Comment Letter No. 4 California Department of Fish and Wildlife March 29, 2016 4-1. This comment provides a general description of the proposed NCOS Restoration Project and an introduction to comments provided below. No response is necessary. 4-2. Table 2.5-1 is part of the MND s Project Description and it is not the purpose of the Project Description to describe existing environmental conditions at the project site. MND Section 5.4.1 (Biological Resources Setting) provides a comprehensive description of the existing plant/habitat communities on the project site, and Figure 5.4-1 (Project Site Habitat Types) depicts the location of on-site plant communities. 4-3. The Total Acres with Project column of Table 2.5-1 only depicts habitat areas that would be created by the Project, and only 106 of the 136-acre project site would be disturbed by proposed grading activities for the purpose of creating restored wetland and upland habitat. Of the 106 acres that would be graded to accommodate proposed restoration activities, 39.5 acres are on the South Parcel, and 65.5 acres are on the former golf course and Whittier parcels. Weeding will be the main activities conducted on the undisturbed 30-acre portion of the project site (27.3 acres on the South Parcel and 2.2 acres on the Whittier parcel). Existing habitat on the South Parcel will not be entirely removed as indicated by this comment. Habitat types to be preserved on the South Parcel include: coastal sage scrub affiliates (3.53 ac); annual grass and herbs (12.33 ac); taller weeds (17.65 ac); perennial native grass (0.89 ac); bare ground (1.72 ac); trees (1.11 ac); non-native turf grass (0.11 ac); and the existing eucalyptus woodland. 4-4. The MND did evaluate the potential for proposed construction-related activities to impact on-site wildlife species that may be located in annual grassland. Section 5.4.2d states, in part: Project-related construction operations could temporarily reduce wildlife movement that does occur through the project site, however, construction would be conducted in phases, which would minimize the potential for short-term wildlife movement impacts. The proposed long-term habitat enhancements would increase habitat value and provide forage and cover that would enhance the potential for wildlife movement through the site. Since the removal of annual grassland from the South Parcel would not result in significant impacts to any known sensitive plant or animal species or their habitats (see MND Sections 5.4.2a and 5.4.2c) impacts to on-site species were considered to be short-term and less than significant, and no mitigation measures were required. In addition, as described in Response 4.3 above a substantial area (27.3 acres) of existing habitat would be preserved on the South Parcel, and that area would be enhanced by proposed weeding activities.
Page 2 In regard to wildlife species on the project site that birds may feed on, on-site wildlife resources are being assessed through a variety of on-going and previously completed studies including: an invertebrate study that is on-going; a winter and spring raptor and breeding bird survey that builds on two years (2012-2014) of previous bird surveys conducted on the project site; and a cover board survey that found very few organisms other than western fence lizards and argentine ants. For the cover board study (8/31/2012 9/1/ 2014) 26 cover boards were opened every other week over a two year period, resulting in 1,351 observations. The cover board study found that in 19% of observations (256 observation events) invasive argentine ants were found. 11% of time western fence lizards and 10% of the time juvenile western fence lizards were found. 4% of the time skink were observed, followed by silverfish (3.7%), pill bug (3%), spider (2.7%), centipede (2.6%), black beetle (2.4%), field cricket (2.23%), Jerusalem cricket (1.3%), slender salamander (1.6% - which is approximately 10 board flips out of the 1,350 done), alligator lizard (0.74%), cricket (0.59%), field mouse (0.59%). Observations of vole, ringneck snake, gopher snake and deer mouse were all less than 0.3%, or 4 observations or less over the 2 year study. The conclusion of the cover board study is that the project site does support some native wildlife, but at very low density. 4-5. Please refer to response 4-4 above regarding construction-related loss of foraging habitat. As indicated by that response, the Project would result in long-term habitat enhancements that would increase habitat value that would enhance the potential for wildlife foraging on the project site, and 27.3 acres of existing habitat would be preserved on the South Parcel. Therefore, the project would have a beneficial long-term cumulative impact related to raptor foraging. Based on the results of the cover board surveys described in Response 4-4 above, it does not appear the project would result in a substantial loss of vole habitat. In addition, there is more evidence for vole use in the remnant portion of native grassland on the Ellwood Mesa, west of the project site, which is being used as a reference site for the proposed Project. Further, CCBER has proposed (Stratton, April 16, 2016) to enhance portions of the project site for smaller organisms through constructing hybernaculums, which CCBER has been constructing on North Parcel by digging holes and filling them with a variety of rock and tile material to create holes and crevices for holding water, providing cover and multiple small entry/exit points with temperature control provided by soil cover over the feature. These features, along with the presence of more than 500 acres of open space adjacent that the project site to the west and south, will act as a refugia and a source for recolonization of the project site by species such as voles, mice and reptiles. 4-6. Section 5.4.1 (Biological Resources Setting) provides the following description of previous field surveys that have been conducted on the project site:
Page 3 The biological resources setting has been established by Sage Institute, Inc. (SII) biologist/ecologist field surveys conducted in the fall and winter 2015-2016 including a formal jurisdictional wetland delineation study, to document existing conditions and ground truth available background information from academic and professional studies conducted over the project site for UCSB as far back as 2000. Many detailed studies have been conducted over the project site as a part of UCSB academic research and for development under the LRDP. Studies included special-status plant and wildlife species surveys, wetland delineation mapping, general plant community and habitat mapping, and bird surveys conducted throughout the year (nesting, foraging, migrating, etc.). The biological resources analysis described below represents the accumulated data from the copious plant and wildlife resources studies based on existing conditions from current 2015-2016 field surveys. 4-7 In addition to the extensive field study efforts that have been completed, CCBER is conducting special status plant surveys on the project site this spring that follow CDFW protocols, and that build on a 2013 Keeler-Wolf study of habitat on South Parcel that was completed using modified habitat associations. The first of the three spring surveys for special status plants found only 1 species, Lonicera subspicata var. subspicata represented by a small number of plants in a proposed disturbance area, and more plants in areas that are to be preserved. CCBER has extensive experience growing and establishing populations of this plant. No seedlings of Centromadia parryi var australis have been found yet, although it is early in the year for this plant. This species is not common on the project site, however, CCBER has been working with this species for 8 years and successfully established populations on several sites on the UCSB Campus, including the San Clemente housing project and on the North Parcel. Any project-related disturbances to these or other sensitive plants located on the project site would be reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with UCSB Long Range Development Plan Policy ESH-30, which requires: New development shall avoid all special-status plant species, including Southern tarplant, to the greatest extent feasible. This policy applies to isolated individual plants that do not meet the definition of ESHA. Special-status species that are ESHA shall be afforded full protection under the ESHA provisions of the LRDP. Where the individual(s) do not meet the definition of ESHA and cannot be feasibly avoided, then it may be relocated provided that the impact to individual species shall be fully mitigated. As requested by this comment, CCBER will provide the Tarplant Restoration Plan required by mitigation measure BIO-1a to CDFW for review. 4-8. MND Section 5.4.2c evaluates potential project-related wetland habitat impacts to sensitive species, and states in part:
Page 4 Temporary construction-related actions such as tree removals, dewatering of creeks and drainages, excavation, and fill activities in waters of the U.S./State have the potential to result in the take (kill, harm, harass) of tidewater goby, western pond turtle, California red-legged frog (should it occur), and nesting birds including raptors. The tidewater goby can inhabit the on-site drainages and cannot survive outside of water and would need to be salvaged and relocated as part of the project implementation. The California red-legged frog and western pond turtle can survive out of water but would also need to be relocated to suitable habitat nearby during construction. Loss of habitat, capture and other take of a federally listed and other special-status wildlife species, and take of an active bird s nest including nest failure, would be a significant impact. This potentially significant but mitigable impact would be reduced to a less than significant level by implementing mitigation measures BIO-2a, BIO-2b, BIO-2c, BIO-3a, BIO-3b, BIO-4a and BIO-4b. In addition, the analysis also evaluated the potential for the project to result in long-term impacts to sensitive and common species associated with on-site wetland habitat and concluded: The Project would restore and return the highly modified former golf course and borrow areas to a mosaic of pre-disturbance conditions that provide tidally influenced habitats and surrounding uplands restored with native plants. For both special-status and common wildlife species, this would be an overall long-term beneficial impact as the habitat for the special-status species that currently exists on the project site would be substantially enhanced. Please also refer to Responses 4-4, 4-5 and 4-6 above regarding project-related impacts to common wildlife species on the project site, the project s long-term cumulative impacts, and previous and on-going surveys conducted on the project site. 4-9. The three sycamore trees located on the project site are dispersed throughout the site, with one tree located near the southern segment of Devereux Creek, one tree near the western segment of the Creek, and one tree located near the tributary on the eastern portion of the site. The two oak trees are located along the southern segment of Devereux Creek. Areas that support willows are located on the eastern portion of the South Parcel and are to be retained. In regard to salvaging both live and dead trees on the project site, MND Section 2.7.1 (Project Implementation) states: Prior to grading operations with a specified area the surface vegetation would be removed. Native vegetation would be salvaged to the extent possible. Herbaceous vegetation that is removed may be buried on the project site, and woody vegetation would be transported off-site. Except in situations where public safety or flood protection concerns prohibit, dead or dying trees may be retained in place as they serve important habitat functions in providing nesting and breeding habitat areas for wildlife. (emphasis added).
Page 5 In addition, trunks and big branches of large removed trees would be retained on-site and used to provide vertical and horizontal habitat elements such as perches, cover, habitat, graineries, and cavities (Stratton, April 21, 2016). In regard to tree removals from the project site and replanting requirements, it should be noted that more than 100 oak trees are being planted and another 100 have already been planted on Coal Oil Point Reserve adjacent to the project site. These trees will grow to support white-tailed kites and other raptors and song birds, which will be able to forage on the project site from an excellent vantage point. If soils are suitable on the north side of South Parcel, oaks will be planted there also. In addition, the proposed widening of the small ditch creek on the Whittier parcel will greatly enhance that habitat, and the area adjacent to the drainage would be planted with more than 40 riparian trees including willow, sycamore, cottonwood, alder and oaks (Stratton, April 16, 2016). The additional trees will substantially increase the habitat value of this area as the existing channel supports only a few willows. It should also be noted that the previous widening of Phelps creek north of the project site, which occurred in conjunction with the development of the UCSB Ocean Walk housing project, greatly expanded that riparian corridor and that area now includes oaks, cottonwoods and sycamore that are becoming well established. In regard to the potential for the project to adversely affect bats that use on-site trees, there is no record of sensitive bat species being observed on the project site. However, CCBER will consult with CDFW prior to conducting on-site bat surveys in conjunction with required pre-construction bird nest surveys required by MND mitigation measures BIO- 2a, 2b and 2c. 4-10. As described by responses 4-4 and 4-5 above, the MND determined that project-related grading and grubbing impacts such as those described by this comment would be less than significant. However, CCBER will continue to work with the CDFW to address the Department s concerns in conjunction with the preparation of a project-specific Habitat Restoration and Monitoring Plan. MND Section 2.7.3 (Maintenance) provides the following description of the Habitat Restoration and Monitoring Plan: A Habitat Restoration and Monitoring Plan to be prepared for the Project will include monitoring and adaptive management measures, and would be completed as part of final project design. The Plan would also include requirements specified by the Project s environmental review, conditions required by the Project s permitting and or grant funding agencies, and project-specific monitoring protocols and project performance/success criteria. On-going monitoring would be performed to evaluate vegetation establishment, wildlife utilization, physical processes, and site conditions related to potential development of hazards such as slope stability and flood capacity. The monitoring plan would include the following elements:
Page 6 Recording of as-built conditions Establishment of permanent monitoring stations (e.g. cross-sections, photo points, transects) Monitoring schedule Monitoring protocols (standardized for consistency in data collection and documentation) Reporting requirements Success criteria Corrective /adaptive management measures or process In addition, CCBER will implement mitigation measures and conditions of approval that may be included in the Streambed Alteration Agreement issued for the project as required by MND mitigation measure BIO-4b. 4-11. The proposed western snowy plover habitat would have characteristics that are very similar to the existing plover area located in the vicinity of the Devereux Slough, which is currently used by snowy plovers as a nesting site. 4-12. Please refer to response 4-10. 4-13. Please refer to response 4-10. 4-14. As requested by this comment, CCBER will provide the salvage and relocation plans for tidewater goby, California red-legged frog, and western pond turtle to CDFW for review. 4-15. The MND provides an analysis of the Project s consistency with applicable policies of the UCSB 2010 Long Range Development Plan (LRDP). LRDP Policy ESH-05 requires that: Nature trails, intended for the passive enjoyment of the open space/esha resource, shall be restricted to pedestrian use and sited to afford the user an experience of the resource, provided that such trails are designed to protect the resource. As indicated by the MND s analysis that is provided below, the Project would be consistent with the requirements of LRDP Policy ESH-05, which would minimize the potential for the proposed secondary and tertiary trails to result in impacts to on-site habitat. The Project has proposed to develop several types of trails on the project site. The proposed primary trail would be a multi-use (pedestrian and bicycles) trail that would provide nature viewing as well as a circulation connection between residences adjacent to the project site to the north and east and Storke Road. The proposed secondary and tertiary trails would be located on the South Parcel and are intended to be used primarily by pedestrians and to allow users the opportunity to experience the natural character of the restored project areas (refer to trail descriptions provided on IS/MND Figure 2.6-2). Should on-going monitoring of the project site indicate that indirect impacts to a sensitive habitat area is occurring, methods that would be implemented to minimize those effects
Page 7 may include but are not limited to the installation of additional landscape barriers, post and cable and/or split rail fencing, or other similar barriers that do not interfere with animal movement. It is possible that bicycles and off-leash dogs will be prohibited on trails that are to be constructed on the South Parcel. All trails on the project site will be designed to not erode or pond water. 4-16. As described in response 4-8 above, the MND has evaluated project-related impacts to wetland habitat and impacts to aquatic species. The analysis provided by the MND indicates that the project would have the potential to result in significant impacts, however, those impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of identified mitigation measures. CCBER will continue to work with the CDFW to implement mitigation measures and conditions of approval that may be included in the Streambed Alteration Agreement issued for the project as required by MND mitigation measure BIO-4b.