" (Fish & G. Code § 2081(c)). A sound and supported take estimate is essential for CDFW to determine whether or not the Project may result in jeopardy of the murrelet. Proposed Mitigation Plan for Marbled Murrelet The DEIR proposes to develop a mitigation plan that relies on a corvid management approach in Van Duzen County Park where murrelet occupancy has not been determined and relies on a deterministic model to support the assumption that corvid management applied there, similar to other parks, would increase the murrelet population. This proposed mitigation plan lacks specifics, performance standards, and does not contain sufficient detail to reasonably demonstrate proposed measures are capable of successful implementation and enforceable. The DEIR also defers mitigation specifics until a future time, thus precluding meaningful review and analysis required per CEQA. The DEIR states: “Implementing [the marbled murrelet mitigation] plan would create as many as 103 marbled murrelets over the life of the project." The DEIR (p 3.5-70) states this estimate (103 murrelets) was obtained via a “deterministic model that was developed to calculate new breeding capable murrelets that could be added to the population if corvid management characteristic of other parks is implemented at Van Duzen County Park." However, the specific details of how the estimate was derived are not available for review because neither information on the model, nor the murrelet mitigation plan, are included in the DEIR. There is no evidence to support that murrelets occupy and breed in Van Duzen County Park. Surveys conducted in 2001 documented sub-canopy flights and circling flights at three survey locations. The 2001 data does not provide adequate detail to conclude whether the Van Duzen County Park stands were occupied, or whether birds were merely in transit within the Van Duzen River corridor to adjacent habitat (McAllister Elizabeth Burks, Senior Planner Humboldt County Planning and Building Department June 14, 2019 Page 9 2019). Surveys in 2018 found “no evidence of occupancy of any of the [Van Duzen County Park] forest habitats," (McAllister 2019), although occupied behavior was detected at nearby Cheatham Grove, on California State Parks Property. Further surveys would be needed to determine whether murrelets breed in Van Duzen County Park in order to formulate a projected increase in murrelet production as a result of corvid management in the Van Duzen County Park. Although it is a reasonable assumption that corvid reduction could increase murrelet nest success where murrelets are known to breed, CDFW is not aware this effect has been demonstrated or quantified. Given these substantial uncertainties regarding the Van Duzen County Park as a mitigation site, the DEIR should evaluate and propose other feasible mitigation sites and substantially develop the murrelet mitigation plan prior to finalizing the Project’s EIR to allow CDFW to evaluate whether the measures are “capable of successful implementation" (Fish & G. Code § 2081(b)(2)). The DEIR also proposes “adaptive management actions to rectify a shortfall in production of sufficient marbled murrelets to offset take." The monitoring necessary to evaluate and ensure the effectiveness of this corvid management producing murrelets should also be evaluated for feasibility. This plan and the associated model that estimates the number of murrelets produced should be included in the DEIR for review. The DEIR concludes that “ given the uncertainty as to the feasibility and effectiveness of these compensatory mitigation and yet-to-be developed adaptive management measures, operational impacts on marbled murrelet would be significant and unavoidable.” Other feasible mitigation measures exist, but have not been incorporated into the Project. For example, murrelets fly inland less frequently during the non-nesting season, and shutting off wind turbines (i.e., curtailment) during all ora portion of the nesting season is a potentially feasible mitigation measure to minimize murrelet collisions with turbines. Additionally, habitat acquisition and preservation in perpetuity via conservation easements or other instruments may be a feasible mitigation measure that should be considered in the DEIR. CDFW recommends the Project develop a murrelet mitigation plan for the impacts related to turbine construction and operation once there is a CDFW and USFWS accepted collision take estimate. The mitigation plan should propose fully enforceable and feasible mitigations that mitigate for the anticipated take of murrelet as well as a CDFW-accepted monitoring plan to assess its effectiveness. Analyses Regarding Construction Impacts Mitigation Measure 3.5-1a states: “the project applicant shall prepare documentation depicting the location of marbled murrelet nesting habitat overlain with the construction footprint to confirm that construction activities would have no direct impacts on suitable Elizabeth Burks, Senior Planner Humboldt County Planning and Building Department June 14, 2019 Page 10 marbled murrelet habitat.” This analysis should be included in the DEIR. Because the DEIR includes no mapping or location information for murrelet habitat identified near the Project site, it is not possible to evaluate the results of the analysis or the potential Project impacts on murrelet habitat. Mitigation measure 3.5-1b states: ‘‘During the marbled murrelet nesting season (March 24-September 15), the project applicant shall maintain a no-disturbance buffer between the construction activity and marbled murrelet nesting habitat as described below. An exhibit showing the project improvements and marbled murrelet nesting habitat buffers shall be prepared demonstrating compliance with this mitigation measure. In the event the buffers cannot be maintained, an additional marbled murrelet shall be added to the compensatory mitigation required in Mitigation Measure 3.5-2c.” The analysis of construction impacts on murrelet habitat should not be deferred. Without knowing the extent to which the Project may encroach upon murrelet nesting habitat and where, there is no way to ascertain whether compensating for “an additional marbled murrelef’ is sufficient to fully mitigate potential take that could result from nest failure due to construction disturbance. CDFW recommends the DEIR quantify and disclose the extent to which the Project will encroach upon murrelet nesting habitat and propose appropriate mitigation for potentially significant impacts. Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) Information on NSO Activity Centers The DEIR states: “Based on available survey data from 2014-2018, one northern spotted owl activity center documented in 2018 occurs inside the 250-meter buffer area within the project area in the vicinity of the Jordan Creek access road. No additional activity centers are located within the 400-meter buffer of the project area.” According to 2018 HRC Annual Report data, there are at least six NSO activity centers within 400 meters of the Project area, although only one active nest was in this area in 2018. An additional 46 activity centers are within 1.3 miles of the Project area. As noted below, this Annual Report activity center data is not based on current systematic protocol level surveys to determine occupancy and reproduction status of NSO for the Project area and Project-related activities; therefore, the data likely underestimates the number and status of activity centers within the Project area. Additional information about NSO sites in relation to the Project footprint is provided in Figure 1. It appears protocol level pre-construction surveys have not yet been conducted for the Project. Unless the Project proponent can demonstrate that recent surveys and activity center survey visits provide comprehensive coverage of the Project area plus 0.5-mile, Elizabeth Burks, Senior Planner Humboldt County Planning and Building Department June 14, 2019 Page 11 additional surveys should be conducted. This would provide an accurate analysis of the potential impacts from Project activities to NSO. These surveys should follow the most current USFWS Survey Protocol for any noise disturbing or habitat altering activities. The protocol calls for six visits in one year prior to operations. Projects that may result in habitat alteration require at least two years of concurrent surveys. Impacts to Habitat The DEIR Impact 3.5-7 (“Removal, Fragmentation, and Modification of Northern Spotted Owl Habitat during Construction’’) and Table 3.5-11 (“Temporary and Permanent Impacts of the Proposed Project on Northern Spotted Owl Habitat' ) state that the Project will result in 89.7 acres of permanent impacts to NSO habitat. However, Page 3.5-100 states the Project will result in loss of 196.7 acres of NSO habitat “through timber harvesting on HRC lands” related to clearing land for the turbine pads, gen-tie, and road construction. It is unclear if this larger acreage is in addition to, or inclusive of the 89.7 acres. The DEIR appears to assume that because HRC will be conducting the timber removal for Project activities, that the permanent and significant impacts associated with this additional NSO habitat loss do not need to be mitigated by the Project. This would be improper pursuant to CEQA’s definition of a Project (CEQA § 15378) as “ the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, ora reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” Mitigation measure 3.5-7 also states that the Project will develop a map of NSO habitat on the Project site, and, upon completion of construction, will provide an accounting of NSO foraging, nesting, and roosting habitat temporarily and permanently affected by construction. This analysis should be refined to include Project-related temporary and permanent NSO habitat impacts, and propose mitigation for NSO habitat. Habitat Retention and Proposed Mitigation Measure 3.5-7 states that the Project will “provide documentation to the Humboldt County Planning & Building Department, CDFW, and USFWS confirming that functional habitat thresholds have been met for all spotted owl activity sites occurring within 0.1 mile of the Project area upon completion of construction." CDFW has two comments regarding this approach: 1. The habitat thresholds listed in this section are from HRC’s Habitat Conservation Plan for the Properties of the Pacific Lumber Company, Scotia Pacific Holding Company, and Salmon Creek Corporation, (HCP) established in 1999 and revised in August 2015. These thresholds were negotiated for HCP Covered Activities not Project construction and operation of a wind energy facility and associated infrastructure, permanent forest conversion, or installation of transmission lines clearing for construction and permanent infrastructure. The Elizabeth Burks, Senior Planner Humboldt County Planning and Building Department June 14, 2019 Page 12 Project and related activities are not HCP Covered Activities, so the more current and restrictive conservation measures should apply. 2. An after-the-fact accounting of impacts is inappropriate. The DEIR should include the habitat retention thresholds recommended in Attachment A (USFWS 2011) and identify, based on the proposed Project footprint, whether these habitat thresholds can be met. Additionally, the Project proposes to mitigate permanent impacts on NSO habitat by "permanently preserving a minimum 3:1 ratio through purchase of conservation easements or acquisition of suitable northern spotted owl habitat," within two years of delivery of first power from the Project. However, the DEIR defers quantifying the impacts it proposes to mitigate until after they have occurred, thus the DEIR does not state how much land the Project proposes to acquire or place under conservation easement for mitigation purposes, nor does it specify a location other than "in Humboldt County.” If the Project is not able to meet habitat thresholds required by Attachment A (USFWS 2011), the amount of habitat required to mitigate the habitat loss at a 3:1 ratio could be substantial and may be difficult to obtain. In order to fully mitigate and be a feasible and effective CESA mitigation measure, a conservation easement must be held by an entity approved by CDFW to hold mitigation lands. CDFW should be identified as a third-party beneficiary, and an adequate endowment should be established to monitor and manage the conserved lands. The DEIR includes no details on who would hold the conservation easement or monitor and manage the land to ensure maintenance of its intended mitigation objectives, or details on funding of an endowment. Because the impact analysis has not yet been completed and the proposal lacks essential details, CDFW cannot determine whether the proposal is feasible or would adequately mitigate for significant impacts to NSO. Mitigation measure 3.5-7 also states, "the project applicant may implement a barred owl management program in the project vicinity on privately held land occupied by northern spotted owl (owned by either HRC or another entity), and implement this program on the off-site conservation lands described above.” Barred owl management could be a feasible mitigation for impacts to NSO. However, as currently proposed, the measure does not include enforceable language ("may” vs “shall”), nor provide any information about where barred owl management may take place, by whom, on what scale, and when. Even so, the DEIR determines that impacts to NSO would be less than significant, in part because of implementation of a barred owl management program (p.3.5-102). Based on the limited and incomplete NSO impact analysis, and the lack of detailed and enforceable mitigation measures, the determination of less than significant for NSO is conclusory. Furthermore, based on the impacts to NSO habitat described in the DEIR, the impacts would remain significant, given the substantial uncertainties regarding the effectiveness and enforceability of the DEIR’s proposed mitigations. Elizabeth Burks, Senior Planner Humboldt County Planning and Building Department June 14, 2019 Page 13 CDFW recommends the DEIR include an accurate estimate of temporary and permanent impacts to all NSO habitat removed or altered as part of the Project. Once these impacts have been quantified, the DEIR should include NSO mitigations with performance measures, enforceable terms, and sufficient detail to allow meaningful public review of the feasibility and effectiveness of the mitigation. The Project proposes to use the ESA Section 7 consultation nexus to obtain take coverage for Federally listed species, and to obtain a State Incidental Take Permit pursuant to CESA. However, the DEIR states the Project intends to remain consistent with the HRC HCP. DEIR mitigation measure 3.5-7 states "the project applicant shall comply with northern spotted owl management objectives, conservation measures, and adaptive management measures required in the HCP EIS/EIR (and incorporated into the HCP) (PALCO 1998).” As stated above, these objectives and conservation measures were applicable to the HRC HCP Covered Activities, not the Project activities. Turbines and electrical lines located within an NSO’s home range may increase the likelihood of collision fatalities and predation due to habitat fragmentation. Dispersing juvenile birds may be particularly vulnerable. The DEIR states that: "Clearing of northern spotted owl habitat for the 80-foot-wide gen-tie corridor would also fragment northern spotted owl habitat. The effect of this fragmentation would be potential increases in predator presence, and increased exposure to wind and sunlight that could alter the microclimate of what was formerly part of the stand interior.” However, the DEIR does not evaluate this impact further nor propose mitigation. Feasible mitigation could include measures such as placing lines underground and revegetating disturbed areas, or a more substantive discussion of all the owl activity centers on site and how they could be avoided to the greatest extent feasible. Also, the DEIR does not evaluate the potential for NSO to collide with the gen-tie line. The DEIR does not adequately identify and mitigate for impacts to NSO as a result of the Project activities. CDFW recommends the DEIR describe how the Project activities will not conflict with the HRC HCP. CDFW requests the opportunity to review this effects analysis prior to the final EIR. Elizabeth Burks, Senior Planner Humboldt County Planning and Building Department June 14, 2019 Page 14 Important Bird Areas (IBAs) and Sensitive Bird Species The Project is located approximately five miles south of the Humboldt Bay IBA and 28 of the 60 proposed wind turbines (primarily those on Bear River Ridge) are sited within the Cape Mendocino Grasslands IBA. The proposed Project configuration does not follow typical best practices for wind turbine siting. As stated in our August 30, 2018 letter, CDFW recommends adopting an alternative that avoids locating turbines in an IBA. The Project’s “Environmentally Superior Alternative” (“Alternative 5, Reduced Turbine Footprint-Bear River Ridge”) eliminates most but not all turbines in the IBA, as five of the westernmost Monument Ridge Turbines appear to be sited within the IBA. Humboldt Bay is California’s second largest estuary, and provides vital fish and wildlife habitat, as well as stopover habitat for migratory birds on the Pacific Flyway. In particular, the Pacific Flyway population of black brant (Branta bernicla) is dependent upon the eelgrass (Zostera marina) in Humboldt Bay, the largest source of eelgrass between black brant wintering areas in Baja California and Willapa Bay in Washington. Humboldt Bay is also part of the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network and supports over 500,000 shorebirds of 26 species during spring migration (Colwell and Feucht 2018). According to the National Audubon Society (2019), the Cape Mendocino Grassland IBA encompasses one of the largest expanses of grassland in northwestern California. The State Endangered (SE), Threatened (ST), or Candidate (CT/E) Species; FP Species, SSC, and State Watch List (WL) species documented along or near Bear River Ridge within the Cape Mendocino Grasslands IBA include: • Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) (SE/FP) • Bryant’s savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis alaudinus) (SSC) • Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) (SSC) • California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia) (WL) • Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) (WL) • Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) (WL) • Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) (FP) • Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) (SSC) • Long-eared owl (Asio otus) (SSC) • Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) (SSC) • Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) (SSC) • Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) (SSC) • Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) (FP) • Prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus) (WL) • Purple martin (Progne subis) (SSC) • Sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus) (WL) • Short-eared owl (Asio flammeus) (SSC) • Vaux’s swift (Chaetura vauxi) (SSC) • White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) (FP) Elizabeth Burks, Senior Planner Humboldt County Planning and Building Department June 14, 2019 Page 15 • Willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii) (SE) • Yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens) (SSC) • Yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia) (SSC) Horned Lark The Project site supports a small yet persistent breeding population of horned lark {Eremophila alpestris ssp). The taxonomy of this subspecies is uncertain. The birds occuring onsite are either California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata), or another subspecies. The streaked horned lark is a Federally Threatened subspecies. The California horned lark is a WL species, a list consisting of taxa that were previously designated as SSC but no longer merit that status, or do not yet meet SSC criteria, but for which there is concern and a need for additional information to clarify their status. It is unclear as to whether the horned larks on the Project site are of the California horned lark subspecies, or the Federally threatened streaked horned lark subspecies, and the DEIR does not fully address this taxonomic uncertainty. Regardless, CDFW has determined that impacts to this small, disjunct population are potentially significant, and that the DEIR does not adequately mitigate these impacts to a level of less than significant. Additionally, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 3513 it is unlawful to take any migratory bird as designated by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. To comply with this code section, the project should be modified to incorporate feasible avoidance measures. Horned lark specimens collected at Bear River Ridge in 1929 were originally identified as streaked horned lark by Joseph Grinnell (Grinnell 1931) and were subsequently re-identified as California horned lark in the 1940s. The birds are currently assumed to be of the California horned lark subspecies, but experts have raised questions regarding this determination, and the current status is unclear. During pre-permitting surveys related to a prior proposed wind development in this location, McAllister and Fix (2008) wrote: “Photographs and song recordings of breeding male Horned Larks obtained during our study at Bear River Ridge were sent to a Horned Lark researcher at Oregon State University. Plumage characteristics from the photographs left the researcher less than convinced that the birds were actia, and preliminary results of the song analysis revealed that the sonograms, though not identical to those of Willamette Valley, Oregon strigata, were close enough to warrant further investigation.” McAllister and Fix go on to state: "Regardless of the taxonomy, the Bear River Ridge population of Horned Larks appears to be part of a disjunctive or peripheral, if not entirely isolated population. They are present year-round in very low densities at Bear River Ridge. The species Elizabeth Burks, Senior Planner Humboldt County Planning and Building Department June 14, 2019 Page 16 has also been observed, at least on one occasion, immediately south on Cape Ridge (Hunter et al. 2005). The species is not known to breed anywhere else in northwestern California.” Horned larks are identified in the 2016 Partners in Flight Landbird Conservation Plan (Rosenberg et al. 2016) as "Common Birds in Steep Decline," a designation for species that have lost more than 50 percent of their populations over the past 40 years. Further, based on post-project monitoring at other sites, horned larks were "by far the most commonly observed fatality” at wind farms in Wyoming and Colorado (Erickson et al. 2002), and comprised 21.9 percent of small passerine fatalities in a meta-analysis of 116 studies at more than 70 wind energy facilities (Erickson et al. 2014). The DEIR found that horned larks comprised 16 percent of carcasses discovered during fatality searches at 16 regional wind projects (DEIR Appendix J). The horned lark breeding population at the site consisted of approximately 50 birds in 1929 (Grinnell 1931) and according to the DEIR, has consisted of approximately 14 birds since 2008. The Bird Use Count for the project had 137 detections of horned larks during 506 surveys over one year, with most detections occurring in summer and fall (DEIR Appendix J). If turbines are constructed within and adjacent to horned lark breeding sites as currently proposed, it is highly likely that this breeding population will be significantly impacted and possibly extirpated. CEQA section 15125(c) states: “Special emphasis should be placed on environmental resources that are rare or unique to that region and would be affected by the project. The EIR must demonstrate that the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project were adequately investigated and discussed and it must permit the significant effects of the project to be considered in the full environmental context.” The DEIR’s proposed mitigation measures for horned larks would likely be ineffective. For example, measure 3.5-12 recommends a "150-foot buffer” between wind turbines and horned lark sites. This buffer would not provide sufficient distance to protect horned larks from collisions with turbines during breeding display flights. Further, horned lark sites may change from year to year, so a buffer in one year may not be adequately protective in subsequent years. Mitigation measure 3.5-12 also states that the Project will "provide compensatory mitigation for permanent impacts on grassland habitat at a no-net-loss ratio for grassland and scrub/shrub habitat.” However, the measure does not indicate how or where this will be achieved. It is unclear whether similar habitats are available for conservation or could be created nearby. Off-site grassland mitigation, if feasible, would be unlikely to be used by the horned lark population currently occupying the site. The DEIR states “ Impacts on horned lark nesting habitat would be avoided or mitigated with implementation of the horned lark mitigation plan described below (Mitigation Measure 3.5-14).” However, Mitigation Measure 3.5-14 does not describe the mitigation plan, it Elizabeth Burks, Senior Planner Humboldt County Planning and Building Department June 14, 2019 Page 17 merely indicates (under “Timing”) that submittal of this plan will occur before issuance of grading permits. Because the DEIR does not include detailed information or performance standards on the mitigation plan, CDFW cannot determine whether the mitigations are feasible or are likely to be effective. There is considerable evidence that, as proposed, the Project would result in unmitigated significant impacts to this disjunct horned lark population, regardless of taxonomy. To minimize impacts to horned larks to a less than significant level, CDFW recommends turbines be sited outside of the Cape Mendocino Grassland IBA or feasible and effective mitigation measures be included in the DEIR. Migratory Birds (Non-listed and Not Fully Protected) Passerine Bird Annual Operational Fatality Estimate The DEIR estimates the Project operations will annually kill between 150 and 300 non-raptor birds (i.e., passerines or songbirds), which amounts to 4,500 to 9,000 birds over the 30-year project life. The DEIR developed this estimate by compiling results of bird fatality monitoring at 21 wind energy facilities in California, Oregon, and Washington (DEIR Appendix J). Determining reasonably accurate bird and bat mortality rates from wind facility operations is extremely complicated. This is due to inconsistencies in fatality monitoring study design and implementation and addressing three primary sources of sampling error or bias: 1) imperfect searcher efficiency, 2) carcasses removed by scavengers or other forces prior to searcher discovery, and 3) the fact that some carcasses land outside the carcass search area (H.T. Harvey 2018). Not addressing these three types of sampling error or bias can result in a substantially underestimated fatality rate. From the data presented in the DEIR (Appendix J), it appears some or all of the compiled fatality rates from the wind energy facilities used for comparison are based only on raw data of carcass detections and are “unadjusted for searcher or carcass persistence biases.” includes no discussion or details on how, if at all, the referenced fatality studies addressed the well-documented study bias issue of searcher efficiency and carcass persistence. Without a rigorous statistical analysis to quantify and address sampling biases, CDFW has substantial concerns that the averaged turbine mortality rate of three to six annual bird mortalities per wind turbine is significantly underestimated. The first-year results of a statistically robust bird and bat fatality monitoring study for the 85.92 MW Golden Hills Wind Energy Center (Golden Hills) in Alameda County, were released in February 2018 (H.T. Harvey 2018). This study incorporated 1) comprehensive bat and bird carcass surveys, 2) randomized 7-day and 28-day interval searches | survey, alternatives, special status species, mitigation, sensitive natural communities, insufficient review, monitoring | N/A | CEQA §15126.4(a)(4)(B) | N/A | https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2018072076/2 | 40.48 | -124.07 | |
| 2020_RollingMeadow_MND_CDFW | Rolling Meadows CUP Draft Initial Study and MND | 2020 | 2020070339 | CEQA | MND | N/A | Draft | County | Humboldt County Planning Department | Humboldt | North Coast Chapter | N/A | California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Northern Region 1 | Commercial/Educational/Industrial, Local Planning Action | Approved | State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Northern Region 619 Second Street Eureka, CA 95501 www.wildlife.ca.gov August 17, 2020 Meghan Ryan, Senior Planner Humboldt County Planning and Building Department 3015 H Street, Eureka, CA 95501 mryan2@co.humboldt.ca.us Subject: Rolling Meadows (SCH# 2020070339) Conditional Use Permits Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Meghan Ryan: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received from the County of Humboldt (Lead Agency) the Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Rolling Meadows (Project), in McCann, Humboldt County, California. CDFW understands the Lead Agency will accept comments on the Project through August 17, 2020. CDFW recently received a Lake or Streambed Alteration (LSA) Notification to rebuild a bridge on Larabee Creek that will serve as an alternate access to the Project from Alderpoint Road. CDFW staff conducted a site visit of Facilities #1-16 of the Project area on Thursday, August 13, 2020. The Project proposes 306,648 square feet (7.04 acres) of new cannabis facility space, including 251,451 square feet (5.77 acres) of new mixed-light cannabis cultivation. The Project also proposes use of three wells for irrigation in addition to 80,000 gallons of proposed rainwater catchment. The mixed-light cultivation is proposed to be powered by Pacific Gas and Electric, however new connection lines and associated infrastructure will be needed. The Project is proposed to operate on one legal parcel consisting of two Assessor’s parcel numbers totaling 1,632 acres. The subject parcel was previously a part of the “Wheat/Whitlow Ranch” that was historically used for livestock and timber. As the Trustee for the State’s fish and wildlife resources, CDFW has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants and the habitat necessary to sustain their populations. As a Responsible Agency, CDFW administers the California Endangered Species Act and other provisions of the Fish and Game Code (FGC) that conserve the State’s fish and wildlife public trust resources. CDFW offers the following comments and recommendations in our role as a Trustee and Responsible Agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; California Public Resource Code §21000 et seq.). CDFW participates in the regulatory process in its roles as Responsible and Trustee agency to address potential substantial environmental impacts by recommending avoidance and minimization measures. These DocuSign Envelope ID: 36ACDAAB-EB22-481B-9BB2-735C719E4697 Page 2 of 7 comments are intended to reduce the Projects impacts on public trust resources. Incomplete Scoping for Special Status Species The IS/MND list 27 special status botanical taxa (species) reported within a nine-quad search, however CDFW’s Natural Diversity Database reports 39 botanical species in the current nine quad search. Additionally, the IS/MND list 22 special status animal species reported within a nine-quad search, however CDFW reports 44 animal species in the current nine quad search, including the western bumblebee (Bombus occidentalis) that is now a candidate for listing under the California Endangered Species Act. The IS/MND does not address potential occurrences or impacts to 34 special status species. A complete scoping list is needed for the IS/MND to consider if the Project will have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species or habitats identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Potential impacts to additional species and habitats identified in the Humboldt County General Plan, such as Roosevelt elk (Cervus canadensis roosevelti), should be addressed in the IS/MND. The IS/MND should be revised to include an analysis of potential Project impacts on all special status species and habitats identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as occurring within the region and propose avoidance/mitigation where appropriate (Recommendation 1). Incomplete Botanical Surveys and Impact Analysis The IS/MND states botanical surveys for rare plants and sensitive natural communities did not encompass the entire Project area due to changes in the Project footprint occurring after the 2018 botanical field work season. The entire Project area should include the “whole of the action”, including all proposed buildings, new powerlines, borrow pits, access roads, and other areas of new ground disturbance. The IS/MND proposes completing botanical surveys as a preconstruction mitigation measure. CDFW understands that additional botanical surveys occurred in 2020 but results were not included in the IS/MND. Furthermore, CDFW is aware that an additional rare plant species, Pacific gilia (Gilia capitata ssp. pacifica) and stands of native grasslands (California oat grass prairie [Danthonia californica]; blue wildrye prairie [Elymus glaucus]) were detected within the Project site in 2020. Based on CDFW’s August 13, 2020 site visit, it appears the 2020 additional botanical surveys have not yet covered the entire Project area. The IS/MND should be revised to include the results of complete botanical surveys for the entire Project area. Surveys and reporting should be in accordance with CDFW’s Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities and propose avoidance/mitigation DocuSign Envelope ID: 36ACDAAB-EB22-481B-9BB2-735C719E4697 Page 3 of 7 where appropriate (Recommendation 2). Mitigations for Loss of Sensitive Natural Communities Vegetation types, also known as natural communities, are categorized and classified by the Manual of California Vegetation (MCV) Online. Using the best available data on the abundance, distribution, and threat to these natural communities, CDFW’s VegCamp, then assigns natural communities a global (G) and state (S) rarity rank. Rarity ranks range from 1 (very rare and threatened) to 5 (demonstrably secure). Natural Communities with State ranks of S1-S3 are considered Sensitive Natural Communities to be addressed in the environmental review processes of CEQA and its equivalents. A question mark (?) denotes an inexact numeric rank because of insufficient samples over the full expected range of the type, but existing information points to this rank. The IS/MND identifies stands of native grassland prairies dominated by Danthonia californica and Elymus glaucus. These perennial bunchgrasses typically dominate in areas where native prairie soils, which takes centuries to develop, are undisturbed by plowing and have had limited or no cattle grazing. These native grasslands were assessed by CDFW during the August 13, 2020 site visit, and as indicated in the IS/MND, CDFW concurs they meet the MCV definition of California oat grass prairie (S3) and blue wild rye montane meadows (S3?), respectively, though the dominance of the two species varies among stands and Project sites. Consequently, as described in the IS/MND they are both considered Sensitive Natural Communities. To off-set the loss of these Sensitive Natural Communities, the IS/MND’s proposes as mitigation collecting seed from these species in grassland prairies that will be lost to Project infrastructure, and using the seed to re-vegetate fill slopes and other disturbed areas once Project construction is completed. CDFW finds this mitigation has a very low likelihood of success due to 1) the lack of undisturbed prairie soils in areas proposed for mitigation, 2) the highly unlikely possibility of creating or recreating new prairie soils, and 3) the high likelihood of re- seeded native grasses being out-competed by invasive European annual grasses. Consequently, CDFW finds the proposed mitigation for the loss of these Sensitive Natural Communities to remain significant unless avoidance or other effective mitigations are developed and approved by CDFW. CDFW recommends the IS/MND should be revised to include Project layout changes to avoid impacts to these Sensitive Natural Communities or other effective mitigations are developed and approved by CDFW (Recommendation 3). Lack of Wetland Delineation Results The IS/MND discusses “potential wetland areas” identified in the 2018 Botanical Survey Report and mentions results of a 2020 wetland delineation, however a formal wetland delineation of the entire Project area using accepted methods and procedures was not included in the IS/MND. CDFW is also concerned that the wetland delineation has not yet covered the entire Project area. DocuSign Envelope ID: 36ACDAAB-EB22-481B-9BB2-735C719E4697 Page 4 of 7 The IS/MND should be revised to include the results of complete Project area wetland delineation results done in accordance with the Army Corp’s Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region and propose avoidance/mitigation where appropriate (Recommendation 4). Wetland Fill and Development Setbacks The IS/MND indicates development of cultivation sites (e.g. Facilities #3 and #10) will result in nearly one acre of wetland fill and additional encroachments on wetland setback requirements identified in the County General Plan and the State Waterboard’s Cannabis Cultivation Policy. Approximately 90 percent of California’s historical wetlands have been filled or converted to other uses, with a consequent reduction in the functions and values wetlands provide. CDFW recommends the IS/MND be revised to include Project layout changes to avoid wetland fill and associated development setbacks. CDFW recommends the Project avoid wetland fill and adhere to Humboldt County wetland setbacks. CDFW also recommends the Project proponent consult with the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding the State Waterboard’s Cannabis Cultivation Policy and its mandate to “protect springs, wetlands, and aquatic habitats from negative impacts of cannabis cultivation.” (Recommendation 5). Stream Crossings The IS/MND lacks sufficient information, impact analysis, and avoidance/minimization measures for upgrades to stream crossings. The IS/MND states the condition of all stream crossings will be assessed after Project approval, including one bridge and 20 culverts occurring on five miles of access roads. CDFW recently received an LSA Notification for improvements to the bridge on Larabee Creek as part of the alternative access to Alderpoint Road, but no other stream crossing improvements were proposed in the Notification. Based on CDFW interpretation of aerial imagery and topography, it appears over 40 stream crossings may occur along Project access roads (including approximately 10 miles to the Alderpoint Road alternative access) and will need to be assessed for upgrades. The Alderpoint Road alternative access should be included in IS/MND analyses as part of the whole of the action, particularly due to 1) the age and condition of the existing Eel River seasonal low water crossing at McCann, 2) uncertain timeline of the County building a permanent year-round bridge at McCann, and 3) potential the Alderpoint Road may be the Project’s primary access point. Additionally, CDFW will need to rely on the IS/MND to comply with CEQA when issuing a final LSA Agreement, including any authorizations needed for upgrades to the Alderpoint Road access. The IS/MND should be revised to include analysis of potentially significant impacts associated with all stream crossing related work within the entire Project. (Recommendation 6). DocuSign Envelope ID: 36ACDAAB-EB22-481B-9BB2-735C719E4697 Page 5 of 7 Development within the 100-year Flood Zone The Project proposes locating three greenhouses (Facilities #1, #2 and #3) and a processing building within the 100-year flood zone of the Eel River. Floodplains, by their nature, are likely to be inundated by high flow events. They also connect streams and rivers to upland habitat and provide an important ecological transition zone (CDFW 2014). Grading within the floodplain and placement of complex, automated mixed-light greenhouses, and ancillary facilities, would likely result in pollution and debris during a 100-year flood event. The IS/MND should be revised to include Project layout changes to avoid non-essential development in Eel River 100-year floodplain. (Recommendation 7). Electric Infrastructure Expansion The IS/MND indicates approximately four miles of new electrical lines will be installed to connect existing powerlines to proposed cannabis cultivation sites. Based on the IS/MND, it appears the new electrical lines will be installed, primarily buried within the road prism except for one section across a sloped meadow area north of Facility #3. The IS/MND should be revised to include analysis of potentially significant biological impacts (e.g. rare plants, wetlands, raptors, etc.) associated with new electric utility lines in the sloped meadow area (Recommendation 8). Additionally, the IS/MND should be revised to include further analysis on potential additional development or growth inducing impacts within the local region that may be facilitated by the creation of four miles of new electrical utilities (Recommendation 9). Mixed-light Cultivation CDFW and others have observed light pollution originating from greenhouses throughout the County. This is inconstant with the County General Plan and International Dark Sky Standards. The IS/MND suggests International Dark Sky Standards will be upheld by the Project. CDFW questions the Lead Agency’s ability to effectively regulate potential light pollution impacts. Please explain how the Lead Agency will monitor and ensure light pollution avoidance will be accomplished (Recommendation 10). Invasive Species The IS/MND does not address potential significant effects from introduction or spread of invasive plant and animal species. Invasive species are known to result in habitat loss and other impacts to native species and may result in an overall loss of biodiversity. CDFW recommends a mitigation measure or condition of approval to require an invasive species management plan that would manage any existing invasive species and prohibit planting, seeding or otherwise introducing invasive species on Project DocuSign Envelope ID: 36ACDAAB-EB22-481B-9BB2-735C719E4697 Page 6 of 7 parcels, including all access roads (Recommendation 11). Rodenticides and Similar Harmful Substances This Project has potential high use areas for birds of prey including, Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii), sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), and other species. New agricultural development has the potential to increase rodent populations, which are sometimes treated with rodenticides. Rodents killed by rodenticide have the potential to be consumed by raptors, other birds of prey, and wildlife species, resulting in harm or mortality. CDFW recommends a condition of approval that will prohibit the use of rodenticides and similar harmful substances on Project parcels (Recommendation 12). Revise and Recirculate IS/MND One of the main purposes of CEQA is to disclose to the public and resource agencies the potential significant environmental effects of a Project, including the whole of the action. CDFW, the Planning Commission, other decision makers, and the public cannot assess the adequacy of biological surveys or potentially significant environmental impacts if a CEQA document does not contain necessary biological surveys completed prior to public circulation or if the results are not included in the public document. Additionally, the feasibility and adequacy of proposed mitigations cannot be sufficiently evaluated in a CEQA document unless all potentially significant environmental impacts have been assessed in the CEQA document. Consequently, this ISMND may need to be recirculated after revisions to analyze all potentially significant environmental impacts within the entire Project area. The entire Project area should include the whole of the action, including all proposed buildings, new powerlines, borrow pits, access roads, and other areas of new ground disturbance. Once the entire Project area has been determined, an updated and complete scoping list for special status species should be created. The results of complete botanical surveys, assessment of sensitive wildlife habitats, and wetland delineations should be included in the revised IS/MND. These complete surveys should then be used as the basis for creating avoidance and feasible mitigation measures for potentially significant impacts (Recommendation 13). We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this IS/MND. If you have any questions please contact Environmental Scientist Greg O’Connell by email at Gregory.OConnell@Wildlife.ca.gov. Sincerely, Curt Babcock Northern Region Habitat Conservation Program Manager DocuSign Envelope ID: 36ACDAAB-EB22-481B-9BB2-735C719E4697 Page 7 of 7 Citation CDFW. 2014. Development, land use, and climate change impacts on wetland and riparian habitats—A summary of scientifically supported conservation strategies, mitigation measures, and best management practices. Technical Memorandum. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Northern Region. Redding, CA. ec: State Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research state.clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov Mona Dougherty and Kason Grady Regional Water Quality Control Board mona.doherty@waterboards.ca.gov, Kason.Grady@waterboards.ca.gov Curt Babcock, Scott Bauer, Laurie Harnsberger, Gordon Leppig, Greg O’Connell, Cheri Sanville California Department of Fish and Wildlife Curt.Babcock@wildlife.ca.gov, Scott.Bauer@wildlife.ca.gov, Laurie.Harnsberger@wildlife.ca.gov, Gordon.Leppig@wildlife.ca.gov, Gregory.OConnell@wildlife.ca.gov, Cheri.Sanville@wildlife.ca.gov | scoping, survey, mitigation, sensitive natural communities, wetlands, setbacks, invasive species, insufficient review, cannabis, agriculture | N/A | N/A | N/A | https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2020070339/2 | 40.33 | -123.78 | |
| 2019_RTIManchester_MND | RTI Manchester, Inc. Manchester Subsea Cables Project | 2019 | 2019049159 | CEQA | MND | N/A | Draft | State | California State Lands Commission | Mendocino | Dorothy King Young Chapter | N/A | California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Northern Region 1 | Local Planning Action | Approved | State of California Department of Fish and Wildlife Memorandum Date: May 29, 2019 To: Afifa Awan California State Lands Commission From: Curt Babcock, Habitat Conservation Program Manager Northern Region Subject: RTI Infrastructure, Inc. Manchester Subsea Cables Project (SCH#2019049159) On April 29, 2019, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) from the California State Lands Commission (CSLC) for the RTI Infrastructure, Inc. Manchester Subsea Cables Project (Project), as proposed by RTI Infrastructure, Inc. (Applicant). As a Trustee for the State's fish and wildlife resources, CDFW has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants and the habitat necessary to sustain their populations. As a Responsible Agency, CDFW administers the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and other provisions of the Fish and Game Code that conserve the State's fish and wildlife public trust resources. CDFW offers the following comments and recommendations in our role as a Trustee and Responsible Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; California Public Resource Code $21000 et seq.). CDFW's primary concern with the MND is that it does not adequately assess, map, or disclose potentially impacted rare plant populations, Sensitive Natural Communities (SNCs), or bridge bat roosts. Given the Project's location, it is highly likely that rare plant populations, SNCs, and bat colonies occur within the Project footprint. Due to incomplete biological surveys and impact assessments, CDFW and the public cannot meaningfully review the MND to determine if the Project's impacts are significant or if proposed mitigations are feasible and effective. For this reason, CDFW recommends the MND be recirculated once completed biological Survey results are incorporated into the environmental document. Project Description The Project would create a temporary staging area, approximately 100 feet by 150 feet, on Assessor's Parcel Number 132-170-11, approximately 0.6 miles north of Manchester Beach State Park. Within this staging area, a landing manhole and surface access vault would be constructed, and this would be the connection site for marine and terrestrial fiber-optic cables. From this site, horizontal directional drilling would install steel bore pipes under the bluff, beach, and near-shore ocean and connect with marine pipes approximately 3,300 feet offshore. At the staging area, vertical holes would be drilled down to ground water in order to electrically ground each pipe. A combination of trenching and directional drilling would connect an underground conduit system to the landing manhole and to one of three pre-existing buildings in SECAWANGA Afifa Awan California State Lands Commission May 29, 2019 Page 2 of 6 that would then function as the Cable Landing Station. The underground conduit system would be trenched on both sides of State Route 1 (SR1), and potentially along both sides of Kinney Road, if selected. The conduit system would be approximately ten miles long. Crossings of waterways may be by directional drilling beneath, or by traditional trenching with the cables secured to existing bridges. . . ' VII 130W/ VIRI A CIC Work would be staged over six years, from 2019 to 2025. In the first two years, the landing manhole, surface access vault, bore pipes, and underground conduit system would be constructed, and the chosen site would be upgraded to a cable landing station. One cable connection and electrical ground would be established each successive year, totaling four cables. A VAVAVAWWW.AS The entire Project area is within the Coastal Zone and within two miles of the Pacific Ocean. This transition area from marine to upland habitat is a biologically diverse area, and commonly supports SNCs, rare plants, and wetlands. The Project area along the highway includes Alder Creek, Brush Creek, and four unnamed creeks, where riparian vegetation and moist conditions facilitate use by nesting birds, terrestrial an wildlife, and function as important corridors for wildlife movement. TROAWANINIWA 4CXWXNILLAV . Consultation History A CDFW Region 1 staff were not provided the opportunity to consult on any aspect of this Project, the Initial Study, or a draft MND prior to the Notice of Intent to adopt this MND. LITSUBIRIWAN Rare Plants and Sensitive Natural Communities I A WNWWWÜ WWW. CA The MND, Appendix C2 - Terrestrial Biological Resources Technical Report, states only portions of the biological study area (BSA) were surveyed during the flowering period in 2018, and follow-up surveys are planned for 2019. Once 2019 surveys are complete, a supplemental report will be prepared. Because the public review period for the adoption of this MND closes on May 29, 2019, deferred botanical surveys do not provide CDFW or the public the opportunity to review the survey adequacy, the potential significant impacts to rare plants and SNCs, if any, or the adequacy of proposed mitigations. S SINAYAXWAMIMINUA . :. ' . COLOMBIN This Project needs further botanical surveys during the appropriate flowering periods for all rare plants with the potential to occur in the Project area. Rare plant mitigations should be proposed where appropriate. Prior to the start of construction, rare plant and SNC survey results with maps, and mitigations as appropriate, should be submitted to CDFW for review and concurrence. O .WANA O The MND does not adequately describe potentially affected natural communities for CDFW to determine if the correct natural community alliances have been properly identified. The MND identifies 8.5 acres as "Perennial Grasslands" with “Common velvet-grass - Sweet vernal grass meadow' as the vegetative alliance. These habitat SHINO Afifa Awan California State Lands Commission May 29, 2019 Page 3 of 6 types are difficult to interpret because they combine older vegetation classification systems with the current classification in the Manual of California Vegetation (MCV) (CNPS 2019). It is important to classify vegetation using the current system MCV classification, when feasible, because the definition of whether these alliances are SNCs, which must be considered under CEQA, is based primarily on the current MCV classification. Walden 12-44 Because of the difficulty in classifying grassland natural communities with a high abundance of non-native plants, CDFW provides on-line guidance (CDFW 2019). This guidance to classifying grassland stands states "a stand is considered native if 10% or more relative cover consists of native taxa that are evenly distributed in the stand and time during the growing season" (CDFW 2019). The natural community classification should be based on both the distribution of native plants in a grassland area and their presence throughout the growing season. This approach takes careful consideration and typically multiple visits during the growing season. 1941 USISIS NEW From the information presented in the MND, CDFW cannot determine the potential presence of and impacts to SNC grassland alliances. This particularly affects decisions regarding the placement of the staging area and landing manhole/surface access vault, and any necessary mitigations. The Applicant should describe all potentially impacted SNCs by using the MCV to the maximum extent practicable and current CDFW guidance on grassland classification. Mitigations should be proposed for significant impacts to SNCs. ! WEIT/ .. . : :. .: : Of further note is the potential presence of the coastal bluff morning-glory (Calystegia purpurata ssp. saxicola), within the Project area, particularly on the Landing Parcel. Coastal bluff morning-glory has a California Natural Diversity Database State Rank of S2/S3, meaning its imperilment status in California is "imperiled" or "vulnerable." This rare plant occurs in Manchester Beach State Park and other nearby parcels with similar habitat to the Landing Parcel. It is commonly misidentified as a different subspecies, or as a "hybrid" subspecies, so careful determination of both presence and correct identification is paramount. The current plant list for this Project and MND lists Calystegia purpurata ssp. purpurata, which may be a mistake. The Applicant should confirm the identification of Calystegia purpurata ideally using a botanist familiar with these taxa. 43 : 240349 2 1: Biological Study Area Drew The MND does not specify the location of the staging area or the landing manhole/surface access vault, presumably because the siting will depend on the results of upcoming botanical surveys. It also does not specify the location of drill pits and receiving pits for the horizontal directional drilling (HDD) proposed at six watercourse crossings. These activities have a higher potential for adverse impacts (e.g., noise, vibration, dewatering, potential leaks/pollution) than the trenching along the highway corridor. Afifa Awan California State Lands Commission May 29, 2019 Page 4 of 6 In most Project locations along SR1, the BSA on each side of the highway is less than the width of the highway. This BSA is too narrow to include the potential impact area of HDD pits and drilling on adjacent habitats. The BSA at these locations should be extensive enough to account for potential direct and indirect impacts from these activities. At the Landing Parcel, the BSA boundary is the edge of the parcel. This suggests that the staging area and landing manhole will need to be sited an appropriate distance from the edge of the BSA to account for direct and indirect impacts to resources at or beyond the edge of the BSA. For instance, there is a watercourse and riparian vegetation on the south side of the Landing Parcel, but outside the boundary of the BSA. An appropriate disturbance buffer should be given to this watercourse, even though it outside of the BSA boundary. SERVINAIL-2222. SHIATS PERASMINY The Project should site the landing manhole/surface access vault and all HDD drill and receiving pits in areas with the least potential for impacts to natural resources. Prior to starting construction, the Applicant should submit to CDFW for review and concurrence a map showing Project component locations in relation to rare plant populations, SNCs, wetlands, and riparian habitat. WWW.V. N . : Assessing Impacts to Bats is proposed at six identified watercourse crossings, however the MND also presents the option of traditional trenching and securing cables to the sides of existing bridges. Bats are known to commonly use bridges as roosting and nursery sites, often in large multi-species colonies. Disturbance from bridge construction could significantly affect bat colonies, including abandonment of nursery colonies if they exist on these bridges. Twelve of California's 24 bat species are designated by CDFWas Species of Special Concern, and a number of these species may be utilizing these bridges. VITIMLIYOWANYWu .29247 If cables will be routed on bridges, then prior to starting construction, a professional biologist with experience surveying for bats on bridges should assess if bats are utilizing these bridges. The bat survey report should be submitted to CDFW for review and concurrence prior to work commencing on, or within 200 feet of the bridges. If bats are detected utilizing the bridges, CDFW should be immediately consulted to address what if any mitigation measures are needed to avoid significant impacts to roosting bat colonies. VardamoWEWELRYINYAVYWwth in V iS Recirculating the MND S As described above, the MND does not adequately assess potentially significant impacts to rare plants, SNCs, and bats. Rare plant surveys, for instance, will not be completed until after the CEQA comment period is over, thus vitiating CDFW's and the public's ability to review and comment on these survey results and impact assessments. Afifa Awan California State Lands Commission May 29, 2019 Page 5 of 6 Consequently, CDFW recommends the MND be recirculated through the State Clearing House once completed biological survey results are incorporated into the environmental document. If this is not feasible, then CDFW recommends that as a condition of approval, the Lead Agency require that all outstanding biological survey results, impact assessments, and proposed mitigations be submitted to CDFW for review and concurrence prior to the start of Project construction. Summary of Recommendations 1) The MND should be recirculated to the public once completed biological survey results are incorporated into the environmental document. 2) The Applicant should complete botanical surveys during the appropriate flowering period for all rare plants with the potential to occur in the Project area. Mitigation measures should be proposed for all rare plant populations that will be significantly impacted by the Project. Prior to starting construction, the Applicant should submit to CDFW for review and concurrence a full botanical survey report with mapped rare plant populations, if any, and proposed mitigations, as needed. 3) All potentially impacted SNCs should be identified and mapped using the MCV classification and current guidance on grassland alliance membership rules. Prior to starting construction, a completed SNC report with maps and proposed mitigations, as needed, should be submitted to CDFW for review and concurrence. 4) The identification of Calystegia purpurata should be verified by a botanist familiar with this taxon because of the high likelihood it is the rare Calystegia purpurata ssp. saxicola, 5) The landing manhole/surface access vault, and all HDD drill and receiving pits should be sited in areas with the least potential for impacts to rare plants, wetlands, watercourses, and SNCs. 6) If cables will be routed on existing bridges, then prior to construction, the bridges should be surveyed by a bat biologist with experience assessing bridge bat habitat. The bat survey report should be submitted to CDFW for review and concurrence prior to work commencing on or within 200 feet of the bridges. 7) If bats are detected utilizing the bridges, CDFW should be consulted to address what if any mitigation measures are needed to avoid significant impacts to roosting bat colonies. If you have questions regarding these comments or recommendations, please contact Environmental Scientist Daniel Harrington at (707) 456-0335 or by e-mail at daniel.harrington@wildlife.ca.gov. Afifa Awan California State Lands Commission May 29, 2019 Page 6 of 6 Ec: Afifa Awan California State Lands Commission CEQA.comments@slc.ca.gov Destiny Preston California Coastal Commission destiny.preston@coastal.ca.gov Julia Acker Mendocino County Planning and Building Services ackeri@mendocinocounty.org State Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research state.clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov Gordon Leppig, Jennifer Garrison, Daniel Harrington, Dana Mason, Arn Aarreberg California Department of Fish and Wildlife gordon.leppig@wildlife.ca.gov, jennifer.garrison@wildlife.ca.gov, daniel.harrington@wildlife.ca.gov, dana.mason@wildlife.ca.gov, arn.aarreberg@wildlife.ca.gov References California Native Plant Society. 2019. A Manual of California Vegetation, Online Edition. California Native Plant Society Press, Sacramento, CA. http://www.cnps.org/cnps/vegetation. CDFW. 2019. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, website, Natural Communities: Addressing Grasslands and Flower Fields. Sacramento, CA. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/DataNegCAMP/Natural-Communities#grasslands | survey, mapping, rare plants, sensitive natural communities, recirculation, site plan, coastal permit | N/A | N/A | N/A | https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2019049159/2 | 38.98 | -123.69 | |
| Year | Statute | Document | Stage of Process | Lead Agency Type | County | CNPS Chapter | Project Type |
Title:
Project Name:
Year:
SCH Number:
Statute:
Document:
Sub type of Document:
Stage of Process:
Lead Agency Type:
Lead Agency:
County:
CNPS Chapter:
CNPS Author of Letter:
Non-CNPS Author of Letter:
Project Type:
Project Outcome:
Full Comment Letter Text:
Issues Raised:
Link to Comment Letter:
Cases cited:
Statutes Cited:
CNPS Policy Cited:
Link to Documents:
Latitude:
Longitude: