HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-03-23 - Supplemental Beecazel COPY
State of California - Natural Resources Agency EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr., Governor
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director 46
Inland Deserts Region
3602 Inland Empire Blvd., Suite C-220
Ontario, CA 91764
(909)484-0459
www.wildlife.ca.gov
March 22, 2016
Mr. Dominick Perez
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Department
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Subject: Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Tentative Tract No. 18908 Project
SCH No. 2016021078
Dear Mr. Perez:
The Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) appreciates the opportunity to
comment on the Initial Study (IS) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the
Tentative Tract No. 18908 Project (project) [SCH No. 2016021078]. The Department is
responding to the IS and MND as a Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources
(California Fish and Game Code Sections 711.7 and 1802, and the California
Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] Guidelines Section 15386), and as a Responsible
Agency regarding any discretionary actions (CEQA Guidelines Section 15381), such as
the issuance of a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (California Fish and Game
Code Sections 1600 et seq.) and/or a California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
Permit for Incidental Take of Endangered, Threatened, and/or Candidate species
(California Fish and Game Code Sections 2080 and 2080.1).
Proiect Description
The approximately 10.6-acre project site is located north of the Wilson Avenue,
approximately 2,000 feet east of the terminus of Etiwanda Avenue, and generally south
of Golden Prairie Drive; within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San
Bernardino, State of California; Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 1087-081-25. The
proposed project includes a subdivision of the site into thirty (10) single-family
residential lots for the future construction of 30 single-family homes.
Conserving California's WifdCfe Since 1870
,"Yen, b
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Tentative Tract No. 18908 Project
SCH No. 2016021078
Page 2 of 9
Comments and Recommendations
Following review of the IS and MND, the Department has serious concerns related to
the project's potential to impact sensitive species and natural communities, the
adequacy and specificity of the proposed mitigation measures, and the analysis of the
project's cumulative contribution to impacts to biological resources within the region of
the Etiwanda alluvial fan. In the Department's opinion as a Trustee Agency for the
State of California's fish and wildlife resources, the IS/MND understates the
significance of the project's environmental impacts and fails to mitigate the impacts to a
level that is less than significant.
The Department offers the comments and recommendations presented below to assist
the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City; the CEQA lead agency) in adequately identifying
and mitigating the project's significant, or potentially significant, impacts on biological
resources, and recommends that the City revise and recirculate the CEQA document
to address the Department's concerns. Because the project has the potential to
contribute substantially to cumulatively significant adverse impacts, the Department
recommends preparing an Environmental Impact Report [CEQA Guidelines section
15063(b)].
San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and Coastal California Gnatcatcher
The IS/MND identified two Federally Endangered species with the potential to occur
on -site, San Bernardino kangaroo rat and coastal California gnatcatcher. Although
focused surveys for both species failed to find any individuals on the project site in
2014, the time lag between the survey dates and the likely start of construction is long
enough to allow the potential for one or both species to naturally disperse on to the
project site from surrounding habitat. Focused surveys for animal species are generally
considered to be valid for a period of one year, and while recent surveys have not
observed individuals on or adjacent to the proposed project site, the Department is
aware that at least one San Bernardino kangaroo rat was identified less than two miles
from the project site, in the San Sevaine spreading grounds, in 2010. In addition, the
effects of the previous four years of severe drought conditions may have affected the
likelihood of identifying one or either species on -site. Therefore, it is likely that the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) will require updated focused surveys
to be conducted prior to starting construction.
Los Angeles Pocket Mouse
Mitigation Measure 4 proposes to prevent significant project impacts to Los Angeles
pocket mouse (LAPM; Perognathus longimembris brevinasus), a California Species of
Special Concern (SSC), by trapping and relocating individual LAMP prior to the
issuance of a grading permit. The Department does not concur that this measure is
sufficient to prevent significant project impacts to the species. The Department
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Tentative Tract No. 18908 Project
SCH No. 2016021078
Page 3 of 9
generally does not support the use of translocation or transplantation as the primary
mitigation strategy for unavoidable impacts to plant or animal species, and we have
found that permanent preservation and management of occupied habitat is often a
more effective long-term strategy for conserving sensitive plants, animals, and habitats.
The regional population of LAPM is primarily threatened by habitat loss and
fragmentation (S. Montgomery 1998). Relocating LAPM would not address the
project's contribution to loss of LAPM habitat, and may actually cause harm to an
existing LAPM population by introducing competition, parasites, and/or disease from
the relocated individuals.
The Department recommends that the City mitigate project impacts to LAPM by
identifying and preserving habitat that (a) is either already occupied by a viable
population of LAPM or connected/adjacent to occupied habitat and accessible to the
adjacent population, and (b) would not otherwise be preserved. This may contain or
overlap with the white sage scrub habitat preservation area required by Mitigation
Measure 2.
San Dieao Pocket Mouse
The focused trapping survey for San Bernardino kangaroo rat trapped several
individual San Diego pocket mice (Chaetodipus fallax). Two subspecies of C. fallax are
designated SSC: northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (C. fallax fallax) and pallid
San Diego pocket mouse (C. fallax palfidus). Based on the location and habitat present
in the project area, the Department considers it likely that the C. fallax individuals
trapped belong to the subspecies C. fallax fallax. Please clarify whether the individuals
were identified to the subspecies level, and if so, what subspecies they were found to
belong to. If they were not identified to the subspecies level, the Department
recommends assuming that northwestern San Diego pocket mouse is present on -site,
and mitigating for project impacts to the subspecies in the same way as described for
LAPM above.
Listed and Sensitive Plant Species
The Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) identifies several special -status plant
species with potential to occur on -site, including Nevin's barberry (Berberis nevinii),
slender mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis), Parry's spinef lower
(Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi), slender -horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras),
mesa horkelia (Horkelia cuneata subsp. puberula), Robbin's nemacladus (Nemacladus
secundifforus robbinsii), Brand's star phacelia (Phacefia stellaris), White rabbit -tobacco
(Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum), and chaparral ragwort (Senecio aphanactis).
Mitigation Measure 3 proposes to reduce the potential for project impacts to these
species by requiring focused plant surveys to be conducted over the project site, and
by developing mitigation plans for all sensitive plant species discovered. However,
without a) knowing which, if any, species are present on -site, b) knowing the population
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Tentative Tract No. 18908 Project
SCH No. 2016021078
Page 4 of 9
sizes of any sensitive plant species present on -site, and c) seeing a detailed
description of the mitigation plan(s), the Department cannot provide meaningful
comment on whether implementation of the plan(s) will be adequate to mitigate the
project's impacts to sensitive plant species. The IS/MND does not include survey
results or specific mitigation measures, instead deferring the analysis and mitigation
measure formulation to some unspecified time after circulation of the document.
While it is not always possible to devise a complete, specific, and fully detailed
mitigation plan while the project is still in the early planning stages, it is not appropriate
to adopt an MND unless the lead agency is reasonably certain that the proposed
project will have no significant effects. Such certainty is not possible if the analysis of
the baseline conditions of the site (including the species present) and formulation of
specific mitigation measures is deferred until after the adoption of the MND.
Furthermore, the lack of public review of the mitigation plan deprives the public of the
opportunity to comment on the mitigation plan's adequacy, feasibility, and
enforceability. "[I]t is improper to defer the formulation of mitigation measures until after
project approval; instead, the determination of whether a project will have significant
environmental impacts, and the formulation of measures to mitigate those impacts,
must occur before the project is approved" (California Native Plant Society v. City of
Rancho Cordova (2009)172 Cal.App.4th 603, 621 [91 Cal. Rptr. 3d 571] (CNPS),
citing Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296 [248 Cal. Rptr.
352] (Sundstrom) and Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.AppAth 1359 [43 Cal.
Rptr. 2d 170] (Gentry).)
The Department recommends that the revised and recirculated CEQA document
include: a) the results of recent focused botanical surveys, including a list of any
sensitive and special -status plant species found on -site or adjacent to the site and a
complete inventory of plant species observed; b) a thorough and detailed analysis of
the project's impacts to sensitive and special -status plant species, including, if
applicable, potential indirect impacts to off -site populations; and c) a detailed, specific,
and enforceable mitigation plan to address the project's reasonably foreseeable direct,
indirect, and cumulative impacts to sensitive and special -status plant species.
Please also note that the recent drought may have affected the assemblage of plant
species visibly present on the site. Due to the ongoing drought, some sensitive plant
species potentially present on the site fail to bloom during the usual blooming period, or
at all during a given year. Other species may be present in the seedbank or in bulb
form. Annual and short-lived perennial plant species and plants with persistent long-
lived seed banks may not germinate every year. In addition, the phenological
development of some plants may be altered because of the drought. Because of these
conditions, the failure to locate a plant during the floristic surveys of one field season
may not constitute sufficient evidence that the plant is absent from the surveyed
location. The Department recommends that the potential changes in the visible plant
species assemblage be discussed in detail in the forthcoming revised and recirculated
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Tentative Tract No. 18908 Project
SCH No. 2016021078
Page 5 of 9
CEQA document, and that the document contain the results of focused plant surveys
from as many seasons as is necessary to form a complete inventory of on -site plant
species. If there is potential for a plant species to be present but not visible or
identifiable on -site or within the vicinity of the site, the species should be assumed to
be present until it can be demonstrated to be absent.
Nesting Birds and Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Please note that it is the project proponent's responsibility to comply with all applicable
laws related to nesting birds and birds of prey. Migratory non -game native bird species
are protected by international treaty under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(META) of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.). In addition, sections 3503,
3503.5, and 3513 of the Fish and Game Code (FGC) also afford protective measures
as follows: Section 3503 states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly
destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by FGC or any
regulation made pursuant thereto; Section 3503.5 states that is it unlawful to take,
possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds -of -
prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as
otherwise provided by FGC or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto; and Section
3513 states that it is unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as
designated in the MBTA or any part of such migratory nongame bird except as
provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under
provisions of the MBTA.
Mitigation Measure 7 requires a breeding bird survey to be conducted ten days prior to
ground -clearing activities. The Department recommends revising Mitigation Measure 7
to require the surveys to be conducted no more than three (3) days prior to vegetation
clearing or ground disturbance activities, as instances of nesting could be missed if
surveys are conducted sooner.
Habitat Conservation
Mitigation Measure 2 requires purchase and conservation of 9.13 acres of white sage
scrub habitat to compensate for the removal of the same amount and type of habitat.
The Department appreciates the City's consideration of this sensitive and declining
habitat type. However, the Department does not concur that a the proposed mitigation,
as it is described in the IS/MND, is sufficient to reduce the project's impacts to a level
that is less than significant, because it would result in an overall net loss of 9.13 acres
of white sage scrub without providing any compensatory gain in habitat function. Even
In cases where habitat is created (e.g., installing a white sage scrub plant community in
an area that had once supported it, but has since been cleared of vegetation or
converted into a non-native plant community), the practice of installing the same
acreage of habitat as was removed often falls short of the goal of replacing the
functions and values lost, due to (a) the time lag between the time of impact and the
new habitat reaching full functionality; and (b) uncertainty of success in creating fully
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Tentative Tract No. 18908 Project
SCH No. 2016021078
Page 6 of 9
functional habitat (Bendor 2008). To address these issues, we recommend that
mitigation for habitat loss incorporate some level of enhancement, restoration,
rehabilitation, and/or creation within the mitigation area, and that the size of the
mitigation area be increased to account for the net loss in acreage, the time lag, and
the uncertainty of success.
Mitigation Measure 2 does not contain sufficient detail regarding the location and status
of the habitat to be preserved. A simple requirement that the applicant preserve 9.13
acres of white sage scrub habitat does not guarantee that the habitat selected for
preservation will be functional, accessible to wildlife, or close enough to the project site
to be useful as mitigation. The requirement, as it is currently written, could potentially
be fulfilled by preserving multiple small fragments of low-quality/disturbed white sage
scrub habitat that are surrounded by development and inaccessible to the wildlife
species that are likely to be impacted by the loss of habitat associated with the
project's construction.
In order to facilitate the Department's ability to review the mitigation proposal, provide
meaningful comments, and determine whether the proposed mitigation would
sufficiently reduce the impacts to a level that is less than significant, we recommend
that the revised and recirculated CEQA document include: (a) the specific area to be
conserved, enhanced, restored, and/or rehabilitated; (b) a summary of the proposed
mitigation site's needs (e.g., invasive vegetation removal, installation of native plant
materials, removal of rubbish and debris, etc.); and (c) the plan to meet those needs,
including a rough timeline of restoration/enhancement activities, a plant palette,
success standards, irrigation plans, and contingency measures should the mitigation
site(s) fail to meet the success standards.
Lake and Streambed Alteration Program
For any activity that will divert or obstruct the natural flow, or change the bed, channel,
or bank (which may include associated riparian resources) of a river, lake, or stream or
use material from a streambed or lakebed, the project applicant (or "entity') must
provide written notification to the Department pursuant to Section 1602 of the FGC.
Based on this notification and other information, the Department then determines
whether a Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Agreement is required. The
Department's issuance of an LSA Agreement is a "project" subject to CEQA (see Pub.
Resources Code 21065). To facilitate issuance of an LSA Agreement, if necessary,
the environmental document should fully identify the potential impacts to the lake,
stream or riparian resources and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, and
monitoring and reporting commitments. Early consultation with the Department is
recommended, since modification of the proposed project may be required to avoid or
reduce impacts to fish and wildlife resources. To obtain a Lake or Streambed
Alteration notification package, please go to
http://www.dfq,ca.gov/habcon/l 600/forms.html.
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Tentative Tract No. 18908 Project
SCH No. 2016021078
Page 7 of 9
The following information will be required for the processing of a Notification of Lake or
Streambed Alteration and the Department recommends incorporating this information
into the revised and recirculated CEQA document to avoid subsequent documentation
and project delays. Please note that failure to include this analysis in the project's
environmental document could preclude the Department from relying on the Lead
Agency's analysis to issue a LSA Agreement without the Department first conducting its
own, separate Lead Agency subsequent or supplemental analysis for the project:
1) Delineation of lakes, streams, and associated habitat that will be
temporarily and/or permanently impacted by the proposed project (include
an estimate of impact to each habitat type);
2) Discussion of avoidance and minimization measures to reduce project
Impacts; and,
3) Discussion of potential mitigation measures required to reduce the project
Impacts to a level of insignificance. Please refer to section 15370 of the
CEQA Guidelines for the definition of mitigation.
Jurisdictional Delineation: Page 40 of the Jurisdictional Delineation (JD) prepared for the
project states that the Department defines a "stream" as "a body of water that flows at
least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports
fish or other aquatic life". This appears to refer to California Code of Regulations (CCR),
Title 14, Section 1.72, which was adopted by the Fish and Game Commission
(Commission) in relation to a specific sport fish issue that was before the Commission at
its December 5, 1986 meeting. Please note that this definition is not the definition of a
stream used by the Department, and has no application to the Department's Lake and
Streambed Alteration Program or Section 1600 et seq. of the California FGC. Rather,
FGC Section 1600 et seq. applies to activities causing substantial alteration to any river,
stream, or lake, including episodic and ephemeral streams, desert washes, and
watercourses with subsurface flow. It may also apply to work undertaken within the flood
plain of a body of water.
Following review of the JD, the site photographs included with the JD, and aerial
photography of the project site, the Department believes that the JD underrepresents the
streambed resources present on the site. Specifically, the Department has identified
what appears to be three additional stream features, one to the west of and connecting
to the stream identified as "Drainage A" (shown in Photograph 9), and two to the east of
"Drainage X. The feature shown in Photograph 9 is described as a "non -jurisdictional
blowout channel". Please clarify how this channel was determined to be "non -
jurisdictional The Department recommends that the revised and recirculated CEQA
document include a thorough and detailed updated JD that depicts all streambed
resources on the site, and a description of the other features on -site that demonstrates
that they are not streambed habitat.
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Tentative Tract No. 18908 Project
SCH No. 2016021078
Page 8 of 9
Mitigation for Impacts to Streambed: Mitigation Measure 9 requires the applicant to
consult with the Department and obtain, if necessary, a Streambed Alteration
Agreement, as well as any other appropriate permits from other regulatory agencies.
The permits would, presumably, contain mitigation measures to offset the impacts to
the streambed resources on -site. However, deferring the formulation of mitigation
measures to future regulatory actions is, as explained above, inappropriate when
preparing an MND. Due to workload and staffing constraints, the volume of Lake and
Streambed Alteration Notifications we receive, and the timelines associated with the
permitting process, we are not able to prepare an Agreement for every project for
which we receive a Notification. Consequently, projects may be authorized
automatically despite including little or no mitigation. In order to ensure that the City
can be reasonably certain that the mitigation measures will be sufficient to reduce the
severity of the impacts to a level that is less than significant, the Department
recommends including a mitigation measure requiring the applicant to meet a specific
minimum standard of mitigation for impacts to streambed resources with the revised
and recirculated CEQA document.
Cumulative Impacts to the Etiwanda Alluvial Fan
The proposed site is located on an undeveloped portion of the Etiwanda Alluvial Fan, a
feature of high ecological significance to the region which has been severely impacted
by development. Due to the importance of the Alluvial Fan and the extent to which is
has already been developed, the Department has concerns about the project's
contributions to the cumulative loss of Alluvial Fan habitat.
Page 18 of the BRA characterizes the proposed project as an "infill development', with
urban development on three sides of the project site, because nearby properties are
already zoned for development. The Department does not concur with this
characterization. Whether or not the surrounding properties are zoned for
development, their current condition is undeveloped, and the analysis of the project's
Impacts should represent this fact. However, it is appropriate to consider both past,
present, and foreseeable future projects in a cumulative impacts analysis. The
Department requests that the revised and recirculated CEQA document contain a
thorough and detailed analysis of the cumulative impacts to the quantity, quality, and
continuity of alluvial fan habitat; the species that depend on the alluvial fan habitat; and
the continued viability of local populations of sensitive and special -status species within
the region. The analysis should consider the impacts as a whole from this project in
conjunction with other, similar projects, as well as this project's individual contribution
to the cumulative effects.
Further Coordination
The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on the IS and MND for the
Tentative Tract No. 18908 Project (SCH No. 2016021078), and requests that the
City address the Department's comments and concerns prior to adopting a final
CEQA document. If you should have any questions pertaining to these comments,
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Tentative Tract No. 18908 Project
SCH No. 2016021078
Page 9 of 9
please contact Gabriele Quillman at (909) 980-3818 or
gabriele.quiliman@wildlife.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
Manager
cc: Stag Clearinghouse, Sacramento
Karin Cleary -Rose, USFWS
Literature Cited
Bendor, Todd. 2008. A dynamic analysis of the wetland mitigation process and its
effects on no net loss policy. Landscape and Urban Planning 89 (2009) pp. 17-
27
Montgomery, Steve. 31 Aug. 1998128 Sept. 1998, Personal Communication to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. Referenced in the Western Riverside County Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan Volume II, Section 2, "Mammals", page M-
100. http://wrc-rca.org/Permit_Docs/MSHCP_Docs/volume2/vol2-
secb_Mammals.pdf
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). August 14, 2009. 5-Year Review for
San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus).
Accessed February 26, 2016.