|
September 8, 2004
Ms. Kyrsten Shields Assistant Resource Planner II Lake County Planning Division Courthouse - 255 North Forbes Street Lakeport, CA 95453 Via Fax (707) 263-2225 Dear Ms. Shields: Diamond Mine Vineyard Initial Study IS 04-67 SCH# 2003072119, Lake County Department of Fish and Game (DFG) personnel reviewed the above Initial Study (IS) document for the Diamond Mine Vineyard project. DFG submits our comments as a trustee and responsible agency for the project under the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In this capacity, DFG limits comments on the project to those activities that fall within our area of expertise as the State’s trustee agency for fish and wildlife and to those activities associated with the project that it may be required to approve or carry out as a responsible agency. The IS considers (page 8) that no unique biological resources or sensitive habitats are associated with the project site. In all previous DFG comment letters, and also during our two site visits, we continually emphasized necessary appropriate and feasible mitigation for the impact and resulting loss of a significant 139-acre oak woodland. DFG also recognizes an additional and previously graded 9-acre section of oak woodland. This concern is based on the continual oak woodland conversions resulting in significant loss of wildlife habitat occurring in southern Lake County. In direct regard to the natural value aspect of oak woodland and as stated in our April 26, 2004 comment letter, the scientific community has identified approximately 170 species of birds that use California oaks at some point in their life cycle, and 58 species of lizards, snakes and amphibians that are associated with oak habitats in California (Griffin, J.R. and P.C. Muick. 1990. California Native Oaks: Past and Present. Fremontia. Vol. 18. No.3. 4-12 pp.). It is DFG’s opinion, based on our analysis of County conversion land use trends, that the County continues to have a net-loss of oak tree woodlands, particularly through vineyard conversions (Mike Guisti, U.C. Hopland Extension, pers. comm. August 2004). As a trustee agency, under CEQA, it is DFG’s practice and policy to recommend both the conservation and replacement of native oak species at an equal or greater ratio to mitigate the continuing loss of oak woodland and associated habitat. Conservation Easement DFG has reviewed both Appendix I, "Golden State Land Conservation Easement" and Appendix J, "Conservation Easement Addendum establishing the Oak Woodland Valley Reserve" and its Attachments: Exhibit A, Legal Description of the Six Sigma Ranch, and Exhibit B, Map of Oak Woodland Valley Reserve, which is not disclosed in Appendix J. The Conservation Easement Addendum was signed in August 2004. Before this date, by request of the Lake County Planning Department, DFG previously provided an electronic copy of a DFG conservation easement template. We stated that the template would allow the applicant to better understand how DFG evaluates an appropriate conservation easement. We also recommended that the Lake County Lake Trust be involved in the process. In turn, we also stated that DFG would be available to review, meet and discuss beforehand an applicant’s conservation easement draft. The easement habitats and species are not disclosed. There should be a Phase One Environmental Assessment Report provided. An endowment fund maintained as a non-wasting, permanent capital fund for management of the easement mitigation lands in perpetuity should be established. The applicant is reserving rights that would compromise conservation values. The Conservation Easement Addendum. No. 7 Reserved Rights (page 3) permits biking, equestrian, construction and maintenance of non-motorized trails, and two all-terrain vehicle trails. DFG does not view the Conservation Easement Addendum as acceptable. We advise the applicant to produce a conservation easement that mitigates the loss of an approximately 139-acre oak woodland. We are available to work with the applicant on an acceptable conservation easement. Oak Revegetation Plan To insure the preservation of oaks, the primary goal must be to recreate natural self-perpetuating oak ecosystems. A feasible alternative would be through the use of professional oak restoration ecologists. The U. C. Davis Hopland Field Station would provide contact information on habitat restoration companies which could guarantee a greater chance of success. We encourage community youth groups to continue at Diamond Mine Vineyards in outdoor recreational activities that educate through restoration activities. However, DFG does not consider it necessary to obligate children’s groups in required mitigation for significant impacts to oak woodlands for any major proposed projects in Lake County. Implementation of CEQA Since 2001, DFG has continually advised, during our field site visits and in our letters, feasible mitigation measures for this project. The lead agency’s conclusions that project related effects would be avoided or mitigated to the extent feasible must be supported by substantial evidence. CEQA’s "Substantive Mandate" requires that every public agency must avoid or mitigate project-related significant effects on the environment to the extent feasible (See, e.g., Pub. Resources Code, Section 21002; Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish and Game Comm. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 134.) DFG finds that both the terms of the conservation easement and the children’s revegetation efforts are not adequate mitigation measures to avoid or reduce significant impacts to below the level of significance. We believe that a feasible alternative is rather both a conservation easement that protects wildlife habitat and the implementation of a professional oak woodland revegetation plan that address the 139-acre oak woodland loss. In review of what the IS has proposed, DFG advises that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared. This is due to the substantial evidence that supports, as proposed, the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The EIR would describe a reasonable range of feasible project alternatives, including what we have advised above, that could feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives and would substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the project. An EIR will allow the lead agency to identify the environmentally superior alternative other than the No-Project Alternative and explain why alternatives, other than the proposed project, were rejected as infeasible and explain the reason for their exclusion (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(c)). DFG appreciates
the opportunity to comment on the proposed project. If there are any questions
regarding this letter, you may contact Mr. Liam Davis, Environmental Scientist,
at Sincerely, Copy, original signed by Robert W. Floerke Robert W. Floerke Regional Manager Central Coast Region cc: Lake County Board of Supervisors Courthouse — 225 North Forbes Street Lakeport, CA 95453 State Clearinghouse Post Office Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 eJ : Davis, Gray, Wilson, John Mattox (DFG Legal) LD/SW/bp |