aerial - fws

18
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Categorical Exclusion Screening Form Environmental Action Statement I. HCP Information A. HCP Name: General Conservation Plan for Cultivation Activities in Santa Barbara County B. Affected Species: Santa Barbara County distinct population segment (DPS) of the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma cahforniense) C. RCP Size (in stream miles and/or acres): The Planning Area spans 30,835 acres, but only permanent impacts or loss of 5,325 acres resulting from the Covered Activities would be permitted under the General Conservation Plan. D. Brief Project Description (including minimization and mitigation plans): The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) developed this General Conservation Plan (GCP or Plan) to provide an efficient and effective permitting mechanism for private landowners engaged in horticulture activities to meet statutory and regulatory requirements while promoting conservation of California tiger salamander. This GCP is focused on horticulture within the Santa Rita and Purisima Hills metapopulation areas for the California tiger salamander in Santa Barbara County, California. Project proponents engaged in actions described as “Covered Activities” in this document may participate through the GCP. This document specifies the type of incidental take anticipated to occur over the duration of the GCP, minimization and mitigation requirements, and all other measures necessary to meet permit issuance criteria described in Section 1 0(a)(2)(B) of the Act. Project proponents that choose to participate in the GCP and meet issuance criteria would subsequently be granted a permit through the GCP. Permits issued under the GCP will cover only incidental take associated with construction, operations, and maintenance activities for up to 20 years afier Permit issuance. The Planning Area consists of the Santa Rita and Purisima Hills metapopulation areas for the Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tiger salamander. The entire Planning Area is 30,835 acres. The Planning Area includes undeveloped land, agricultural lands, and rural and urban development; grazing, row crops and vineyards are the dominant land uses. The Planning Area encompasses diverse habitats, resources, and degrees of development. The Covered Activities would not affect all lands within the Planning Area. The Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tiger salamander is the only species addressed in this plan. The California tiger salamander occupies both aquatic and upland habitats within the Planning Area. The Planning Area includes 75 pond features identified on the Service’s California tiger salamander map (Service 2019). Of these features, 27 are known breeding ponds in which California tiger salamander breeding Page 1 of 17

Upload: others

Post on 24-Jan-2022

6 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: aerial - FWS

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Categorical Exclusion Screening Form

Environmental Action Statement

I. HCP Information

A. HCP Name: General Conservation Plan for Cultivation Activities in Santa Barbara County

B. Affected Species: Santa Barbara County distinct population segment (DPS) of the Californiatiger salamander (Ambystoma cahforniense)

C. RCP Size (in stream miles and/or acres): The Planning Area spans 30,835 acres, but onlypermanent impacts or loss of 5,325 acres resulting from the Covered Activitieswould be permitted under the General Conservation Plan.

D. Brief Project Description (including minimization and mitigation plans):

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) developed this General Conservation Plan(GCP or Plan) to provide an efficient and effective permitting mechanism for privatelandowners engaged in horticulture activities to meet statutory and regulatoryrequirements while promoting conservation of California tiger salamander.

This GCP is focused on horticulture within the Santa Rita and Purisima Hillsmetapopulation areas for the California tiger salamander in Santa Barbara County,California. Project proponents engaged in actions described as “Covered Activities” inthis document may participate through the GCP. This document specifies the type ofincidental take anticipated to occur over the duration of the GCP, minimization andmitigation requirements, and all other measures necessary to meet permit issuance criteriadescribed in Section 1 0(a)(2)(B) of the Act. Project proponents that choose to participatein the GCP and meet issuance criteria would subsequently be granted a permit throughthe GCP. Permits issued under the GCP will cover only incidental take associated withconstruction, operations, and maintenance activities for up to 20 years afier Permitissuance.

The Planning Area consists of the Santa Rita and Purisima Hills metapopulation areas forthe Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tiger salamander. The entire PlanningArea is 30,835 acres. The Planning Area includes undeveloped land, agricultural lands,and rural and urban development; grazing, row crops and vineyards are the dominant landuses. The Planning Area encompasses diverse habitats, resources, and degrees ofdevelopment. The Covered Activities would not affect all lands within the Planning Area.

The Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tiger salamander is the only speciesaddressed in this plan. The California tiger salamander occupies both aquatic and uplandhabitats within the Planning Area. The Planning Area includes 75 pond featuresidentified on the Service’s California tiger salamander map (Service 2019). Of thesefeatures, 27 are known breeding ponds in which California tiger salamander breeding

Page 1 of 17

Page 2: aerial - FWS

activity has been documented. The remaining 48 pond features were mapped using aerialimagery, project-specific data, and data provided by landowners or project proponents.

The undeveloped habitat in the Planning Area contains small mammal burrows and,therefore, is suitable upland California tiger salamander habitat. All areas within 1.3miles of the 75 known and potential breeding ponds is assumed to be occupied by thespecies unless surveys, completed in accordance with the Interim Guidance on SiteAssessment and Field Surveys for Determining Presence of a Negative Finding of theCalifornia Tiger Salamander (Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife2003), support a negative finding. California tiger salamander critical habitat Unit 5:Purisima and Unit 6: Santa Rita Valley occur within the Planning Area. The followingfigure shows the known and potential California tiger salamander breeding ponds, a 1.3-mile buffer around each of the breeding ponds, and the critical habitat units within thePlanning Area.

These goals are developed based upon the species’ biology, threats to the species, thepotential effects of the Covered Activities, and the scope of the conservation plan.

Goal 1: Avoid and minimize take and related disturbance to the California tigersalamander and its habitat within the project areas.

Objective 1.1 Avoid and minimize the potential for migrating Californiatiger salamanders to come in contact with project related equipment or beadversely affected as a result of ground disturbing activities.

Objective 1.2 Remove any California tiger salamanders from impactareas by performing surveys prior to and, if necessary, duringconstruction, and relocate any individuals to suitable habitat outsideimpact areas.

Objective 1.3 Site project impacts in areas outside of occupied andsuitable habitat for the California tiger salamander to the maximum extentfeasible.

Objective 1.4 Restore disturbed areas to original conditions, as feasible,to emulate the previous conditions.

Goal 2: Preserve, maintain, and restore occupied and suitable aquatic and uplandhabitat for California tiger salamander in the Planning Area.

Objective 2.1 Maintain or increase the value of all aquatic habitats inproject or mitigation areas known to support or with potential to supportthe California tiger salamander.

Page 2 of 17

Page 3: aerial - FWS

Objective 2.2 Maintain or increase the suitable and accessible uplandhabitat adjacent to all known or potential breeding ponds in project ormitigation areas for California tiger salamander.

Objective 2.3 Eliminate or reduce non-native wildlife that depredatesCalifornia tiger salamander in known and potential upland and aquatichabitat within the Planning Area.

Objective 2.4 Control hybrid California tiger salamanders in aquatichabitat.

Goal 3: Provide compensatory mitigation to help meet recovery criteria and/orsupport long-term viability of the California tiger salamander.

Objective 3.1 To mitigate impacts to the California tiger salamander,applicants will protect and manage habitat to ensure conservation benefitsfor the species.

Measures to Avoid and Minimize Impacts

1. During the project planning phase, applicants will site all impacts as far away fromknown and potential California tiger salamander breeding habitats and avoid highquality upland and dispersal habitat as possible.

2. At least 15 days prior to ground-disturbing activities, the applicant will submit thenames and credentials of biologists and monitors to the Service for approval toconduct the minimization measures outlined below. Excluding an emergency activity,no project activities will begin until the applicant has received notice from the Servicethat the biologists and monitors are approved to do the work.

3. A Service-approved biologist will conduct a biological resources training program forall construction workers and their contractors to minimize potential impacts to theCalifornia tiger salamander and sensitive habitats. Training will occur prior to initialground disturbing activities and be repeated, annually and as needed for new workersfor the duration of each project covered by the permit. The training program will bereviewed and approved by the Service and will include a description of: (1) importantbiological resources within their project site, specifically California tiger salamanderthat have potential to occur within or adjacent to work areas; (2) the applicableavoidance and minimization measures; (3) the roles and responsibilities of personnel;and (4) communication protocols if California tiger salamanders are detected.Applicants who submit their training programs along with their permit applicationsshould expect to receive an approval at the time they receive their Permit. Applicantswho submit their training programs after they submit their permit application shouldexpect to receive an approval within 30 days of receipt of the training program.

Page 3 of 17

Page 4: aerial - FWS

4. A Service-approved biologist will periodically review and monitor ground disturbingactivities and restoration efforts and will be responsible for ensuring that conditionsof approval are being enforced and that success criteria are being met. Except foremergency situations, a Service-approved biologist will have the authority totemporarily halt activities if permit requirements and conditions are not being met.

5. Prior to ground disturbing activities, all grading limits and construction boundaries,including staging areas, parking, and stockpile areas, will be delineated and clearlymarked in the field. All suitable California tiger salamander habitat located within 10feet of ground disturbing activities will be delineated with specific sensitive specieslabeling (e.g., permanent signage stating “No Entry — Sensitive Habitat.”). Aservice-approved biologist(s) will work with the Service to identify these areas.

6. All proposed linear routes (i.e., roads and pipelines) will be reviewed and modified, ifnecessary, in the field to minimize impacts to the California tiger salamander withassistance by the on-site biologist or environmental monitor.

7. Personnel will limit their vehicle use to existing routes of travel. Travelling offdesignated roads will be prohibited unless access is determined critical for a particularactivity and the route has been flagged to avoid or minimize adverse effects.

8. To minimize the potential for road mortality of California tiger salamander and theirhabitat, nighttime traffic will be minimized during the ground-disturbing phase to theextent feasible; all hauling activities within habitat for covered wildlife will berestricted to daylight hours, defined as the hours after sunrise and before sunset.

9. Except in areas with posted speed limits greater than 10 miles-per-hour, project-related vehicle speeds will not exceed 10 miles-per-hour when driving withinCalifornia tiger salamander habitat.

10. Prior to moving vehicles or equipment, personnel will look under the vehicles orequipment for the presence of California tiger salamanders. If a California tigersalamander or any other wildlife species is observed, the vehicle will not be moveduntil the animal has vacated the area on its own accord or has been relocated out ofharm’s way in accordance with Measure 12.

11. A Service-approved biologist will conduct pre-activity surveys of California tigersalamander habitat within project disturbance boundaries immediately prior to theonset of any ground disturbance associated with the project to determine if anyCalifornia tiger salamander individuals are present, and to refine the final habitatmitigation acreages. The Service-approved biologist will monitor ground-disturbingactivities in the vicinity of habitats to be avoided. Upon completion of initial grounddisturbance, the biologist or monitor will periodically (minimum twice per week) visitthe project site throughout the ground-disturbing period to ensure that impacts to theproject site are in compliance with the permit. After periods of rain, a Serviceapproved biologist will conduct daily pre-activity surveys to ensure no California

Page 4 of 17

Page 5: aerial - FWS

tiger salamanders have migrated into the work area prior to ground disturbingactivities resuming. No construction work will be initiated until a Service-approvedbiologist determines that the work area is clear of California tiger salarnanders.Should any California tiger salamanders be observed within harm’s way, the animalwill be allowed to vacate the area on its own accord or be relocated in accordancewith Measure 12.

12. Any California tiger salamander or individuals of other wildlife species will beallowed to vacate the project areas on its own accord under the observation of aService-approved biologist. If any California tiger salamanders or individuals of otherwildlife species does not relocate on their own, or if they are in harm’s way, they willbe relocated out of harm’s way to nearby suitable habitat, similar to that in which itwas found, and outside the project area. Only a Service-approved biologist willrelocate California tiger salamanders. The biologists conducting relocation activitieswill follow the Declining Amphibian Task Force fieldwork Code of Practice(https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/NewMexico/documents/SP/DecliningAmphibian_Task_Force_Fieldwork_Code_of_Practice.pdO.

A Service-approved biologist will relocate any California tiger salamanders foundwithin the project footprint to an active rodent burrow system located no more than300 feet outside of the project area unless otherwise approved by the Service. Theindividuals will be handled with clean and wet hands. During relocation they will beplaced in a clean, covered plastic container with a wet non-cellulose sponge. Capturedindividuals will be relocated immediately; individuals will not be stored for lengthyperiods or in heated areas. The relocation container will be kept out of direct sunlight.

A Service-approved biologist will monitor relocated California tiger salamandersuntil they enter a burrow and are concealed underground or otherwise deemed safe inthe relocation area by the biologist. Relocation areas will be identified by the Service-approved biologist based on the best suitable habitat available. The Service-approvedbiologist will document both the capture site and the relocation site by photographsand GPS positions. The California tiger salamander will be photographed andmeasured (Snout-Vent) for identification purposes prior to relocation. Alldocumentation will be provided to the Service within 24 hours of relocation.

13. Rodent burrows within the project areas that overlap California tiger salamanderhabitat will be excavated by a Service-approved biologist using hand tools until it iscertain that the burrows are unoccupied. In lieu of burrow excavation, steel plates orplywood may also be utilized to protect small mammal burrows from grounddisturbance. Plates and plywood will be removed nightly and will be removed if workis scheduled to cease for consecutive days. Any individual California tigersalamanders that are encountered will be allowed to vacate the area on their ownaccord or be relocated out of harm’s way in accordance with Measure 12.

14. Exclusionary silt fencing (or other suitable fence material) will be installed at thediscretion of a Service-approved biologist to minimize the potential for California

Page 5 ofl7

Page 6: aerial - FWS

tiger salarnanders to enter the worksite. Exclusionary fencing will be maintained forthe duration of the project. If a California tiger salamander or other wildlife species isobserved within an enclosed worksite, a portion of the fencing will be removed toallow the individual to vacate the area on its own. Alternatively, the animal may berelocated out of harm’s way in accordance with Measure 12.

15. All construction and sediment control fencing will be inspected each work day duringconstruction activities to ensure they are functioning properly.

16. Steep-walled excavations (e.g., trenches) that may act as pitfall traps will be inspectedfor wildlife at least once per day and immediately before backfilling. In lieu of dailyinspections (weekends, etc.), exclusionary fencing, covers, ramps, or similarmeasures will be taken to prevent wildlife entrapment.

17. Open pipe segments will be capped or sealed with tape (or equivalent material)nightly, or otherwise stored at least three feet above ground. Should a pipe segmentbecome occupied by a California tiger salamander or any other wildlife species, theanimal will be allowed to vacate the pipe on its own or will be removed and relocatedin accordance with Measure 12.

18. If covered activities must occur during the rainy season, permittees will not workduring rain events, 4$ hours prior to significant rain events (more than 0.5 inch), orduring the 48 hours after these events, to the extent practicable. If work must occur 48hours prior to significant rain events (more than 0.5 inch), or during the 4$ hours afterthese events, a Service-approved biologist will conduct a pre-activity survey to ensurethat the work area is clear (refer to Measure 10 above).

19. The applicant will ensure that all staging areas, equipment storage areas, stockpilesites, and refueling areas are located at least 100 feet from surface water bodies andwetland habitats to minimize the potential for releases into surface water or wetlandhabitat. In lieu of the 100-foot buffer, secondary containment measures may beemployed to prevent contamination of soil and water.

20. When working in areas with a predominance of native plants, the upper layer oftopsoil material (6 inches) will be segregated during excavations to preserve the seedbank. The preserved topsoil will be covered to protect it from erosion and invasion ofnon-native plants until completion of the activity, when the topsoil will be replaced inthe affected area. Existing access roads are not subject to this measure.

21. Disturbed areas will be restored and stabilized to reflect pre-existing contours andgradients to the extent practicable. Erosion and sediment controls (e.g., silt fences,fiber rolls, sandbags) will be installed, where necessary, utilizing weed-free materialsin areas with a predominance of native plants. Where necessary, restored areas will bemaintained and monitored, including weed removal (focused on noxious weeds andexcluding non-native annual grasses). All planting and seeding will occur the first

Page 6 of 17

Page 7: aerial - FWS

year after construction is complete, after the first significant rain event of the year(i.e., more than 0.25 inches of precipitation

22. Upon locating California tiger salamander individuals that may be dead or injured asa result of project-related activities, notification will be made within 72 hours to theService Ventura Field Office at ($05) 644-1766.

For projects that have unavoidable adverse impacts on the California tiger salamanderand/or its habitats, mitigation is needed to compensate for impacts to these species.Mitigation would be undertaken in a strategic way such that it contributes to meeting therecovery criteria in the affected population. The amount of compensatory mitigation tooffset a proposed project’s impacts should be determined by assessing a project’s level ofimpacts to California tiger salamanders and its habitat.

Applicants may purchase credits from an approved conservation bank commensuratewith the required mitigation, to provide compensation for impacts to California tigersalamanders. Performance and success criteria for providing compensation for impacts tothe California tiger salamander will be deemed to have been met upon purchase of suchcredits.

In order to determine how many credits an applicant must purchase, the applicant mustcalculate the loss of reproductive value that would result from their project. The Servicehas calculated the average reproductive value of one credit at approved conservationbanks as a means to determine how many credits a project proponent must purchase tooffset the loss in reproductive value resulting from a project. An applicant must purchaseas many credits needed to reach a mitigation ratio of 1:1 for reproductive value. Forexample, if a credit at a conservation bank has a reproductive value of 100 and a projectresults in a reproductive loss of 200, that project proponent must purchase two creditsfrom that bank to offset the loss in reproductive value. Project proponents that areproposing to purchase mitigation credits from a conservation bank should coordinate withthe Service to ensure they are using the correct reproductive value of one credit from theconservation bank in which the project proponent proposes to purchase credits from.

Applicants may also acquire compensation land to satisfy compensation requirements forimpacts to the California tiger salamander. Compensation land must be acquired prior toinitiating ground-disturbing activities within the Planning Area and financial assurancesmust be provided to ensure ftrnding for the long-term management of the compensationlands. All compensation land must be recorded, managed and maintained and endowed inperpetuity prior to the onset of ground-disturbing activities. The compensation land willconserve sufficient reproductive value, as addressed in the Conservation Strategy andMitigation Guidance for the California tiger salamander (Service 2016), to offset theimpacts to the California tiger salamander. As stated above, a mitigation ratio of 1:1 [ascalculated in Searcy and Shaffer (2008)] will be required for impacts to California tigersalamanders and their habitat. In other words, the reproductive value of habitat proposedfor mitigation should equal the calculated reproductive value of the impacted habitat.When potentially suitable compensation land is identified, the applicant will prepare and

Page 7 of 17

Page 8: aerial - FWS

submit a report to the Service outlining the suitability of the land for compensatorypurposes. Once the Service agrees to the suitability of the compensatory land and the landis placed into conserved status, the performance and success criteria for the provision ofonsite compensation lands will be deemed to have been met.

For permittee-responsible onsite or offsite mitigation, applicants will provide for thelong-term monitoring and management of the compensation lands by providing initialfunding for a long-term, non-wasting endowment. All compensation land must beprotected under a perpetual Conservation Easement and be recorded, managed andmaintained and endowed in perpetuity prior to the onset of ground-disturbing activities.Applicants must develop a management plan for mitigation lands to be included in aConservation Easement. The management plan provides for: 1) annual easementinspections, which will generate up-to-date information on the Easement Area’s overallcondition and biological resources; 2) periodic biological monitoring, which will generatedetailed data describing onsite species: including population abundance, condition ofhabitat and condition of related human infrastructure, particularly water impoundmentstructures; 3) management, maintenance and enhancement tasks, which will ensure thesustainability of these resources and the health of the species’ habitat; and 4) annualreports, which will summarize maintenance and management activities undertaken duringthe previous year, and provide an opportunity to creatively consider future needs andadaptive responses.

Monitoring

Monitoring tracks compliance with the terms and conditions of the HCP and incidentaltake permit. There are three types of monitoring: (1) compliance monitoring tracks thepermit holder’s compliance with the requirements specified in the GCP, ImplementingAgreement, and permit; (2) effects monitoring tracks the impacts of the covered activitieson the California tiger salamander; and (3) effectiveness monitoring tracks the progressof the conservation strategy in meeting the HCP’s biological goals and objectives(includes species surveys, reproductive success, etc.). Monitoring provides informationfor making adaptive management decisions.

Compliance Monitoring

Compliance monitoring will be implemented via onsite construction monitoring, dailymonitoring logs, and preparation of a post-construction compliance report.

Effects Monitoring

To quantify the incidental take at the end of the project, a biologist will measure thedisturbance footprint (with sub-meter GPS) and count the number of individualCalifornia tiger salamanders that were found and translocated, or injured or killed duringconstruction.

Page 8 of 17

Page 9: aerial - FWS

Effectiveness Monitoring

The effectiveness of the conservation strategy will be determined during monitoring ofinitial ground-disturbing activities and periodic follow-up visits for onsite constructionmonitoring and daily monitoring logs. The post-construction compliance report willinclude an evaluation of the effectiveness of the Avoidance, Minimization, andMitigation Measures. Permittees are responsible for management, monitoring, andreporting the biological monitoring on mitigation land for which the Permittee isresponsible. Management, monitoring, and reporting the biological monitoring onConservation Banks or other mitigation land is the responsibility of the banker or thirdparty that is holds the easement on the mitigation land, respectively. Other than thebiological monitoring that is being conducted on the mitigation land, the Service willmonitor and evaluate biological effectiveness of the GCP through review of annualreports and subsequent surveys for listed species. Permittees will allow Service staff, orother persons designated by the Service, to access the property at any reasonable hour forthe purpose of monitoring California tiger salamander populations or trapping Californiatiger salamanders (50 CfR 13.47). Permittees will monitor restoration on project siteswith temporary impacts to ensure that restoration goals are achieved. Results will beincluded in annual reports and restoration reports as described in the Reporting section ofthis document.

II. Does the HCP fit the following Department of Interior and Fish and Wildlife Servicecategorical-exclusion criteria?

A. Are the effects of the HCP minor or negligible on federally listed, proposed, orcandidate species and their habitats covered under the HCP?

Yes, the effects of the Plan are minor on the federally listed California tiger salamander and itshabitat. Incidental take permits issued under the Plan would only be issued for projects resultingin impacts to California tiger salamander upland habitat; no breeding habitat would be impactedas a result of projects pursuing incidental take permits under the Plan.

Applicants seeking take coverage under the Plan would minimize and mitigate to the maximumextent practicable. The GCP includes avoidance and minimization measures, which wouldreduce impacts to individual California tiger salamander including excavating burrows to locateand remove California tiger salamanders from the project area to areas of equal or higher habitatvalue. Applicants would also propose mitigation that not only meets the Service’s permitissuance criteria to minimize and mitigate the impacts of the taking, to the maximum extentpracticable, support and further recovery of the Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tigersalamander.

Page 9 of 17

Page 10: aerial - FWS

B. Are the effects of the HCP minor or negligible on all other components of thehuman environment, including environmental values and environmental resources (e.g. airquality, geology and soils, water quality and quantity, socio-economic, cultural resources,recreation, visual resources, environmental justice, etc.), after implementation of theminimization and mitigation measures?

Yes, the effects of the Plan are minor or negligible on all other components of the humanenvironment, including environmental values and environmental resources. Even though theGCP planning area spans 30,835 acres, impacts to or loss of 5,325 would be permitted under thePlan. The covered activities are consistent with the dominant allowable land uses in the area,which are field crops, vineyard, and grazing. Because the covered activities are consistent withhistoric and current land uses in the area and these land uses have minor or negligible effects onall other components of the human environment, including environmental values andenvironmental resources, we anticipate effects from similar, continued land uses would havesimilar effects.

The development of agricultural structures are included as a covered activity in the GCP.Agricultural structures are directly accessory, ancillary and secondary to the agricultural use ofthe property. These features are generally small and of insignificant size relative to theagricultural, vineyard, or grazing activities occurring on the property. These structures aresubject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), whichwould include assessment of the project’s potential impacts to the human environment.

A public agency must comply with CEQA when it undertakes an activity defined by CEQA as a“project.” A project is an activity undertaken by a public agency or a private activity, which mustreceive some discretionary approval from a government agency that may cause either a directphysical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect change in theenvironment. In Santa Barbara County, such “projects” include the construction of agriculturalstructures, water wells, tasting rooms, etc. Development of these structures and features areincluded as covered activities in the GCP and would require environmental review under CEQA.

CEQA requires state and local agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts of theiractions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible. At a minimum, CEQA requires reviewof the project and its environmental effects. CEQA requires the lead agency to identify each“significant effect on the environment” resulting from the project and ways to mitigate eachsignificant effect. If the project may have a significant effect on any environmental resource,then an EIR must be prepared. Each and every significant effect on the environment must bedisclosed in the EIR and mitigated if feasible. The Service anticipates situations where less-thansignificant impacts under CEQA would result in significant impact under NEPA are veryunlikely. If a situation arises where significant effects occur under CEQA, the Service wouldensure that this NEPA document is adequate for that specific project and, if not, additionalNEPA review would be required.

CEQA does not apply to agriculture (including the conversion of grazing land to agriculture) inSanta Barbara County. However, as we mentioned above, the Service anticipates the conversionof grazing land to agriculture would have minor or negligible on all other components of the

Page 10 of 17

Page 11: aerial - FWS

human environment because these agriculture-related activities are consistent with currentzoning which have resulted in minor or negligible effects on all components of the humanenvironment.

All Federal agencies are required to examine the potential impacts to cultural resources thatcould result from the implementation of their actions (e.g., permit issuance). This requiresconsultation with the State Historic Preservation Office and appropriate federally recognizedNative American tribes. With the approval and implementation of the proposed GCP, allApplicants would be required to submit a Request for Cultural Resources Compliance Form tothe Service for each of the proposed project that require coverage of take. Furthermore, Culturalresources impacts would continue to be assessed on a project-by-project basis under CEQA, asapplicable, and land use approval(s) for individual projects would continue to be theresponsibility of the local or state agency(ies) with the appropriate land use jurisdiction(s) overindividual project site(s). Any individual project with the potential to impact cultural resourceswould be required to obtain all appropriate permits and comply with all required permitconditions, completely separate from ESA compliance.

C. Would the incremental impacts of this HCP, considered together with theimpacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions (regardless ofwhat agency or person undertakes such other actions) not result, over time, in a cumulativeeffects to the human environment (the natural and physical environment) which would beconsidered significant?

Yes, the incremental impacts of the Plan, considered together with the impacts of other past,present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not result in cumulative effects to thehuman environment, which would be considered significant. Even though the GCP planning areaspans 30,835 acres, impacts to or loss of 5,325 would be permitted under the Plan. The coveredactivities are consistent with the dominant allowable land uses in the area, which are field crops,vineyard, and grazing. Because the proposed Plan is consistent with historic and current landuses in the area that have minor or negligible effects on all other components of the humanenvironment, including environmental values and environmental resources, we anticipate effectsfrom similar, continued land uses would have minor or negligible effects on all othercomponents of the human environment, including environmental values and environmentalresources. Additionally, potential impacts to the human environment would continue to beassessed on a project-by-project basis under CEQA, as applicable, and land use approval(s) forindividual projects would continue to be the responsibility of the local or state agencies with theappropriate land use jurisdiction(s) over an individual project site.

Page 11 of 17

Page 12: aerial - FWS

III. Do any of the exceptions to categorical exclusions (extraordinary circumstances) listedin 43 CFR 46.215 apply to this HCP?

Would implementation of the HCP:

A. Have significant impacts on public health or safety?

No significant impacts on public health or safety would occur as a result of implementation ofthe GCP or the issuance of permits under the GCP. We do not anticipate permits issued under thePlan, which would cover activities associated with farming and agriculture operations, wouldhave significant impacts on public health or safety. The Covered Activities are consistent withthe dominant allowable land uses in the area, which are field crops, vineyard, and grazing.Because the proposed Plan is consistent with historic and current land uses in the area and theseland uses (and associated activities such farming, cattle grazing, harvesting, etc.) have not hadsignificant impacts on public health or safety, we anticipate effects from similar, continued landuses would not have significant impacts on public health or safety.

Traffic could increase as a result of winery tasting rooms or other similar facilities that are partof projects that would seek take coverage through this Plan. Many agricultural facilities,including wineries that attract visitors, are located along Highway 246 that runs through thesouthern portion of the Planning Area. This road is currently used as a means to access wineriesin the Planning Area. While traffic could increase, we do not anticipate it would increase to alevel that would have a significant impact on public health and safety.

B. Have significant impacts on such natural resources and unique geographiccharacteristics as: historic or cultural resources; park, recreation, or refuge lands;wilderness areas; wild or scenic rivers; national natural landmarks; sole or principaldrinking water aquifers; prime farmlands; wetlands (Executive Order 11990) orfloodplains (Executive Order 1198$); national monuments; migratory birds, eagles, orother ecologically significant or critical resources?

No, implementation of the Plan would not have significant impacts on such natural resources andunique geographic characteristics as: historic or cultural resources; park, recreation, or refugelands; wilderness areas; wild or scenic rivers; national natural landmarks; sole or principaldrinking water aquifers; prime farmlands; wetlands (Executive Order 11990) or floodplains(Executive Order 1198$); national monuments; migratory birds, eagles, or other ecologicallysignificant or critical resource. Permits issued under the Plan would cover activities associatedwith farming and other agriculture-related activities on privately owned lands. Such activities onprivately owned land with the planning area do not have the potential to impact theaforementioned natural resources and unique geographic characteristics.

Page 12 of 17

Page 13: aerial - FWS

C. Have highly controversial environmental effects (defined at 43 CFR 46.30), orinvolve unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources [see NEPAsection 102(2)(E)J?

No, implementation of the Plan would not have highly controversial environmental effects orinvolve unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources. Permits issuedunder the Plan would cover activities associated with farming and other agriculture-relatedactivities. The covered activities are consistent with the current allowable land uses in the area,which are field crops, vineyard, and grazing. Because the proposed Plan is consistent withhistoric and current land uses in the area that have not had highly controversial environmentaleffects or involve unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources, weanticipate effects from similar, continued land uses would not have highly controversialenvironmental effects or involve unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of availableresources.

D. Have highly uncertain and potentially significant environmental effects, orinvolve unique or unknown environmental risks?

No, implementation of the Plan would not have highly controversial environmental effects orinvolve unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources. Permits issuedunder the Plan would cover activities associated with farming and other agriculture-relatedactivities. The covered activities are consistent with the current allowable land uses in the area,which are field crops, vineyard, and grazing. Because the proposed Plan is consistent withhistoric and current land uses in the area that have not had uncertain and potentially significantenvironmental effects, or involve unique or unknown environmental risks, we anticipate effectsfrom similar, continued land uses would not have not had uncertain and potentially significantenvironmental effects, or involve unique or unknown environmental risks.

E. Establish a precedent for future action or represent a decision in principle aboutfuture actions with potentially significant environmental effects?

No, implementation of this Plan would not establish a precedent for future action or represent adecision in principle about future actions with potentially significant negative environmentaleffects. On the contrary, implementation of this Plan would set support a positive change anddecrease negative environmental effects that have occurred or are occurring in the planning area.Agriculture activities and the conversion of grazing land to agriculture is not regulated by theCounty, which makes it difficult to proactively engage with project proponents or landownersthat have projects that could impact listed species. Therefore, the Service developed the GCP tohelp work with landowners that are engaged in such activities and help facilitate issuance ofincidental take permits, when appropriate, and secure meaningful, appropriate conservation forthe California tiger salamander.

Permits issued under the Plan would cover activities associated with farming and otheragriculture-related activities. The covered activities are consistent with the current allowable landuses in the area, which are field crops, vineyard, and grazing. Because the proposed Plan isconsistent with historic and current land uses in the area, it would not establish a precedent for

Page 13 of 17

Page 14: aerial - FWS

future action or represent a decision in principle about future actions with potentially significantenvironmental effects.

F. Have a direct relationship to other actions with individually insignificant butcumulatively significant environmental effects?

No, implementation of this Plan does not have a direct relationship to other actions withindividually insignificant but cumulatively significant environmental effects. The GCP does havedirect relationship to other actions because the Service will issue multiple incidental take permitsunder this Plan, but these actions would not rise to a level of cumulatively significantenvironmental effects. The GCP allows impacts to or loss of 5,325 acres within the planningarea. The covered activities are consistent with the dominant allowable land uses in the area,which are field crops, vineyard, and grazing. Because the proposed Plan is consistent withhistoric and current land uses in the area that have not had cumulatively significantenvironmental effects, we anticipate effects from similar, continued land uses would also nothave cumulative impacts that would rise to the level of resulting in significant environmentaleffects.

G. Have significant impacts on properties listed, or eligible for listing, on theNational Register of Historic Places?

No, implementation of the Plan would not have significant impacts on properties listed oreligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places because none of these sites occurwithin the Planning Area.

H. Have significant impacts on species listed, or proposed to be listed, on the List ofEndangered or Threatened Species, or have significant impacts on designated CriticalHabitat for these species?

No, implementation of this plan would not have significant impacts on species listed, orproposed to be listed, on the List of Endangered or Threatened Species, or have significantimpacts on designated critical habitat for these species. Incidental take permits issued under thePlan would only be issued for projects resulting in impacts to California tiger salamander uplandhabitat; no breeding habitat would be impacted under the Plan. Projects seeking take coverageunder the plan would have to propose mitigation that not only meets the Service’s permitissuance criteria to minimize and mitigate the impacts of the taking, to the maximum extentpracticable, support and further recovery of the Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tigersalamander as stated in Chapter 5: Conservation Strategy in the GCP.

The Santa Rita and La Purisima Hills critical habitat units for the Santa Barbara County DP$ ofthe California tiger salamander are located in the Planning Area. Implementation of the GCP andthe issuance of incidental take permit under the Plan could result in the permanent loss of habitatwithin the boundaries of critical habitat. The following table shows the amount of temporary andpermanent impacts that are allowed within each critical habitat unit under this Plan.

Page 14 of 17

Page 15: aerial - FWS

Available. . . . . . California Tiger AllowedCalifornia Tiger Critical Habitat Allowed Permanent

. . . . Salamander . TemporarySalamander Critical Unit Size . . . Impacts to Habitat. . Habitat within each Impacts toHabitat Unit (Acres) . . . (Acres)

Critical Habitat Habitat (Acres)Unit_(Acres)

PurisimaHills 1,957 1,957 230 119

Santa Rita Valley 638 594 293 146

Per the final critical habitat designation, the physical or biological features (PBFs) within thedefined area that are essential to the conservation of the species include:

1. Standing bodies of fresh water, including natural and man-made (e.g., stock) ponds,vernal poois, and dune ponds, and other ephemeral or permanent water bodies thattypically become inundated during winter rains and hold water for a sufficient length oftime (i.e., 12 weeks) necessary for the species to complete the aquatic portion of its lifecycle;

2. Barrier-free uplands adjacent to breeding ponds that contain small mammal burrows.Small mammals are essential in creating the underground habitat that adult Californiatiger salamanders depend upon for food, shelter, and protection from the elements andpredation; and

3. Upland areas between breeding locations (PBF 1) and areas with small mammal burrows(PBF 2) that allow for dispersal among such sites (69 FR 685$).

Significant impacts on designated critical habitat for the California tiger salamander would notoccur as a result of implementation of the GCP or the issuance of incidental take permits underthe GCP because no impacts to California tiger salamander breeding habitat (PBF 1) are allowedunder the plan and the impacts to upland habitat containing small mammal burrows (PBF 2) anddispersal habitat (PBF 3) would be limited to the amounts shown in the table above. Achievingrecovery of California tiger salamander in the Purisirna Hills and Santa Rita Valley relies onhabitat and ponds outside areas designated as critical habitat. Projects seeking take coverageunder the plan would have to propose mitigation that supports and furthers recovery of the SantaBarbara County DPS of the California tiger salamander.

I. Violate a Federal law, or a State, local, or tribal law, or a requirement imposedfor the protection of the environment.

No, implementation of the Plan would not violate a Federal law, or a State, local, or tribal law, ora requirement imposed for the protection of the environment. Permits issued under the planwould only cover activities that are otherwise lawful activities and, therefore, would not coveractivities that violate any laws.

Page 15 of 17

Page 16: aerial - FWS

J. Have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on low income or minoritypopulations (Executive Order 1289$).

No, implementation of the Plan would not have a disproportionately high and adverse effect onlow income or minority populations (Executive Order 12898).

K. Limit access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites on Federal lands byIndian religious practitioners or significantly adversely affect the physical integrity of suchsacred sites (Executive Order 13007).

No, implementation of the Plan would not limit access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacredsites on Federal lands by Indian religious practitioners or significantly adversely affect thephysical integrity of such sacred sites (Executive Order 13007) because none of these sites occurwithin the Planning Area.

L. Contribute to the introduction, continued existence, or spread of noxious weedsor non-native invasive species known to occur in the area or actions that may promote theintroduction, growth, or expansion of the range of such species (Federal Noxious WeedControl Act and Executive Order 13112).

No, implementation of the Plan or issuance of incidental take permits under the GCP would notcontribute to the introduction, continued existence, or spread of noxious weeds or non-nativeinvasive species known to occur in the area or actions that may promote the introduction,growth, or expansion of the range of such species. The Covered Activities are consistent with thedominant allowable land uses in the area, which are field crops, vineyard, and grazing. Becausethe proposed Plan is consistent with historic and current land uses in the area and these land uses(and associated activities such farming, cattle grazing, harvesting, etc.) have not contributed tothe introduction, continued existence, or spread of noxious weeds or non-native invasive speciesknown to occur in the area or actions that may promote the introduction, growth, or expansion ofthe range of such species, we anticipate effects from similar, continued land uses would notcontributed to the introduction, continued existence, or spread of noxious weeds or non-nativeinvasive species known to occur in the, area or actions that may promote the introduction,growth, or expansion of the range of such species.

Page 16 of 17

Page 17: aerial - FWS

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION STATEMENT [This may be placed elsewhere in a casefile according to Regional procedures.]

Within the spirit and intent of the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations forimplementing the National Environmental Policy Act and other statues, orders, and policies thatprotect fish and wildlife resources, I have established the following administrative record.

Based on the information and analysis above, I determine that the proposed action of approvingthe General Conservation Plan for Cultivation Activities in Santa Barbara County and theissuance of incidental take permits under the General Conservation Plan qualifies for acategorical exclusion, as defined in 40 CFR 1508.4 and in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceHabitat Conservation Planning Handbook furthermore, no extraordinary circumstancesidentified in 43 CfR 46.215 exist for the approval of the General Conservation Plan forCultivation Activities in Santa Barbara County or the issuance of incidental take permits underthe General Conservation Plan. Therefore, the Service’s action of approving the GeneralConservation Plan for Cultivation Activities in Santa Barbara County and the issuance ofincidental take permits under the General Conservation Plan is categorically excluded fromfurther NEPA review and documentation, as provided by 40 CfR 1507.3; 43 CfR 46.205; 43CfR 46.215; 516 DM 3; 516 DM 8.5; and 550 FW 3.3C. A more extensive NEPA process isunwarranted, and no further NEPA documentation will be made.

Other supporting documents:

General Conservation Plan for Cultivation Activities in Santa Barbara County

Signature Approval:

field Supervisor

Page 17 of 17

Page 18: aerial - FWS