East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan – Natural Community Conservation Plan

Agenda Item #7a DRAFT EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN – NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN ASSESSMENT OF PLAN EFFECTS ON CEQA SPECIES Prepared for: East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy Prepared by: H. T. Harvey & Associates 15 October 2014 983 University Avenue, Building D Los Gatos, CA 95032 Ph: 408.458.3200 F: 408.458.3210 Agenda Item #7a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP or Plan) provides a net benefit to 25 species covered by the endangered species permits issued to participating local agencies. However, projects covered by the Plan must also comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and evaluate project effects on all special-status species. The Plan satisfies the requirements of CEQA for the 25 species covered by the permits. This report provides an assessment of the effects of the Plan on 59 special-status species that were not covered by the Plan (“CEQA species”), 41 plant and 18 animal species. The purpose of the assessment was to provide a programmatic, cumulative CEQA effects analysis for CEQA species taking into account impacts of all covered activities, including all adverse and beneficial effects of covered development activities and conservation measures. The cumulative effects of the Plan on each species were determined to be beneficial, neutral, adverse but less-than-significant, or potentially significant by considering the number of known populations and extent of suitable habitat that could be adversely affected within areas of anticipated development as well as those that would benefit from being in areas that may be preserved, enhanced, and managed for covered species and communities by the Plan. This assessment determined that net Plan effects on 39 special-status plant species and all 18 special-status animal species would be either: • beneficial (i.e., the Plan’s conservation strategy would provide benefits that outweigh anticipated adverse effects of development activities), • neutral (i.e., the Plan’s conservation strategy would provide benefits that offset anticipated adverse effects of development activities), or • adverse but less-than-significant (i.e., the Plan’s development activities may adversely affect the species but would not result in a substantial impact on regional populations, taking into account the Plan’s conservation strategy). Thus, for all but two species that were evaluated, Plan impacts were determined to be less than significant under CEQA. Payment of the Plan fee for a covered project (or providing equivalent mitigation consistent with the Plan) will therefore be sufficient to mitigate the effects of the project on 57 of the CEQA species evaluated in this report, assuming no substantial change in the status of these species or of the cumulative environment. Table ES-1 summarizes the CEQA species analysis results by species, briefly discussing the net adverse and beneficial effects to each species expected to result from covered activities, as well as a net effect determination and the rationale for that determination. The assessment determined that Plan impacts are potentially significant for two recently described species: the Lime Ridge navarretia (Navarretia gowenii) and the Lime Ridge eriastrum (Eriastrum ertterae). Because of uncertainty regarding the status of these species and their occurrence in the inventory area, it was determined that the Plan alone may not be sufficient to mitigate impacts to these species to a level below significance. Therefore, additional mitigation may be needed for project-level CEQA compliance for these species if that covered project has the potential to impact either species. Suggested measures to mitigate impacts to these species are described in this document. Agenda Item #7a This assessment is intended to serve as the technical documentation to justify findings in future project-level CEQA documents that the Plan adequately mitigates the effects of covered activities to less-than-significant levels for 57 of the 59 CEQA species evaluated in this report. This conclusion can be reached either because overall effects of Plan activities are expected to be beneficial or neutral, or because any residual adverse effects of Plan activities would be so low as to be less than significant when viewed on a regional (i.e., Plan-wide) scale. In either case, no further mitigation is required under CEQA beyond payment of the HCP/NCCP fee or provision of equivalent mitigation consistent with the Plan (e.g., providing land in-lieu of fees). This assessment will facilitate future CEQA assessment of covered projects, and is intended to serve as the detailed assessment of project impacts to CEQA species when incorporated by reference. Following is suggested text that can be included in project-specific CEQA evaluations to reference this CEQA species assessment (with the individual project’s name used to fill in the blank spaces): An assessment was performed on the net effects of the HCP/NCCP, including both the beneficial and adverse effects of all covered development activities and conservation measures, on 59 special-status species that are not covered by the HCP/NCCP, called “CEQA species” (H. T. Harvey & Associates 2014). This “CEQA Species Assessment” considered the extent of habitat and populations of these species that could be affected within areas of anticipated development, as well as in areas that may be preserved, enhanced, and managed for covered species and communities by the HCP/NCCP, to determine the net cumulative impact of the HCP/NCCP on each CEQA species. The cumulative impacts to each CEQA species were categorized into one of four groups: beneficial, neutral, adverse but less-than-significant, or potentially significant. The CEQA Species Assessment found that the cumulative effects of the HCP/NCCP, including the proposed project, on 57 of the 59 CEQA species fell into one of the first three groups and are therefore less-than-significant. The ______ Project has the potential to adversely affect the following CEQA species: ______, all of which were evaluated in the CEQA Species Assessment. The proposed project does not support the two species found in the CEQA Species Assessment to have potentially significant effects from the HCP/NCCP covered activities. Because the proposed project is covered by the HCP/NCCP, the CEQA Species Assessment serves as a cumulative impact assessment for all of the CEQA species that may be impacted by the Project. The _________ Project will be implemented in accordance with the HCP/NCCP’s conditions. Through payment of HCP/NCCP fees or equivalent mitigation, the Project will contribute to the HCP/NCCP’s conservation strategy, thereby benefiting all CEQA species addressed in the CEQA Species Assessment (H. T. Harvey & Associates 2014). Therefore, this Project’s individual impacts and its contribution to cumulative impacts to CEQA species are less than significant. The conclusion above does not apply to any special-status species not evaluated in this report, or to Lime Ridge navarretia or Lime Ridge eriastrum. If a covered project has any potential to impact Lime Ridge navarretia , Lime Ridge eriastrum, or a special-status species not covered by Agenda Item #7a the Plan or evaluated in this report, a project-specific impact analysis would be required for the affected species. The recommended citation for this CEQA Species Assessment is as follows: H. T. Harvey & Associates. 2014. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan: Assessment of Plan Effects on CEQA Species. Prepared for the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy. Agenda Item #7a Table ES-1. Summary of Net Effects of the Plan on CEQA Species. POTENTIAL ADVERSE BENEFICIAL SPECIES NET EFFECT2 RATIONALE EFFECTS MEASURES1 Upland Plants of Non-Serpentine Chaparral, Woodland, Scrub, or Grassland Habitats Large-flowered • None • Potential preservation of Neutral or No take is allowed for this species fiddleneck unknown populations beneficial effect under the Plan, and any newly (Amsinckia grandiflora) discovered populations would be protected. California androsace • Some chaparral, oak woodland • Enhancement measures in Neutral or More likely to benefit from (Androsace elongata loss preserves, especially in beneficial effect preserve acquisition and ssp. acuta) • High degree of grassland loss chaparral and scrub, expected to management than to be impacted • Possible loss of population in increase habitat suitability by development and preserve maximum UDA south of improvements. Under the Clayton maximum UDA a known population may be lost. However, the species is widely distributed, and such loss would not be iv expected to cause a range reduction. Potential population loss expected to be adequately mitigated by enhanced management of preserves. Coast rock cress • More likely to be located within • Enhancement measures such as Neutral or less than Not likely to be impacted by Plan (Arabis blepharophylla) UDA than within preserves managing grazing to control significant adverse activities, as rock outcrops are not non-native grasses on outcrops effect expected to be impacted. If could benefit species impacted, no large or regionally important populations are expected to be lost. Brewer’s calandrinia • Very low likelihood of • Enhancement measures in Beneficial effect More likely to benefit from (Calandrinia breweri) population impacts due to 2 chaparral and scrub preserves

Load more