letter 14 14-1 - placer county, california/media/cdr/ecs/eir/regionaluniversity/feir... ·...

LETTER 14

ccase

Text Box

14-1

21456

Line

4. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

Regional University Specific Plan 4-45 Final Environmental Impact Report September 2008 P:\Projects - WP Only\50840.02 Regional University Environmental\FEIR\4.0 Responses to Comments.DOC

LETTER 14: GAYLE GARBOLINO MOJICA (oral comments received in response to the hearing on the Draft EIR)

Response to Comment 14-1

The support for the project expressed in the comment is noted.

LETTER 15

21456

Line

ccase

Text Box

15-1



LETTER 15: FATHER PAUL HANCOCK (oral comments received in response to the hearing on the Draft EIR)


The support for the project expressed in the comment is noted.

LETTER 16

ccase

Text Box

16-1

21456

Line

21456

Line

21456

Line

ccase

Text Box

16-2

ccase

Text Box

16-3

21456

Line

21456

Line

21456

Line

ccase

Text Box

16-4

ccase

Text Box

16-5

ccase

Text Box

16-6

21456

Line

ccase

Text Box

16-7



LETTER 16: SIERRA CLUB, MOTHER LODE CHAPTER


Comment noted. Please also see responses to letter 19 (William Kopper).


The Placer County Conservation Plan (PCCP) is still a draft document and at this time Placer County has not adopted the PCCP for effects on vernal pool habitats.

Page 6.4-3 of the DEIR defines vernal pools observed in the proposed project site. This definition, which is taken from Holland and Keil’s California Vegetation,10 adequately describes vernal pools, and specifically identifies the abiotic and biotic features that differentiate them from other types of wetlands. Impacts to vernal pools were assessed using this definition, and are adequately addressed within Impact 6.4-1 and 6.4-2 of the Draft EIR using mitigation ratios that meet the County’s standards, as well as the State and Federal no-net loss requirements.


The total anticipated impact for onsite wetlands is approximately 18 acres, including approximately 6 acres of vernal pools. The total anticipated impact for offsite wetlands is approximately 3.5 acres, including approximately 1 acre of vernal pools. Areas that have been avoided were not specifically identified within the Draft EIR as the purpose of the document is to identify onsite resources and potential impacts of a proposed project. Please refer to section 6.4 for a discussion of these resources.


This comment states that scientific literature does not support off-site mitigation for vernal pool resources, but specific scientific literature is not referenced. However, there is literature that indicates that vernal pool creation is successful, and thus a valid mitigation strategy.11 Properly executed creation and/or restoration of vernal pools have been demonstrated to be biologically effective. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has required, and continues to require, construction of compensatory vernal pool habitat as a condition of Clean Water Act Permits to achieve the national goal of no-net loss of wetland functions and values. There are numerous examples of successful vernal pool construction in Placer County, and there is an existing vernal pool construction/restoration project that met its performance objectives in the southwestern portion of the University project site. The mitigation proposed in the Draft EIR is consistent with Corps standard practice for wetland mitigation, which could include restoration, creation, or preservation, as suggested by the comment. No additional analysis or mitigation is required.

10 Holland, V.L., and Keil, D.J. 1995. California Vegetation. Pages 450-452. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

Dubuque, Iowa. 11 Sutter, Greg, and Robert Francisco. 1998. Vernal Pool Creation in the Sacramento Valley: A Review of the

Issues Surrounding Its Role as a Conservation Tool. Pages 190-194 in: C.W. Witham, E.T. Bauder, D. Belk, W.R. Ferren Jr., and R. Ornduff (Editors). Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Vernal Pool Ecosystems – Proceedings from a 1996 Conference. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. 1998.




Vernal pool construction and restoration projects over the last 15 years have provided much useful data about how to overcome the specific challenges cited by the commenter. This knowledge is now incorporated into the design and execution of creation and restoration projects to support the successful establishment of habitat. Mitigation performance criteria will be established as part of the permitting process to ensure that biological viability of created and restored vernal pools will be established before the mitigation obligations are satisfied. Please also refer to Response to Comment 16-4.


The comment states that the Draft EIR mitigation is inadequate due to it being “vague, undefined or defers mitigation to a future Mitigation Management Plan, or “because the particulars are deferred to some future process or permit.” This is not the case, as the mitigation in the Draft EIR contains specific standards that must be achieved, irrespective of future permitting processes. If, however, these standards can be met through the state and/or federal permits processes, the project will be in compliance with the mitigation measures. As a result, the mitigation within the Draft EIR is adequate as it meets the requirement that an EIR must propose and describe mitigation measures to minimize the significant environmental effects of the project identified in the EIR. (PRC Sections 21002.1(a), 21100(b)(3); CCR Section 15126.4). Additionally, a requirement that the project comply with applicable environmental laws or regulations may serve as adequate mitigation of environmental impacts. (Leonoff, supra, 222 Cal.App.3d at 1355; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 308, 248 Cal. Rptr. 352; Perley, supra.). Further, an EIR may list a range of possible mitigation measures for an identified impact, giving the agency a choice of which ones to implement. In choosing which measures to implement, the agency may adopt a mitigation program that entails selecting the measures to be implemented after completion of further studies and evaluation of the measures. (Sacramento Old City Assn v. City Council (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1021, 280 Cal. Rptr. 478.).

Lastly, in reference to the applicability of a Mitigation Plan, the Draft EIR includes a range of mitigation measures where warranted to protect sensitive species and preserve sensitive habitats. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program included in the Draft EIR identifies specific mitigation monitoring requirements, including implementation documentation, monitoring activity, timing, and responsible monitoring party. Verification of compliance with each measure is required, thus ensuring implementation of the mitigation measures designed to protect biological resources. This plan will be approved as part of the proposed project, and will be overseen and enforced by the County and, as appropriate, State and/or federal resources agencies. Thus, the proposed mitigation is consistent with current CEQA interpretation as well as Sections 15126.4(a)(1)(A), 15126.4(a)(1)(B), 15126.4(a)(2), and 15126.4(a)(4)(B) of CEQA. The Draft EIR is adequate.


Please refer to Response to Comment 16-5 and 16-6 for a discussion of the adequacy of the proposed project’s mitigation. Regarding out-of-kind or out-of County mitigation, the decision of whether out-of-kind or out-of County lands will adequately serve as sufficient mitigation areas will be determined by the state and federal agencies responsible for conserving, protecting, and managing the natural environment. The County must independently determine whether such mitigation lands are appropriate for mitigation of project impacts and whether in-kind or in-County mitigation land would be required.

_______________________________________________________________________________________ January 24, 2008 Attn: Mr. Paul Thompson Environmental Coordination Services Placer Co. Comm. Dev. Resource Agency 3091 County Center Dr., Ste 190 Auburn, CA 95603 SUBJ: Regional University Specific Plan (RU) Draft EIR Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. Loss of Agricultural (Ag) Lands. The RU project promises the carrot without enforceable guarantees. Once the glitter of the proposal wears off (as it has already with one University backing out), it may be just a matter of time before the second, or third university backs out as well. Have levels of “respectable” academia standards been determined? Is an unaccredited university or “school” adequate if no accredited university materializes? What will be the environmental impacts should a vocational school (truck driving, card dealing, etc.) occupy the school site instead of an accredited four-year university?

Meanwhile, if the non university portion of the project is allowed to proceed first, the bulldozing will destroy land that is zoned, utilized, and always planned for Agriculture. Without the University carrot, would this project be approved? If not, then please require that the University be built FIRST. Since a university is the driving component of this project, what are the impacts in terms of alternative land use should a university not materialize? Please determine the environmental impacts should the university part of the “deal” not materialize.

No one objects to the establishment of a respected four-year university; however, to place it in a land area that is zoned for Ag, with climate change scenarios giving us fair warning of potential disaster, is unacceptable. This, added to the fact that we do have other colleges in the immediate area, would indicate that the RU is unnecessary and unacceptable for the proposed location. To require as many amendments to the General Plan as the RU does is reason enough to not allow the project to proceed. The votes of five Supervisors may well determine whether people go hungry only decades from now. How can this project’s approvals (with result of loss of food and/or bio-fuel producing acreage) be left in the hands of five men, some of whom have received extremely generous campaign contributions from the development community? Were other locations for the RU project considered? Where were they located? If rejected, why and by whom? Please consider alternative locations within incorporated areas, and not destroy ag land in exchange for a university that may never materialize. Should a respected university materialize for the site, what are the conditions for its longevity on that site? Will it be acceptable for a university to utilize the site for two years or so, decide to leave for a myriad of reasons, abandon the site, and leave the county with sprawl and no benefits? What conditions have been built into the project to prevent a short-term university occupation (followed by closure of the doors)?

PLACER GROUP P.O. BOX 7167, AUBURN, CA 95604

LETTER 17

21456

Line

21456

Line

21456

Line

21456

Line

21456

Line

ccase

Text Box

17-1

ccase

Text Box

17-2

ccase

Text Box

17-3

ccase

Text Box

17-4

ccase

Text Box

17-5

Traffic The California Highway Patrol (CHP) has stated in numerous other project comments that its mission of providing safety and service of the public as they use the highway transportation systems within Placer County is significantly impacted with the current growth. The Auburn office only has 30 officers to cover more than 800 square miles. The RU project, with its major impact on traffic, along with all the other west Placer County projects, will further adversely impact the already impacted I-80 and Hwy 65 routes. What are the impacts the RU will have on the ability of the CHP to provide for public safety in light of its diminishing ability to provide law enforcement services? If additional CHP staffing is provided, what portion of those costs will be allocated to RU and/or to us taxpayers? The Thunder Valley Casino is planning for a significant expansion (23-story hotel, performing arts center, etc.). How will the additional traffic from the hotel (650 rooms times an average of two per room = 1,300 addition people rushing to attend an evening “show”), a performing arts center that will accommodate 3,000, and a 9-level, 5,000 car parking garage all impact the traffic LOS? With daily customers of the 20 to 23-story hotel checking in and out, traveling to and from the casino events, what are the traffic impacts? Where and how have they been mitigated? Please determine the cumulative traffic impacts of the casino expansion, Lincoln’s expansion, Sunset Ranchos, along with the other proposed projects as well as RU’s. Please mitigate accordingly. The County may have amended the General Plan to allow exceptions to community plans or specific plans to establish their own LOS, but for LOS D to be considered “acceptable” is akin to ignoring all standards. The RU project should not be allowed to use this amendment as a shield to either create a LOS D and/or to shirk its mitigation responsibilities for creating or adding to such an undesirable level. Wastewater It is one thing to tout a wastewater treatment plant’s permitted capacity; it is quite another to guarantee public health and safety of flows from major events. We know for a fact that raw sewage spills, conveyance lines reach capacity, and that the health and safety of humans and creeks are jeopardized. How many violations have been reported to the Central Valley Regional Quality Control Board (RWQCB)? Please research the Pleasant Grove’s WWTP records of incidences and indicate how it can handle the discharge from the RU project. If a University is ever built, there will undoubtedly be science laboratories, with chemical “flushings” that are unique to academic endeavors. How will these types of discharges be handled in a system that is already stressed and possibly compromising public and ecological safety as it is? These and many other concerns bring us to conclude that the DEIR needs to address many more issues than it does and must be recirculated. The public needs to have more time to adequately read and comment on a 4-volume DEIR. This is a project whose time has not come. Sincerely, Marilyn Jasper, Chair

21456

Line

21456

Line

21456

Line

21456

Line

21456

Line

ccase

Text Box

17-6

ccase

Text Box

17-7

ccase

Text Box

17-8

ccase

Text Box

17-9

ccase

Text Box

17-10

ccase

Text Box

17-11

21456

Line



LETTER 17: SIERRA CLUB, PLACER GROUP


The RUSP does not propose a truck driving or card dealing school on the University portion of the project site. The Draft EIR analyzes the physical impacts of development of the project site as proposed, which assumes a university use on the western portion of the site. Appendix A in this Final EIR provides the quantifiable University site development assumptions as analyzed in the Regional University Specific Plan Draft EIR. The memorandum includes the assumptions for University campus acreage, University student population, number of University faculty and staff, number of proposed residential units for students and faculty, acreage and student population for a potential private high school on the University site, which were used in the Draft EIR to determine University water and utilities demand, solid waste and wastewater generation, and vehicle trip generation. As part of the proposed project, the County would require any institution that proposes to occupy the University portion of the site to provide information as part of the Subsequent Conformity Review Process (see pages 2-51 through 2-53 in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR) to ensure that development would be within those parameters for development assumed in the Draft EIR. Through this process, the County can ensure that the institution that ultimately locates on the University portion of the RUSP project would not exceed the development assumptions assumed during preparation of the Draft EIR and that no new or more severe impacts would occur.


Prior to any development on the site, the project must be approved by the Placer County Board of Supervisors, which would change the land use designations on the site from agricultural. The EIR analyzes the conversion of the project site from agricultural use in section 6.2, Agricultural Resources. As discussed in the Draft EIR (see Project Objective 3 on page 2-8 of the Draft EIR), the University would rely upon the net proceeds of the sale of land within the Community portion of the site to be provided for the development of the University. This necessitates construction of portions of the Community prior to the University. The County shares the desire of the commenter for development of the University and is working with the project applicant to ensure that its development takes place. With regard to impacts of the scenarios described in the comment, the timing of the development within the site would not affect the impacts as disclosed in the EIR. If the University portion of the site is not developed, as suggested in the comment, the impacts of the project would be less severe than disclosed in the EIR due to less land disturbance and a reduced intensity of development.


The comment refers to climate change scenarios “warning of potential disaster.” The Draft EIR includes an analysis of Global Climate Change in section 6.13, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change. Regarding the reduction in farmland that would occur as a result of the project, those impacts are addressed in section 6.2, Agricultural Resources. As to the question of whether the proposed project would substantially impact food production, the proposed project acreage represents approximately 0.009 percent of the total Important Farmland in California.12 In addition, as discussed on page 6.2-4 of the Draft EIR, soils on the project site, while historically used for farming, are classified as having severe to very severe limitations that reduce the choice of crops

12 Based upon most recent available California Department of Conservation data (2004) for farmland inventory,

the total Important Farmland was 12,575,119 acres. Source: State of California Department of Conservation website, Farmland Monitoring and Mapping Program.



and requires “careful management practices” or have such severe limitations that their use for commercial plants is precluded. The most recent crop on the project site has been rice – a crop that is traditionally flooded to limit weed growth – which takes advantage of the poor drainage characteristics of the project soils that make them less suitable for other crops. Given these facts, it is unlikely that any reduction in food production on this site would result in food shortages in the region or elsewhere.

The comment also implies that the decision of the Board of Supervisors could be influenced by campaign contributions, which is entirely unsubstantiated and outside the scope of this EIR.


The commenter suggests that alternative locations for the project site should be considered in the EIR. As fully explained in Chapter 7 of the Draft EIR, the County does not believe that an alternative location for the proposed project is a feasible alternative.

The proposed project would rely upon land provided without cost for the Community and University, with the net proceeds of the sale of land within the Community portion of the site to be provided for the development of the University on donated land (see Project Objectives 2 and 3). The proposed University portion of the project site would consist of approximately 600 acres donated by the project applicant, designed to fulfill the project objective of establishing a well-respected four-year university that will serve Placer County’s residents, attract talented students and staff, and provide a catalyst for business, cultural, and athletic opportunities. No other sites have been offered for the project. Therefore, an off-site alternative was determined to be infeasible and not considered further in the Draft EIR analysis. (Draft EIR, p. 7-7.)

The proposed project relies upon the cost-free provision of the portions of the project site devoted to University-related uses. In addition, the proposed project would rely upon an interrelationship between the Campus and Community (see Project Objective 9), which would not only contribute to the character of the Community, but would also add value to the Community that could fund the University. Lastly, the adjacency of the Community and University would allow the infrastructure to be shared by the Campus and Community, resulting in a cost savings that translates into funding for the University. For these reasons, an alternative that assumes a Campus and Community separate from one another was not further considered. (Draft EIR, p. 7-8.)

The project applicant is not proposing to donate land elsewhere in the County to develop the University and Community and the County is unaware of any other landowner in Placer County or surrounding areas willing or interested in making a similar land donation. Therefore, the County concludes that a different site for the proposed project is not a feasible alternative.


The Draft EIR analyzes the physical impacts of construction and operation of a 6,000-student University on the site. The question as to whether the University will close within 2 years, as suggested in the comment, is a comment on the project, not a comment on the adequacy of the EIR. The EIR is based upon the assumption that the proposed project would be constructed and operated, and does speculate about closures of any portion of the project.


The comment states that the California Highway Patrol (CHP) has commented on numerous other projects; however, the CHP did not provide comments on the RUSP Draft EIR. While the proposed



project would add vehicles to state highways, it is not anticipated that the proposed project would increase the demand in the CHP to the extent that new or expanded facilities would be required, thus resulting in a physical environmental effect. With regard to funding, most of CHP's expenses are paid for by the Motor Vehicle Account, which derives its revenues primarily from vehicle registration and driver license fees.


The comment requests information on the traffic impacts of the expansion of the Thunder Valley Casino and requests mitigation for these impacts. The traffic analysis for the Draft EIR was based upon traffic generated by known and reasonably foreseeable projects at the time the Notice of Preparation for the proposed project was circulated. The expansion of the Thunder Valley Casino was not anticipated at the time of the NOP, and thus was not considered in the analysis. With regard to the request to mitigate the impacts of the casino, the Regional University Specific Plan project cannot be responsible for mitigating the impacts of other projects, including the casino expansion.


The commenter states that General Plan amendments in the proposed project allow specific plans to establish their own LOS standards. However, the General Plan amendments included in the proposed project do not allow a change to LOS D; as shown in Policy 3.A.7.a and b, LOS D is already allowed within ½ mile of state highways. Policy 3.A.7.c allows exceptions to these standards under certain conditions. The changes to the policies related to traffic include incorporation of Policy 3.A.8 into Policy 3.A.7 and tying together Policies 3.A.7 and 3.A.12 by cross reference. Changes to Dry Creek/West Placer Community Plan Policy 6 only make it consistent with General Plan Policy 3.A.7. Thus, the proposed policy amendments do not allow a LOS that was not already considered in General Plan Policy 3.A.7.


The comment expresses concern about health and safety due to violations at the PGWWTP and requests information on the violations from the plant. According to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region Administrative Civil Liability Complaint No. R5-2008-0506 (see Appendix B in this Final EIR), the PGWWTP had 27 violations over the period from January 1, 2000 to May 31, 2007. Of those, three were classified as Serious Violations for Group 2 pollutants that exceed the effluent limitation by 20 percent or more and eight classified as non-serious violations subject to mandatory penalties. The remaining violations were exempt from mandatory minimum penalties and included six violations during adjusting or testing and ten non-serious violations that fell within the first three violations in a six-month period and were, thus, exempt.


The comment refers to chemical flushings from laboratories within the University. The University would require a Municipal Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit for discharge to the sanitary sewer system and the PGWWTP. The permit would require disclosure of constituents of the wastewater and could require pre-treatment. Compliance with the Wastewater Discharge Permit would ensure that discharges from the University would not compromise public or ecological safety.




The comment states that the Draft EIR should be recirculated; however, the letter raises no issues that would warrant recirculation of the EIR. Regarding the review time for the Draft EIR, the 45-day period that was provided on the Draft EIR complies with CEQA, which requires a minimum 30-day public review period for a Draft EIR, excluding Draft EIRs that are submitted to the State Clearinghouse (Pub. Resources Code, Section 21091, subd. (a)), for which a minimum 45-day review period is required. While comment requests additional time for review and comment, the commenter does not cite any support for the proposition that a longer public review period is necessary.

1

Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk 915 L Street, C-425 Sacramento, Ca. 95814 916-447-4956 www.swainsonshawk.org January 23, 2008 Maywan Krach Placer County Community Development Resource Agency, Environmental Coordination Services 3091 County Center Drive, Suite 190, Auburn, CA. 95603 (e-mail: [email protected] fax: (530) 745-3003) Re: Regional University Specific Plan Draft EIR, PEIR T20050187, SCH #2005032026, Specific Plan, General Plan & Dry Creek Community Plan Amendments, Rezoning, & Development Agreement. Dear Ms. Krach, Friends of the Swainson's Hawk has reviewed the above referenced Draft EIR and PEIR, and submits this letter as comment on the analysis of impacts upon and mitigation for impacts on the Swainson's Hawk ("SWH"), listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act. The majority of the population of SWH in California nest within 50 miles of downtown Sacramento, and consequently are under tremendous pressure from the region's rapid urbanization. We are concerned about nesting areas, foraging areas, and the landscape of agricultural lands (irrigated and dry) and grasslands that support the existing diminished population of Swainson’s Hawks in the Central Valley region. We incorporate by reference comments submitted by the Sierra Club Mother Lode Chapter and by California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The project site encompasses approximately 1,157.5 acres consisting of predominately open agricultural land utilized for rice and dry land farming. The eastern portion (roughly two thirds) of the project site is currently in active agriculture. The western third of the project site has historically been used for cattle grazing and rice farming, but is currently fallow. This portion of the site is composed primarily of non-native annual grassland. Within the Plan Area, there are

LETTER 18

21456

Line

21456

Line

ccase

Text Box

18-1

ccase

Text Box

18-2

2

approximately 664 acres in active rice production, 297 acres in abandoned rice farming, 126 acres in dry land farming, which have been worked sporadically over the last five years, and 70 acres of wetlands, which are considered Waters of the U.S. (EIR, page 6.2.1) The project also has significant off site impacts on agricultural lands. Lands to the south, west, and north of the project site and off-site improvement areas are used primarily for rice farming, grazing, or are fallow. Lands to the east are included in the West Roseville Specific Plan (WRSP), within the City of Roseville, have been approved for non-agricultural uses, and are currently under development. Soils on lands adjacent to the project site and off-site improvement areas are Class III and IV, which have severe limitations for agricultural production. (EIR, page 6.2.6) Growth inducing Impacts. This project clearly has severe growth inducing impacts on farmlands west of Roseville, and on other counties, that are part of the regional landscape supporting the remaining Swainson’s Hawk population during nesting and during migration. Impacts are not assessed or mitigated. Assessment and Mitigation of Impacts Inadequate. The EIR is in violation of CEQA for understatement of the presence of SWH nesting and foraging activity within and near the Specific Plan area, and off site infrastructure construction locations, and for authorization of vague and unclear mitigation measures without substantial evidence that these measures can reasonably be expected to provide mitigation for impacts on SWH affected by development within the Specific Plan area, and at off-site infrastructure. I have reviewed the Biological Resources Chapter of the EIR and the Biological Resources Assessment prepared by Foothill Associates and submitted to KT Development November 29, 2006. The EIR seriously understates the presence of SWH on and near the project site. The Biological Assessment relied upon an outdated database to identify species impacts”. No survey was conducted on the RU site during the Swainson’s Hawk nesting season. Protocols for identifying Swainson’s Hawk nesting behavior were not followed in the biological assessment performed by Foothill Associates. The EIR therefore cannot properly assess any adverse effect on Swainson’s Hawk nesting. The California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) maintains an updated map of SWH nests, derived from its regional database, that contains many sites not included in the CNDDB. Biological consultants in the Sacramento region, especially those who work on environmental documents, are well aware that DFG collects and maintains data on the SWH, including location of nest territories, The biological consultants for the EIR could easily have obtained this information by contacting DFG, but chose not to do so. On May 19, 2006, commenting on the Placer Vineyards Specific Plan and Revised DEIR, I informed Placer County Planning Department (letter attached) that the methods used and conclusions drawn by Foothill Associates were faulty. The present analysis repeats some of the same errors.

ccase

Text Box

18-2 (con't.)

21456

Line

21456

Line

21456

Line

21456

Line

ccase

Text Box

18-4

ccase

Text Box

18-3

ccase

Text Box

18-5

3

County Policy 6.C.3 pledges to identify and protect any habitat of threatened species such as the Swainson’s Hawk, but this EIR (and its underlying Biological Assessment) fail to do so. The biological assessment identifies the project as “potential habitat for Swainson’s Hawk.” Analyses, conclusions, and mitigation measures which rely on these defective surveys and incomplete review of available scientific information are not supported by substantial evidence, and thus are violations of CEQA. New surveys should be performed in accordance with accepted protocols, by competent biologists who have expertise with SWH, and have consulted with CDFG. These should be included in a Recirculated DEIR. Other Comments Definition of active nest (6.4-49) should be confirmed and consistent with California Department of Fish and Game practice. Documented use within the last two years is far too narrow a window since many sites are used alternatively with others nearby and specific features of the nesting season and the nesting location can affect how frequently the site is actually used . MM 6.4.1 is very vague and defers mitigation until mitigation permits from the State and Federal resource agencies are obtained. We strongly object to CEQA documents such as this one that fail to identify what impacts the resource agencies have identified and what mitigation requirements the resource agencies are imposing. Deferring habitat mitigation to some unknown time and a permit process that may exclude the public deprives the public of information about the environmental impacts of the project and expert opinion about what mitigation will be needed to offset those impacts. This practice is a perversion and abuse of the environmental review process as required by CEQA. It attempts to isolate and sequester resource agency concerns into a permit process and exclude them from the citizen enforceable CEQA process In this case particularly, the local government has failed to consult with the resource agencies in the CEQA process, thus excluding the most knowledgeable and relevant experts from the public review of the project. The EIR fails to properly identify and mitigate for impacts on Swainson’s Hawks and other affected species and pretends that it can cover these omissions by promising to comply with permit requirements of state and local government. We do not think CEQA permits this avoidance of acknowledgement of environmental impacts and full mitigation. MM6.4.1 e) refers to Swainson’s Hawk foraging impacts. It says mitigation shall occur according to California Department of Fish and Game Guidelines. However, no such guidelines exist. The test quoted is from an outdated staff report document. The EIR preparers are obligated to consult with CDFG and disclose these consultations regarding DFG guidance on appropriate mitigation. Quoting from outdated staff reports is not acceptable under CEQA for determining mitigation for impacts on state threatened species. MM 6.4-7 a. Fails to note as recommended by Biological Assessment at 6.6 that no construction may occur within .5 miles of an active Swainson’s Hawk nesting site during nesting season until fledging has occurred or qualified biologist finds that the nest is no longer active. Page 6.4-29 errs in calculating foraging mitigation. It refers to the calculation of foraging habitat to be mitigated saying “The balance of the project site is in active rice production and therefore

21456

Line

21456

Line

21456

Line

21456

Line

21456

Line

21456

Line

ccase

Text Box

18-11

ccase

Text Box

18-9

ccase

Text Box

18-10

ccase

Text Box

18-8

ccase

Text Box

18-7

ccase

Text Box

18-6

4

does not constitute Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat.” The preparer has erred in making this determination. Crop patterns do not determine land values for calculating habitat impact. While rice lands cannot be counted as mitigation lands for Swainson’s Hawk foraging purposes, all agricultural lands are potential foraging habitat and must be mitigated when paved over. Frequently rice lands are fallow or used in rotation with other crops. The Mitigation Measures fail to require that land preserved to mitigate for project impacts upon the SWH have and retain those characteristics and land uses which make it suitable SWH foraging and/or nesting habitat, or be within reasonable foraging distance of known SWH nests. There is no requirement that the County even consult with DFG on the suitability of proposed mitigation acquisitions or upon the appropriateness, for SWH foraging and nesting, of the conservation easement or land management plan. Therefore the mitigation program is inadequate. Land acquired to mitigate for impacts on SWH should be within reasonable proximity of the nesting and foraging territories of the SWH displaced from the project site, so that the impacted local population of SWH receives the benefit of preservation of land with suitable SWH foraging characteristics, and must be approved by DFG as suitable for the purpose intended. Friends of the Swainson's Hawk respectfully suggest the following as a mitigation measure, which incorporates some of the language of the Sacramento County SWH Mitigation Ordinance: "a. Prior to the approval of grading and improvement plans, or any ground-disturbing activities, whichever occurs first, the project applicant shall acquire and preserve, through transfer of fee title or perpetual conservation easement, in the manner stated below, 1 acre of suitable SWH foraging habitat for each acre impacted by the project. Prior to committing to the preservation of any particular parcel pursuant to this measure, the project proponent must obtain approval of the mitigation parcel by DFG and County. The mitigation parcel shall be located in Placer County within five miles of the project site and within reasonable proximity of SWH nest trees, as determined by County and DFG. If the land's suitability for SWH foraging habitat is related to agricultural use on the land, the Conservation Easement or related document shall retain and protect any existing water rights necessary to maintain agricultural use of the land." "b. The project applicant shall transfer said SWH conservation easement, or fee title subject to such SWH conservation easement, to the County, DFG, and a third party conservation organization (Conservation Operator"), acceptable to County and DFG. The Conservation Operator shall be a nonprofit organization having IRC § 501c(3) status. The conservation easement shall be recordable and shall prohibit any activity which substantially impairs or diminishes the land's capacity as suitable SWH foraging habitat. The content and form of the conservation easement must be acceptable to County, DFG, and Conservation Operator. The Conservation Operator, DFG, and County shall each have the power to enforce the terms of the conservation easement. The Conservation Operator shall monitor the easement in perpetuity to assure compliance with the terms of the easement." "c. The project applicant shall pay to County an endowment fee in an amount which will produce sufficient interest in perpetuity to operate, maintain, monitor, and enforce such

ccase

Text Box

18-11 (con't.)

21456

Line

21456

Line

ccase

Text Box

18-12

5

conservation easement. The amount of the O and M fee shall be determined by mutual agreement of County and the Conservation Operator charged with such activity, not to exceed similar fees in the region. The actual amount will be calculated by use of the Property Analysis Record (PAR) software program or other generally accepted, attribute based, site specific method for calculating endowment for managing, monitoring, and enforcing conservation easements or operating preserves." "d, The Conservation Operator shall not sell, lease, or transfer any interest in any conservation easement or mitigation land which it acquires without prior written approval of the County and DFG. If the Conservation Operator ceases to exist, the duty to hold, administer, monitor, and enforce the interest shall be transferred to another entity acceptable to County and DFG, or transferred to County itself if approved by DFG." Finally, the project site supports the white tailed kite, a fully protected species under state law. The EIR fails to address and mitigate the impacts, and particularly the cumulative impacts, of removal of white tailed kite foraging, roosting and nesting habitat. Thank you for considering our comments. Very Truly Yours,

Judith Lamare, Ph.D. President, Friends of the Swainson's Hawk

ccase

Text Box

18-12 (con't.)

21456

Line

21456

Line

ccase

Text Box

18-13

1

Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk817 – 14th St., 100Sacramento, Ca. 95814916-447-4956www.swainsonshawk.org

May 19, 2006

Paul Thompson, Principal PlannerPlacer County Planning Dept. via e-mail11414 B AvenueAuburn, CA 95603

RE: Placer Vineyards Specific Plan and Revised DEIRComment of Friends of the Swainson's Hawk On RDEIR's Analysis of Impacts of SpecificPlan Upon Swainson's Hawk and Proposed Mitigation for Impacts to SWH

Dear Mr. Thompson,

Friends of the Swainson's Hawk has reviewed the draft Placer Vineyard Specific Plan andRDEIR, and submits this letter as comment on the analysis of impacts upon and mitigation forimpacts on the Swainson's Hawk ("SWH"), listed as threatened under the California EndangeredSpecies Act. The majority of the population of SWH in California nest within 50 miles ofdowntown Sacramento, and consequently are under tremendous pressure from the region's rapidurbanization. We incorporate by reference the separate joint letter of Sierra Club - Mother LodeChapter, Friends of the Swainson's Hawk, and Sierra Foothills Chapter of the Audubon,including the excellent discussion therein pertaining to Swainson's Hawks.

The RDEIR is in violation of CEQA for gross understatement of the presence of SWH nestingactivity within and near the Specific Plan area, and for authorization of vague and unclearmitigation measures without substantial evidence that these measures can reasonably be expectedto provide mitigation for impacts on SWH affected by development within the Specific Planarea, and off-site infrastructure.

The RDEIR seriously understates the presence of SWH on and near the project site. TheRDEIR's purported map of SWH nest sites, RDEIR Figure 4.4-5, shows two SWH nestterritories located 1 and 3 miles northeast of the Specific Plan site, and one 5 miles south. TheRDEIR p. 4.4-105 asserts that "no SWH nests have been observed within the Specific Plan area."The RDEIR p. 4.4-107 asserts that only one "potentially active raptor nest" was found in theSpecific Plan area. This information is grossly inaccurate.

2

In fact, the California Department of Fish and Game maintains an updated map of SWH nests,derived from its regional database. DFG's map, ATTACHED, which was obtained via e-mailfrom DFG and is available to the public, shows three SWH nests within the eastern half of theproposed Specific Plan, northwest of Dry Creek, another nest in the western portion of theSpecific Plan, and one approximately one-half mile north of the center of the project. Biologicalconsultants in the Sacramento region, especially those who work on environmental documents,are well aware that DFG collects and maintains data on the SWH, including location of nestterritories, The biological consultants for the RDEIR could easily have obtained this informationby contacting DFG, but chose not to do so.

RDEIR p. 4.4-1 states that the Specific Plan area was surveyed by Foothill Associates betweenDecember 1999 and February 2000. Any competent biologist knows that numerous species,including SWH are absent from the Central Valley between December and February. There is noevidence of any other wildlife surveys, except for wetland delineations. Clearly, the RDEIR'sbiological information, based on these grossly inadequate surveys, now outdated, is so inaccuratethat it cannot be relied upon as the basis for analysis of impacts or effectiveness of mitigationmeasures. Analyses, conclusions, and mitigation measures which rely on these defective"surveys" are not supported by substantial evidence, and thus are violations of CEQANew surveys should be performed in accordance with accepted protocols, by competentbiologists who have expertise with SWH, and included in a Recirculated DEIR.

MM 4.4-6, to mitigate for removal of SWH nesting and foraging habitat requires implementationof MM 4.4-1 as pertains to SWH foraging habitat and nesting trees. MM 4.4-1 is a one-size-fits-all Open Space program which allows Open Space preservation to mitigate for loss of SWHforaging habitat.

The SWH mitigation strategy assumes that land preserved for Open Space will be adequate tomitigate for impacts on SWH. But three of the four properties proposed as "core" preserves formitigation for multi-species impacts do not contain significant areas of grassland habitat which issuitable SWH foraging habitat. Our understanding is that three of the proposed "core" preservesites are rice farms, which are useless to upland species such as SWH.

Moreover, there is no evidence in the RDEIR that there are SWH nests within reasonableforaging proximity to any of the proposed "core areas". There are large areas of the CentralValley where there is suitable SWH foraging habitat but no SWH. There is no evidence thatofficial designation of a parcel as mitigation preserve will cause SWH to relocate to that area.

MM 4.4-2 states that the mitigation requirements may be fulfilled by compliance, as determinedby Placer County, with the Placer County Conservation Plan, when completed. However, thereis no evidence that compliance with the Placer County Conservation Plan, the content of which isstill undetermined, will mitigate for impacts on SWH.

The mechanisms for acquiring mitigation land are contradictory. MM 4.4-1e speaks of fundingfor acquisition, with no discussion of adequacy of funding or timing of acquisition. However,MM4.4-1b requires all projects within the Specific Plan and off-site infrastructure projects, to

3

dedicate mitigation land to the County, by fee title or conservation easement, prior to approval ofthe final map or project approval.

MM 4.41-g allows project applicants to satisfy the mitigation requirement by demonstratingcontrol of proposed mitigation land by an option. An option will provide mitigation land only inthe even that the holder of the option exercises the option and has funding to pay the priceestablished by the option contract. There is no enforcement remedy provided if the option holderchooses to allow his/her option contract to expire, without exercise, after project completion.

The Mitigation Measures fail to require that land preserved to mitigate for project impacts uponthe SWH have and retain those characteristics and land uses which make it suitable SWHforaging and/or nesting habitat, or be within reasonable foraging distance of known SWH nests.There is no requirement that the County even consult with DFG on the suitability of proposedmitigation acquisitions or upon the appropriateness, for SWH foraging and nesting, of theconservation easement or land management plan.

Land acquired to mitigate for impacts on SWH should be within reasonable proximity of thenesting and foraging territories of the SWH displaced from the project site, so that the impactedlocal population of SWH receives the benefit of preservation of land with suitable SWH foragingcharacteristics, and must be approved by DFG as suitable for the purpose intended.

As pointed out in the joint letter of Sierra Club, et al, certain agricultural practices, such asgrowing (and frequent harvest) of alfalfa greatly enhances foraging value over that of grassland.Thus, the statement that it would not be feasible to restore or create SWH foraging habitat is nottrue.

Friends of the Swainson's Hawk respectfully suggest the following as a mitigation measure,which incorporates some of the language of the Sacramento County SWH Mitigation Ordinance:

"a. Prior to the approval of grading and improvement plans, or any ground-disturbingactivities, whichever occurs first, the project applicant shall acquire and preserve, throughtransfer of fee title or perpetual conservation easement, in the manner stated below, 1 acre ofsuitable SWH foraging habitat for each acre impacted by the project. Prior to committing to thepreservation of any particular parcel pursuant to this measure, the project proponent must obtainapproval of the mitigation parcel by DFG and County. The mitigation parcel shall be located inPlacer County within five miles of the project site and within reasonable proximity of SWH nesttrees, as determined by County and DFG. If the land's suitability for SWH foraging habitat isrelated to agricultural use on the land, the Conservation Easement or related document shallretain and protect any existing water rights necessary to maintain agricultural use of the land."

"b. The project applicant shall transfer said SWH conservation easement, or fee title subjectto such SWH conservation easement, to the County, DFG, and a third party conservationorganization (Conservation Operator"), acceptable to County and DFG. The ConservationOperator shall be a nonprofit organization having IRC § 501c(3) status. The conservationeasement shall be recordable and shall prohibit any activity which substantially impairs ordiminishes the land's capacity as suitable SWH foraging habitat. The content and form of the

4

conservation easement must be acceptable to County, DFG, and Conservation Operator. TheConservation Operator, DFG, and County shall each have the power to enforce the terms of theconservation easement. The Conservation Operator shall monitor the easement in perpetuity toassure compliance with the terms of the easement."

"c. The project applicant shall pay to County an endowment fee in an amount which willproduce sufficient interest in perpetuity to operate, maintain, monitor, and enforce suchconservation easement. The amount of the O and M fee shall be determined by mutualagreement of County and the Conservation Operator charged with such activity, not to exceed$3,500 per acre. The actual amount will be calculated by use of the Property Analysis Record(PAR) software program or other generally accepted, attribute based, site specific method forcalculating endowment for managing, monitoring, and enforcing conservation easements oroperating preserves."(NOTE: Sacramento County's and Elk Grove's fee for endowing O and M is approximately$2,300 per acre, using The Nature Conservancy as Conservation Operator.)

"d, The Conservation Operator shall not sell, lease, or transfer any interest in anyconservation easement or mitigation land which it acquires without prior written approval of theCounty and DFG. If the Conservation Operator ceases to exist, the duty to hold, administer,monitor, and enforce the interest shall be transferred to another entity acceptable to County andDFG, or transferred to County itself if approved by DFG."

The Department of Fish and Game has developed, or is developing, maps of those areas insouthern Sacramento County which are deemed suitable for acquisition of parcels for SWHmitigation by Elk Grove and County of Sacramento. Such a program would simplify acquisitionof SWH mitigation land in Placer County.

Thank you for considering our comments.

Very Truly Yours,

Jude Lamare, President,Friends of the Swainson's Hawk

Attachment: DFG map of SWH nests



LETTER 18: FRIENDS OF THE SWAINSON’S HAWK, JUDITH LAMARE


The comment expresses concerns about Swainson’s hawk and their habitat. Please see Responses to Comments 18-2 through 18-12.


The comment quotes text from the Draft EIR. No response is required.


The comment states that the growth inducing effects of the project are not analyzed. The reader is referred to pages 8-7 through 8-9 of the Draft EIR for a discussion of growth inducing impacts.


The analysis of impacts on Swainson’s hawk in the Draft EIR is based upon California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) 1994 Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s hawks in the Central Valley of California. Swainson’s hawk nest records for the proposed project site were determined by a combination of California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) records from 2005 and 2006; CDFG’s 2001 Swainson’s hawk survey records; and no less than eight on-site biological surveys extending from 2003 though 2007, including three during Swainson’s hawks 2005 breeding season.

There are no known occurrences of Swainson’s hawk nesting within the project area, based on review of all relevant data. Further, the majority of the site does not constitute Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat, since it is currently used for rice production. Potential Swainson’s hawk nesting and foraging habitat is located in the western portion of the site, along the Curry Creek tributary, where rice production was halted more than a decade ago. Note that this area has been the subject of hundreds of hours of biological survey, wetland delineation, wetland mitigation monitoring, and studies that were initiated in the early 1990s and continued through the present day. During these surveys, no biologist has identified a nesting Swainson’s hawk on the property.

In reference to the adequacy of the Draft EIR based on the information gathered for assessment of impacts on sensitive species, as stated in Section 15204(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible in light of factors such as the geographic scope of the project, the magnitude of the project, and the severity of the likely environmental impacts. As further expressed in Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines, “An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible.” In this case, multiple surveys of the site were performed over a five year period and were sufficient to identify nesting Swainson’s hawks, among other rare species. Thus, per CEQA Section 15151, the surveys would be sufficient to allow for the quantification of impacts on biota, and assessment of impacts on rare species within the Draft EIR, including Swainson’s hawks, are adequate under current CEQA guidelines.

With respect to the adequacy of the mitigation, as identified within Impacts 6.4-1 and 6.4-8, the loss of Swainson’s hawk habitat and the project site’s current biological function as a result of the proposed project are considered to be significant impacts. Although deemed unavoidable due to the inability to meet project goals while maintaining the habitat on site, mitigation was developed that



requires preservation of off-site foraging habitat at ratios recommended by the CDFG’s November 8, 1994 Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California (CDFG Staff Report): 1:1 for each acre lost within one mile of a nest, 0.75:1 for each acre lost within one to five miles of a nest, and 0.5:1 for each acre lost within five to ten miles of a nest. Also, because new nests could be established in closer proximity to surveyed properties between the time this EIR began and the ground-disturbing activities begin (which would affect the amount of acreage that must be preserved), Mitigation Measure 6.4-1 requires new nesting surveys as development proposals within surveyed properties are implemented. As such, the actual mitigation, expressed in terms of ratios, will be dependent on the findings of these surveys, with the result that the actual mitigation imposed will be based on the conditions extant at the time of the pre-construction surveys. Thus, mitigation is not deferred; it is specific, but worded to account for any potential temporal variation in nests to ensure the required mitigation (in acres per nests) is fully implemented. Consequently, the proposed mitigation is consistent with current CEQA interpretation as well as Sections 15126.4(a)(1)(A), 15126.4(a)(1)(B), 15126.4(a)(2), and 15126.4(a)(4)(B) of CEQA, and the Draft EIR is adequate.

Please refer to Response to Comments 18-3 for a discussion of the adequacy of Swainson’s hawks impact assessment and mitigation.


The CDFG database of Swainson’s hawk nest locations was reviewed at the time the biological assessment was prepared. Data for Placer County shows the following:

2001 – 7 Occurrences




The biological assessment field work was conducted in 2003-2006. No observations were included in the CDFG database at that time for 2005 or 2006. Based on the available data at the time – including the CDFG annual Swainson’s hawk data – Foothill concluded that the project site was potential foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk, but that it had no known nesting occurrences and only offered very limited nesting habitat potential; there is no biological or regulatory basis to conclude otherwise.


The comment refers to Placer County General Plan policy 6.C.3, which states, “The County shall encourage the control of residual pesticides to prevent potential damage to water.” It is likely that the commenter intended to refer to policy 6.C.1 (see Draft EIR page 6.4-21):

6.C.1. The County shall identify and protect significant ecological resource areas and other unique wildlife habitats critical to protecting and sustaining wildlife populations. Significant ecological resource areas include the following:

a. Wetland areas including vernal pools.

b. Stream environment zones.

c. Any habitat for rare, threatened or endangered animals or plants.

d. Critical deer winter ranges (winter and summer), migratory routes and fawning habitats.



e. Large areas of non-fragmented natural habitat, including Blue Oak Woodlands, Valley Foothill Riparian, vernal pool habitat.

f. Identifiable wildlife movement zones, including but not limited to, non-fragmented stream environment zones, avian and mammalian migratory routes, and known concentration areas of waterfowl within the Pacific Flyway.

g. Important spawning areas for anadromous fish.

While the County does strive to protect wildlife habitat, the County must also balance this with other General Plan goals and policies, such as those to provide residential, commercial, and industrial land uses within the County (Placer County General Plan Land Use Goals 1.B, 1.D, and 1.E). Natural Resources Policy 6.C.2 acknowledges that “[t]he County shall require development in areas known to have particular value for wildlife to be carefully planned and, where possible, located so that the reasonable value of the habitat for wildlife is maintained” [emphasis added]. Thus, the proposed project would not be considered inconsistent with the General Plan.

Regarding surveys for the proposed project, the surveys of the project site were general plant and wildlife surveys focusing on portions of the Plan Area with the potential to support special status species and sensitive habitats (refer to Response to Comment 18-3). The surveys were not intended to be, nor should they be interpreted as, conclusive; final and conclusive surveys are not required for an adequate EIR and the documentation contained in the Draft EIR is fully consistent with the intent of CEQA. Mitigation measures have been provided in Draft EIR Section 6.4 to ensure that detailed surveys are conducted prior to ground disturbance at the appropriate times of the year. Such detailed surveys performed today would assume a static environment and would have little meaning or value when actual construction occurred (refer to Response to Comment 18-3).


The commenter is correct in stating that standard practice per CDFG’s November 8, 1994 Staff Report is that nests used during one or more of the last 5 years are defined as active nests. Footnote 4 on page 6.4-39 of the Draft EIR has been changed to the following to reflect the comment:

4. An active nest is defined as a Swainson’s hawk nest that has been documented to be active within the last two five years.

This change does not affect the impact assessment, as the impact is already identified as significant and unavoidable, even with implementation of CDFG recommended mitigation and avoidance practices.


The County has proposed a comprehensive mitigation strategy (refer to Draft EIR, Mitigation Measures 6.4-1(c) through 6.4-1(m)) for this project. This mitigation strategy is designed to mitigate the biological impacts resulting from development of the Community, the University, and off-site improvements (see Draft EIR Figure 2-5). The County believes that the comprehensive mitigation strategy strikes a reasonable balance between on-site resource avoidance and off-site preservation and restoration, and provides a single, all-inclusive mitigation measure that would simultaneously mitigate for all biological resources of concern, while also mitigating impacts on agricultural lands. In devising the proposed mitigation strategy, the County’s intent is to create a mitigation program that could simultaneously satisfy the requirements of CEQA, the Placer County General Plan, the



California Endangered Species Act (CESA), the Clean Water Act, Fish and Game Code provisions dealing with the Streambed Alteration Agreements, and the federal Endangered Species Act.

The project’s proposed global mitigation strategy is consistent with the Third District Court of Appeal’s ruling in Environmental Council of Sacramento v. City of Sacramento (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1018 (ECOS). The ECOS court held that, in light of the project’s entire mitigation strategy, the purchase of a half acre for habitat reserves for every acre of development under the project satisfied the mitigation requirements under CEQA and CESA. Refusing to disturb the lead agencies’ decision to reject a 1:1 mitigation ratio based on issues of feasibility, practicality in meeting planned objectives, and other overriding considerations, the appellate court noted that the project mitigated for impacts on covered species in a variety of ways beyond the purchase of a half acre for every acre developed. Adherence to “historic ratios” is not required by CEQA, which does not mandate similar mitigation for all similar projects. The ECOS court made clear that the mitigation ratio should not be viewed in isolation, but should be seen as part of a larger comprehensive and integrated mitigation program involving long term management of properties, enhancement and restoration of some portions of some of the properties, and preservation against future development prospects.

In upholding the mitigation ratio employed in ECOS (0.5 to 1), the court noted that every acre within the project area must be replaced at the mitigation ratio, whether or not the land proposed for development provides habitat, and regardless of the quality of habitat or existence of known or documented species occurrences. Finally, the ECOS court underscored the principle that mitigation under CEQA must be “roughly proportional” to the impacts caused by the project. (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.4, subd. (a)(4)(B); Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 360.) In ECOS, the lead agencies found the 1:1 ratio alternative infeasible expressly because it would result in developers paying mitigation fees at a level that would exceed the impact caused by their projects. In upholding this approach, the appellate court affirmed that CEQA permits a lead agency to point to legal feasibility constraints on the mitigation ratio.

Mitigation Measures 6.4-1(a) through 6.4-1(m) of the Draft EIR constitute the proposed global mitigation strategy. Viewing the proposed mitigation strategy as a whole, as the ECOS court suggests, the County has determined that the impacts of the project are satisfactorily mitigated under CEQA. Taking into consideration economic feasibility and practicality in meeting the County’s planning objectives and the applicants’ stated project objectives, the County believes that the proposed mitigation strategy satisfies these concerns as well as the objectives and mandates of CEQA.

The commenter opines that the Draft EIR fails to properly identify and mitigate for impacts on Swainson’s hawk. The County believes that Draft EIR Mitigation Measures 6.4-1(e) and 6.4-8 adequately mitigate the project’s impacts on Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat. Mitigation Measure 6.4-1(e) requires Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat to be mitigated according to long-recommended DFG guidance: one acre for each acre lost within one mile of a nest, 0.75 acre for each acre lost within one to five miles of a nest, and 0.5 acre lost within five to ten miles of a nest, unless otherwise addressed through the PCCP.

It is important to note that the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) requires a CESA incidental take permit for lost trees with Swainson’s hawk nests, but not for lost Swainson’s hawk habitat. Therefore, consultation with CDFG is not required for the loss of Swainson’s hawk habitat that does not implicate the loss of a tree with a nest.




The mitigation measure in the Draft EIR follows the standards of practice per CDFG’s November 8, 1994 Staff Report. The 1994 staff report is the most current CDFG document and standard for determining mitigation for impacts on Swainson’s hawk.


The commenter references the CDFG’s November 8, 1994 Staff Report’s 0.5 mile buffer for Swainson’s hawk nests that are near heavy equipment operation associated with construction, use of cranes or draglines, new rock crushing. However, buffer zones, as discussed in the CDFG’s Staff Report, are site depended and can vary with nest height, nest location, surrounding vegetation, and proximity to noise sources and urban environments. Consequently, the following paragraph is added to subsection (a) of Mitigation Measure 6.4-7 on page 6.4-38, to account for this variability.

If an active Swainson’s hawk nest is found, no intensive new disturbances (e.g., heavy equipment operation associated with construction, use of cranes or draglines, new rock crushing activities) or other project-related activities that could cause nest abandonment or forced fledging, can be initiated within 500 feet (buffer zone) of an active nest between March 1 and September 15. If a qualified biologist and CDFG agree, the size of the buffer area may be adjusted as appropriate to the specific on-site conditions of the nest location, provided it would not be likely to have adverse effects on the hawks. No project activity shall commence within the buffer area until a qualified biologist confirms that the nest is no longer active.


Rice land during the non-flooded period is considered a foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk. However, if rice lands are flooded during the Swainson’s hawk nesting season, rice land does not provide suitable foraging habitat for the species.13 As a result, the areas identified as impacted foraging habitat in Impact 6.4-1 were only those that provide suitable habitat for this species during their seasonal presence in California. Thus, flooded rice fields are excluded.


The commenter proposes a new mitigation measure incorporating language from the Sacramento County Swainson’s Hawk Mitigation Ordinance. However, the additional mitigation measures provided by the commenter are, in concept and purpose, equivalent to those included in Mitigation Measures 6.4-1, 6.4-7, and 6.4-8 of the Draft EIR, and would not further reduce impacts on Swainson’s hawks. The County believes that the Draft EIR Mitigation Measures 6.4-1, 6.4-7, and 6.4-8 would be equally effective at mitigating the loss of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat as the proposed mitigation measure. As such, no additional mitigation measures are required.

Mitigation Measure 6.4-1(e) provides, in pertinent part:, “Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat shall be mitigated according to California Department of Fish and Game Guidelines: one acre for each acre lost within one mile of a nest, 0.75 acre for each acre lost within one to five miles of a nest, and 0.5 acre lost within five to ten miles of a nest, unless otherwise addressed through the PCCP … Additionally, the Applicant shall be required to obtain a CESA take permit for any active Swainson’s

13 Woodbridge, B. 1998. Swainson's Hawk (Buteo swainsoni). In The Riparian Bird Conservation Plan: a

strategy for reversing the decline of riparian-associated birds in California. California Partners in Flight. <www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/riparian_v-2.html>



hawk nest that may be removed as part of any proposed construction under the Specific Plan. Additional mitigation measures for the loss of active nest trees shall including planting of suitable nest trees … at a 15:1 ratio (tree per tree) on suitable foraging habitat areas within west Placer County.” Mitigation Measure 6.4-8 also requires that the applicant “shall replace, re-create, or restore Swainson’s hawk nesting and foraging habitat lost, at a ratio of up to 1:1 for each acre lost, as determined appropriate by the County. …”

Mitigation Measures 6.4-1(e) and 6.4-8 require the applicant to mitigate for Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat according to DFG Guidelines. While Sacramento County may take an alternative approach, Placer County is not bound by the mitigation approach taken by an adjacent jurisdiction. Placer County believes that Draft EIR Mitigation Measures 6.4-1(e) and 6.4-8 satisfactorily mitigate the impacts of the RUSP on Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat.

The commenter insists that the Swainson’s hawk mitigation program is inadequate because it fails to require the County to consult with DFG on “the suitability of proposed mitigation acquisitions or upon the appropriateness, for Swainson’s hawk foraging and nesting, of the conservation easement or land management plan.” The commenter’s concern is unfounded because no CEQA take permit is required for the loss of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat. Therefore, consultation with DFG is not required. The County is free to consult qualified biologists, instead of DFG, as it carries out the mitigation set forth in the Draft EIR. It should also be noted that Mitigation Measure 6.4-1(e) requires that Swainson’s hawk mitigation lands acquired provide suitable foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawks. The CDFG is a Trustee Agency and has been provided the opportunity to review and comment on the mitigation measures within this Draft EIR, and per Mitigation Measure 6.4-1(j), mitigation credits and monitoring plans meet requirements of the State and federal agencies to the extent required by applicable state or federal permits. This, coupled with other mitigation measures in 6.4-1 that address timing, funding, management, and mitigation ratios, provide adequate assurance that the mitigation sites would be suitable for use by Swainson’s hawks, and secure in their funding and acquisition.


Impacts on the white-tailed kite are identified and discussed within impacts 6.4-1, 6.4-6, and 6.4-8 of the Draft EIR.

letter 14 14-1 - placer county, california/media/cdr/ecs/eir/regionaluniversity/feir... ·...

Documents