From YourSITE.com
EIR comments by Dept of Fish & Game
By Friends of Coyote Hills
Mar 21, 2008, 15:59
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
http://www.dfg.ca.gov
South Coast Region
4949 Viewridge Avenue
San Diego, CA 92123
(858)467-4201
March 10, 2008
Joan Wolff
City of Fullerton
303 West Commonwealth Avenue
Orange. CA 92832
(714) 738-6837
Comments on the Recirculated Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for West Coyote Hills Specific Plan - Robert E. Ward Nature Preserve Project, City of Fullerton,
Orange County (BCH# 1997051056}
Dear Ms. Wolff:
The California Department of Fish and Game (Department) has reviewed the above-referenced Recirculated Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (RRDEIR), received on January 17, 2008. The Department appreciates the City of Fullerton (City) for granting an extension of the comment period for the RRDEIR until March 10, 2008.
The Department previously provided comments on the Recirculated draft EIR in our December 22, 2003 letter (enclosed) and Draft EIR on June 15, 2006 (enclosed). While the RRDEIR addresses some of our comments, the Department has identified concerns identified in our 2003 and 2006 letters not addressed in the RRDEiR regarding the potential effects on biological resources and regional conservation planning.
The Department is a Trustee Agency and a Responsible Agency pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Sections 15386 and 15381, respectively. The Department is responsible for the conservation, protection, and management of the state's biological resources, including rare, threatened, and endangered plant and animal species, pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act, and other sections of the California Fish and Game Code.
The 510-acre project is located near the western edge of the City, near the border of the cities of La Habra (to the north) and La Mirada (to the west, Los Angeles County). The site is currently being remediated from previous oil production activities. The project includes the construction of a maximum of 760 dwelling units on 179.3 acres, commercial development (5.2 acres), multi-use area (17.1 acres), roads (24.2 acres), and 282.9 acres open space and recreational amenities on the 510-acre West Coyote Hills site. The adjacent 72.3-acre Robert E. Ward Nature Preserve (Nature Preserve) would also be improved with a small parking area, restrooms and interpretive area. Project construction would be divided into three primary phases.
Vegetation communities onsite include approximately 183,1 acres of coastal sage scrub, 42.6 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub, 88.1 acres of southern cactus scrub, 16.4 acres of coyote brush scrub, 1.2 acres "disturbed coyote brush scrub", 13.7 acres of "toyon-sambucus chaparral", 14.8 acres of mulefat scrub, 4.2 acres of "disturbed" mulefat scrub, 0.8 acres of southern willow scrub, 0.7 acres of annual grassland and 108.9 acres of disturbed habitat. "Developed land" accounts for 99.9 acres of the site.
Sensitive wildlife species documented onsite include the following: as much as sixty pairs of the federally threatened California gnatcatcher (Poiioptila ca/ifornica), state and federally endangered least Bell's vireo (Vireo belli!pusillus), considered a migrant in the RRDEIR, was observed in 1998; coastal cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapitlus cousei), rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens), sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), and loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). Western spadefoot toads (Spea hammondi) were also found in oil capture basins adjacent to the property. One CNPS listed 1B plant, intermediate mariposa lily (Calochortus weedii var. intermedius) was observed on site.
The Department offers the following comments and recommendations to assist the City in avoiding or minimizing potential project impacts on biological resources.
1. The RRDEIR states a burrowing owl survey was conducted with negative results. The RRDEIR did not indicate when the survey was conducted. Based on the observation of a burrowing owl in 2002, the Department recommends additional surveys be conducted that follows the Department-approved Guidelines (April 2003, Burrowing Owl Consortium). The Guidelines require surveys be conducted in winter and spring to detect wintering and nesting birds. Additionally, the Guidelines consider a site occupied three years following observation of owls. Due to the rapid decline of burrowing owls within the region, any impacts to burrowing owl, wintering or breeding habitat would be considered significant and appropriate mitigation according to the Guidelines should be incorporated into the project description.
2. The RRDEIR states the project will avoid 66 to 77 percent of the known 20 to 61 pairs of gnatcatcher sites. However, these conclusions are made using outdated 1998 surveys and non-protocol level surveys from 2004 to analyze impacts to gnatcatcher territories. Based on Exhibit 4.12-2, it is uncertain how 66 to 77 percent of the population can be avoided. It appears the grading footprint encompasses the majority of the mapped 1998 locations and a significant percentage of the coastal sage scrub habitat Additionally, in the 10 years since the vegetation was mapped for the RRDEiR, site disturbances have ceased or been reduced drastically such that several areas that were once "disturbed" couid have since revegetated to more native-dominated vegetation types. This could potentially result in a significant change in the gnatcatcher distribution on-site.
To accurately reflect the current composition of native vegetation on site, the status of the gnatcatcher population, and to accurately identify the percentage of the population impacted by the project, new protocol level surveys should be conducted. The Department requests that a map is included in the FEIR which depicts updated gnatcatcher territories and the development footprint.
3. The Department disagrees with the findings of the RRDEiR (page 4.12-43) that states impacts to 36.1 acres (36 percent) of the cactus wren habitat would not significantly impact the regional population of cactus wren. The regional cactus wren population is in severe decline. The loss of 36.1 acres of occupied habitat is significant when considering the increased threat of development to the remaining cactus wren habitat in Los Angeles County (Montebello Hills), and the loss of an estimated 65 to 75 percent of the Orange County populations due to wildfires fires (Santiago 2007 and Laguna Fire 1993) and development. The Department requests a map of the current cactus wren territories be included in the FEIR, and include mitigation measures to avoid or mitigate for impacts to the species. Mitigation for cactus scrub should not be included in fuel modification zones, as these areas do not typically support all cactus scrub requirements necessary to support cactus wren.
The RRDEiR uses Brarnlett and Grey as a classification system for vegetation communities and, as such, classified 13.8 acres as "Toyon-Sambucus chaparral", 17.6 acres as "coyote brush scrub," and 1.2 acres as "disturbed coyote brush scrub", The Department previously recommended and used the Holland habitat classification system (Holland 1986) in identifying rare and sensitive habitat types. The Department currently recommends the use of the John Sawyer and Todd Keeler-Wolf habitat classification system (Sawyer-Wolf, 1995). If the applicant had used Holland or Sawyer-Wolf methods, Toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), Sambucus (Mexican elderberry). and coyote brush scrub would be included in the sage scrub series. Therefore, the vegetation analysis should have incorporated all of the "Toyon-Sambucus chaparral", the "coyote brush scrub," and the "disturbed coyote brush scrub" within the sage scrub vegetation communities. The FEIR should conclude that impacts to 13.8 acres of "Toyon-Sambucus chaparral", 17.6 acres "coyote brush scrub", and 1.2 acres "disturbed coyote brush scrub" would be significant and impacts should be mitigated to the same standard as all other sage scrub on-site.
Additionally, Sambucus and to a lesser extent toyon, is an essential component for cactus scrub when considering occupation by cactus wren (Mitrovitch 2006). Therefore, if the "Toyon-Sambucus chaparral" is located in close proximity to cactus wren-occupied cactus scrub, it further validates the significance of the loss of the habitat. This is unknown because the location of "Toyon-Sambucus chaparral" is not depicted on a map in the RRDEIR.
4. The RRDEiR identifies dirt roads and existing oil we!! pads within the habitat classification of "Developed Areas" throughout 99 acres of the project site. Trails and small single track dirt roads through native habitat provide necessary foraging habitat for all species including sensitive species and should not be discounted as developed. Additionally, some existing well sites no longer in operation could have revegetated with natives. The vegetation map used in the RRDEIR should be updated to include minor dirt roads as the habitat they bisect, and reflect changes in vegetative cover of abandoned oil well pads that now support native habitats.
5. The RRDEIR does not identify the location of the mulefat scrub within the project area. Mulefat scrub in association with coastal sage scrub is commonly used by gnatcatchers for foraging and dispersing habitat and can be associated with Department-jurisdictional streams. Because the RRDEIR does not map the location of this habitat, the Department is unable to determine the significance of impact to the habitat. Therefore, impacts to mulefat scrub vegetation should be identified in the FEiR. If mulefat occurs in association with coastal sage scrub or drainages, the habitat should be considered significant, and appropriate mitigation should be included.
6. The Department again requests clarification as to whether previous mitigation areas are proposed to be impacted by the project. Page 4.12-1 of the RDEIR indicated that coastal sage scrub mitigation areas required under previous take authorizations (i.e., Section 7 or Habitat Loss Permit under Section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act) are present onsite. Also, the RDEIR did not indicate if the project is consistent with previously-permitted soil remediation activities on Drainage 2. The RRDEIR did not include these previously requested clarifications. If mitigation areas are to be impacted, mitigation ratios should be higher to address the temporal loss of habitat. A figure showing existing and proposed mitigation sites in relation to project impacts should be included in the Final Environmental impact Report (FEIR).
7. The RRDEIR (page 4.12-23) states the project site does not provide significant regional wildlife corridors forgnatcatchers due to the sites distance from other undeveloped sites. The Department disagrees with this statement. The Puente Hills are within iine-of-site from the Development and East Coyote Hills is within three miles of the site, it is widely supported within the environmental community and the Department, that the West Coyote Hills site is an essential part of the remaining coastal sage scrub habitat connection from the Montebello Hills population to the Puente Hills population, which further connects to the Tonner Canyon area, south to Orange County. The loss of this habitat connectivity due to the development of this project is considered highly significant and further mitigation measures should be proposed.
8. The Department is concerned about impacts to gnatcatchers within the mitigation sites due to an increased number of domestic cats. The RRDEIR provides for fencing and "other suitable barriers" to preclude domestic animals from the Preserve. As fences do not keep cats out, the homeowners association should require cats be kept indoors to minimize the impacts to sensitive species. The management company of the Preserve should provide funding for adequate enforcement of this requirement.
9. Due to the sensitivity of the habitat, planting of exotic and landscape plant species should be avoided in proximity to native habitat.
Fuel Modification Zones:
1. It is not clear from Mitigation Measure 4.12-1 a if the fuel modification zones were included in the project-related impact calculations. As stated in the Department's July 2006 comment letter, the Department considers fuel modification a permanent impact, and thus should be calculated in the impact assessment and not counted as mitigation credits for the project. Additionally, the Department requested a figure in the FEIR that estimates the location of the fuel modification zones. However, Exhibit 4.12-6 provided in the RRDEiR does not provide a reference of scale for the fuel modification and therefore cannot be used by the Department to accurately determine impacts from fuel modification.
2. The RRDEIR identifies that the fuel modification zones wiil be planted with "non-flammable coastal sage scrub and cactus scrub species". The Department requests clarification as to what species would be considered non-flammable as fire is a natural component of coastal sage scrub. The Department requests a list of suitable "non-fiammable species" be included in the FEIR.
3. A lone male vireo was observed in 1998 within the project boundary. The RRDEIR states the occurrence of this male was likely migratory and would not require Section 7 consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sea'ice pursuant to Endangered Species Act. However, this species is aiso listed by the state as endangered and potential impacts to the species would require consultation with the Department under the California Endangered Species Act. No consultation has occurred with the Department to date, and the survey data is too old for the Department to accurately determine if the potential for vireo exists. The Department recommends the site be re-surveyed for the presence of the species, and a copy of the survey results be submitted to the Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the FEIR.
Department Jurisdictional Streambed impacts
The Department requested additional information regarding streambed mitigation in the 2003 and 2006 comment letters. These comments were not addressed in the RRDEIR.
1. The project CEQA document must propose feasible mitigation measures that are capable of being implemented, and these should be formulated in the document, not deferred to a later time (CEQA Guidelines, section 15126.4). The Department concurs that the applicant must notify the Department, pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code, for a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) to facilitate consultation with the Department regarding impacts to any Department jurisdictional drainages which may be located on the project site; the Department will determine if a SAA is required. Also the project document should propose mitigation for unavoidable impacts to Department jurisdictional streams and associated riparian/wetland habitat. Per CEQA Section 15370, the term mitigation is to include: 1) avoiding the impact altogether; 2) minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude; 3) rectifying the impact through repair, rehabilitation or restoration; 4) reducing or eliminating the impact over time; and 5) compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources. Presently, the mitigation measures identified in the RRDEIR for impacts to wetlands/riparian areas consist of contacting the ACOE/Department prior to disturbance and development of an enhancement/replacement plan for approval prior to issuance of a grading plan. Although the final resource agency requirements will be determined through subsequent permitting processes, this project must propose suitable, specific mitigation measures for the creation, restoration and/or enhancement of wetland habitat with provisions to maintain and manage these areas to ensure that resource values are not reduced over time.
2. The RRDEiR proposes mitigation for wetland impacts at a 1:1 ratio. Because the RRDEIR does not identify the location and composition of the proposed mitigation, the Department cannot concur that the mitigation proposed is adequate to compensate for the wetland impacts. The RRDEIR should identify the location of the mitigation and describe the mitigation sites. Additionally, the Department understands detention basins will be installed throughout the sites. The creation of these detention basins may not satisfy the Department's mitigation requirements for on-site wetlands impacts if they are maintained regularly, or are of a different habitat type then that of the impacted habitat.
Migratory Birds and Raptor Impacts •
1. Nest surveys should be performed a maximum of three days before construction to ensure that results of these surveys are indicative of the status of nests at the time of construction. Some of the raptors with the potential to nest on site are known to first lay eggs in January (e.g., in southern California, great horned owls and red-tailed hawks are known to lay their first egg in early January), and therefore build their nests sooner than that. Pursuant to Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code (Code), it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by the code or any regulation adopted pursuant to it. In addition, the biology report indicates that white-tailed kite was observed on-site. Pursuant to Section 3511 of the Code, the white-tailed kite is a State Fully Protected species. This designation prohibits take or possession of this species at any time (i.e., no take authorizations from the State are available). This also applies to any parts of the animal (e.g., in the case of birds, their eggs). The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (50 C.F.R. Section 10.13) also prohibits the take of active migratory birds' nests. Therefore, we recommend that the bird breeding season be expanded to include all of January if any of the trees on site are proposed for removal,
2. Mitigation Measure 4.12-4a states raptor surveys will be conducted and an appropriate number of "poles" used by raptors will be evaluated. It is not clear how this will minimize and mitigate for impacts to raptor habitat. Raptors, including white-tailed kite, kestrel (Falco tinnunculus), red-tailed hawk (Buteojamaicensis), great-horned owl(Bubo virginianus) , Cooper's hawk (Accipitercooperii), sharp shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), and northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), all known to occur on site, utilize open habitats like grasslands for foraging while they use the poles for perching. The proposed project will impact open space and grasslands on site, as well as convert the existing grasslands and open space to coastal sage scrub as mitigation for gnatcatchers. Once complete, the habitat will no longer be suitable for most raptor species, therefore resulting in a significant impact to raptors regardless of the number of poles left on-site.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the RRDE1R. Questions regarding this letter and further coordination on these issues should be directed to Erinn Wilson at (714) 596-0953.
Sincerely,
Edmund J. Pert
Regional Manager, South Coast Region
Enclosure
Attachment 1 - December 22, 2003 - Department Comments on the Draft EIR
Attachment 2 - June 15, 2006 - Department Comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR.
cc: State Clearinghouse
Naeem Siddiqui, Department of Fish and Game
Christine Medak, USFWS
Helen Birss, Department of Fish and Game
HabCon-Chron
EP:ew
References:
Mitrovitch, Milan, Nature Reserve of Orange County, Status of Cactus Wren within Coastal Reserve, 2006.
Holland 1986, http://map.sdsu.edu/arc/metadata/gis_data/veg95.htm
Sawyer J. and K.Wolf,
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/giogeodata/vegcamp/veg_publications_protocols.asp
© Copyright 2004 by YourSITE.com