Imperial Project : revised significance determinations under CEQA for environmental impacts on "endangered, rare or threatened" biological resources

16 Pages·1999·3.4 MB·English

by  United States. Bureau of Land Management. El Centro Field Office

BLMLIBRARY
88069209
IMPERIAL PROJECT
IMPERIALCOUNTY,CALIFORNIA
REVISEDSIGNIFICANCEDETERMINATIONSUNDERCEQA
FORENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSON“ENDANGERED,RARE
ORTHREATENED”BIOLOGICALRESOURCES
RECIRCULATEDSUPPLEMENTTODRAFT
ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENT/
ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTREPORT
StateClearinghouseNo.95041025
MARCH 1999
Applicant
GlamisImperialCorporation
PreparedBy:
BureauofLandManagement CountyofImperial
ElCentroFieldOffice Planning/BuildingDepartment
"~o,California ElCentro,California
TN
423
.C2
1574
1999
• 1
.-i *4
.
'
9
TN
423
.ca
T54-2
l<m
ImperialProject
EIS/EIRSupplement
DearReader:
Thisdocument,preparedjointlybytheCountyofImperial,astheleadagencyunderthe
CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(“CEQA”)(Pub.ResourcesCode,§21000etseq.)
and the United States Bureau of Land Management, El Centro Field Office, of the
CaliforniaDesertDistrict(“BLM”),astheleadagencyfortheProjectundertheNational
EnvironmentalPolicyAct(“NEPA”)(42U.S.C.§4321 etseq.),isasupplementtothe
analysis of biological resources in the November 1997 Draft Environmental Impact
Statement/EnvironmentalImpactReport(“EIS/EIR”)(StateClearinghouseNo.95041025)
for the proposed Imperial Project(“Project”). As discussed in the Draft EIS/EIR, the
ProjectisaproposalbyGlamisImperialCorporationtodevelop anopen-pit,precious
metalminingoperationutilizingheapleachprocesses.TheProjectarea,whichislocated
entirelyonpubliclandsadministeredbytheBLM,islocatedineasternImperialCounty,
California, approximately 45 miles northeast of El Centro, California, and 20 miles
northwestofYuma,Arizona,northeastofOgilbyRoadalongIndianPassRoad.
InNovember1997,ImperialCountyandtheBLMjointlypreparedandreleasedtheDraft
EIS/EIR.TheDraftEIS/EIRanalyzestheenvironmentaleffects,mitigationmeasures,and
alternativestotheProject.Withrespecttothissupplement,theDraftEIS/EIRaddresses
the“EnvironmentalConsequencesandMitigationMeasures”forbiologicalresourcesin
section 4.1.5 at pages 4-45 to 4-78. Ultimately, the Draft EIS/EIR concludes the
“mitigated effects of the [Project] on biological resources are below the levels of
significance.”(DraftEIS/EIR,§4.1.5.5,p.4-78.)ThedeterminationsintheDraftEIS/EIR
regardingbiologicalimpactsarebasedonthethresholdsofsignificanceforProject-related
impactsonbiologicalresourcessetforthinsection4.1.5.1 atpage4-46.
This supplement adds a new threshold of significance to assess the significance of
Project-relatedimpactsoncertainbiologicalresourcesforImperialCounty’sreviewofthe
ProjectunderCEQA.Ingeneral,thenewsignificancethresholdestablishesamuchlower
thresholdofsignificanceforimpactson“endangered,rareorthreatenedspecies”listed
underthestateandfederalEndangeredSpeciesActs.(Seegenerally 16U.S.C.§ 1531 et
seq.; Cal. Fish &G. Code, § 2050etseq.)Thesupplementandthenewthresholdof
significance concern the County’s actions under CEQA alone. BLM’s threshold of
significancetoassessthesignificanceofProject-relatedimpactonthesesamebiological
resourcesunderNEPAremainsasdescribedintheDraftEIS/EIR.
Imperial County and the BLM believe the new significance threshold for impacts on
biological resources and the related determinations regarding the significance of
Project-related impacts on listed species should be subjected to public review and
comment. (SeeCEQAGuidelines, § 15088.5 andBLM’sNEPAHandbookH-1790-1,
1093.SupplementalEISEIR.V07.WPD
ImperialProject
EIS/EIRSupplement
ChapterV, § B.3.bandChapterIII, § D.4.a). ImperialCountyandtheBLMwelcome
writtencommentsconcerningthissupplementtotheDraftEIS/EIRduringa60-daypublic
reviewperiod.Allcommentssubmittedregardingthissupplementwillbeconsideredin
thepreparationoftheFinalEIS/EIR.Commentsreceivedthatexceedthescopeofthis
supplementwillnotbeaddressedintheFinalEIS/EIR. (CEQAGuidelines, § 15088.5,
subd.(f)(2).)Tobeconsidered,writtencommentsregardingthisdocumentalonemustbe
postmarked or otherwise delivered by 4:30 p.m. on May 19, 1999, at the following
address:
ImperialCountyPlanning/BuildingDepartment
939MainStreet
ElCentro,California 92243
[phone]
TimSalt
DistrictManager
CountyofImperial CaliforniaDesertDistrict
9
ll 1093.SupplementalEISEIR.V07.WPD
ImperialProject
EIS/EIRSupplement
1.0 INTRODUCTION
InconsultationwiththeBLM,ImperialCountypreparedthissupplementandappliesthe
newsignificancethresholdunderCEQAinresponsetoarecentdecisionbytheSanDiego
County SuperiorCourt, acourtinthesameappellatedistrict anddivisionas Imperial
County. TheSanDiegoCounty SuperiorCourtconcludedinthatdecisionthatalead
agency abused its discretionunderCEQAbyfailing totreatas significantthe loss of
habitatforcertainspeciesprotectedbythestateandfederalEndangeredSpeciesActs.The
San Diego County Superior Court decision can be construed to require a mandatory
findingofsignificanceunderCEQAwheneverproject-relatedimpactsresultinanyloss
ofhabitat to any protected species. Based on the definition of “endangered, rare or
threatened species” setforth in section 15380 ofthe “CEQA Guidelines” (Cal. Code
Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 etseq.), the SuperiorCourtdecision can also be construed to
requireamandatoryfindingofsignificanceforimpactsonlistedspecies,exceptwherea
leadagencyfinds“nonetloss”ofthespeciesoritshabitatwouldresult.
ImperialCountyunderstandstheSanDiegoCountySuperiorCourtrulingiscurrentlyon
appeal in Division One of the Fourth Appellate District. (El Toro Reuse Planning
Authorityetal.v.BoardofSupervisorsofOrangeCountyetal.,4thDist.CourtofAppeal
No. D030810.)Becausetheappealiscurrentlypending,thetrialcourtrulingcouldbe
affirmedorreversed.ShouldtheCourtofAppealaffirmthetrialcourtruling,however,
thatrulingwouldbebindingauthorityintheFourthAppellateDistrict,anappellatedistrict
thatincludesImperialCounty.
ImperialCountyconcludedthatitshouldre-assessthesignificancedeterminationsunder
CEQA in the Draft EIS/EIR regarding Project-related impacts oh certain biological
resourcesbecauseoftheSanDiegotrialcourtruling.Tothatend,thissupplementrelies
on and incorporates by reference the underlying data, biological surveys, and other
relevantinformationintheDraftEIS/EIRregardingbiologicalresources.Thus,thescope
ofthissupplementislimitedtoanassessmentofwhethercertainProject-relatedimpacts
on biological resources are significant under CEQA in light ofthe new significance
threshold for endangered, rare or threatened species. No new factual information is
includedinthisdocument.
AssetforthintheDraftEIS/EIR,theProjectareaconsistsofaProjectmineandprocess
areaandaProjectancillaryarea.TheProjectmineandprocessarea,whichiscomprised
ofapproximately 1,571acresofunpatentedminingclaims,wouldcontainalloftheopen
pits, waste rock stockpiles, soil stockpiles, ephemeral wash diversion channels,
administrationofficeandmaintenancefacility area,heapleachfacility, preciousmetal
recoveryplant,anelectricsubstationandinternalroadsandelectricaldistributionlines.
1 1093.SupplementalEISEIR.V07.WPD
ImperialProject
EIS/EIRSupplement'
TheProjectancillaryareawouldincludegroundwaterproductionwells,aburiedwater
pipeline, andanew92kV/13.2kVelectricaltransmissionline, alllocatedadjacentto
Indian Pass Road, and two relocated portions ofIndian Pass Road. In addition, the
ImperialIrrigationDistrictwouldoverbuildanexiting34.5kVelectrictransmissionline
intoa92kV/34.5kVelectrictransmissionlinetoprovideelectricalpowerfortheProject.
Together,theseactivitiesconstitutetheProject.AsalsosetforthintheDraftEIS/EIR,the
Projectwouldcreateatotalof1,362acresofdisturbance.
Project-related impacts onbiological resources are specifically addressed in the Draft
EIS/EIR. The environmental consequences of, mitigation measures for, and level of
significanceofthoseimpacts before andaftermitigation are summarized inthe Draft
EIS/EIR inTable S.l. The significance determinationsregarding effects onbiological
resourcesetforthinasummaryfashioninTableS.l atpagesS-30toS-43.
The“AffectedEnvironment”forbiologicalresourcesisdescribedinsection3.5ofthe
Draft EIS/EIR at pages 3-38 to 3-81. That discussion includes a description of the
regulatory framework governing biological resources, as well as a description ofthe
existing conditions in the Project area for vegetation and wildlife. This supplement
incorporates by reference and makes no changes to the discussion of the Affected
EnvironmentforbiologicalresourcesintheDraftEIS/EIR.
TheDraftEIS/EIRdiscussesthe“EnvironmentalConsequencesandMitigationMeasures”
forbiologicalresourcesinsection4.1.5atpages4-45to4-78,and“CumulativeEffects”
forbiological resources in Section 5.3.3 atpages 5-12 to 5-15. This supplement also
incorporatesthediscussionofProject-relatedandcumulativeenvironmentalconsequences
andmitigationmeasuresintheDraftEIS/EIRforbiologicalresources.Thissupplement,
however, changes the discussion of Project-related and cumulative environmental
consequences to biological resources in the Draft EIS/EIR in a single respect. As
explainedabove,andassetforthbelowindetail,thatchangeislimitedtoanassessment
ofwhetherProject-relatedandcumulativeimpactson“endangered,rareorthreatened”
plantandanimalspeciesaresignificantunderCEQAinlightofanew,lowerthreshold
ofsignificance. (SeeCEQAGuidelines, §§ 15065, 15380.)Theassessmentofwhether
Project-related and cumulative impacts on “endangered, rare orthreatened” plant and
animalspeciesaresignificantunderNEPAremainsunchangedfromthatpresentedinthe
DraftEIS/EIR.
2 1093.SupplementalEISEIR.V07.WPD
ImperialProject
EIS/EIRSupplement
2.0 SUMMARY OVERVIEWOFTHEANALYSIS IN THEDRAFT EIS/EIR
RE:PROJECTEFFECTSONCERTAINBIOLOGICALRESOURCES
2.1 AffectedEnvironment
2.1.1 Vegetation
ThebiologicalsettingforvegetationintheProjectareaisdescribedinsection3.5.5ofthe
DraftEIS/EIRatpages3-45to3-57.Thatdiscussionidentifies22plantspeciesofconcern
known to occur in the vicinity ofthe area ofthe Proposed Action. (Draft EIS/EIR,
§3.5.5.1,pp.3-52to3-56.)Ofthe22plantspecies,onlyone,thePierson’smilk-vetch
p(Arsotproasgeadlufsormeangddaanlgeerneadvsatra.tuPsiaetrstohneiife),dewrhaliclheveils,lfiasltlesdwaistheinndtahnegdeerfeidnitiinonCailniftohrenCiaEaQnAd
Guidelines of an “endangered, rare or threatened” species. (See CEQA Guidelines,
§ 15380;seealsoDraftEIS/EIR,§3.5.5.1,p.3-53.)[OnOctober6, 1998,theU.S.Fish
andWildlifeServicepublishedtheformallistingofthePierson’smilk-vetch(Astragalus
magdalenavar.Piersonii)asthreatened,effectiveonNovember5,1998(FederalRegister,
Volume63, Number 193,pages53596-53615).] Finally, thesamediscussionexplains,
however, thereisnopotentialhabitatforthePierson’smilk-vetchintheProjectarea.
(DraftEIS/EIR,§3.5.5.1,p.3-52.)Systematicbiologicalsurveysconfirmthereare“no
stateorfederallisted,proposed,orspecialstatusspecies”withintheProjectarea.(Draft
EIS/EIR,§3.5.5.2,pp.3-56to3-57.)
2.1.2 WildlifeandWildlifeHabitat
ThebiologicalsettingforwildlifeintheaffectedProjectareaisdescribedinsection3.5.6
oftheDraftEIS/EIRatpages3-57to3-81.Describingwildlifehabitat,theDraftEIS/EIR
disclosesthatapproximately95percentoftheProjectmineandprocessareaiscomprised
ofdesertscrubhabitatwithpredominatelyscrubvegetationandrelativelylittlesucculent
vegetation.TheDraftEIS/EIRindicatestheremaining5percentoftheProjectmineand
process area, which is the arearestricted to the wash bottoms and adjacent areas, is
generally equivalent to microphyll woodland or desert dry wash woodland habitat, a
habitatconsideredsensitivebytheCaliforniaDepartmentofFish&Game(“CDFG”).
Thus,theDraftEIS/EIRdisclosesthatapproximately 139acresofmicrophyllwoodland
habitatexistswithintheboundariesoftheProjectmineandprocessarea.(DraftEIS/EIR,
§ 3.5.6, p. 3-57.) Finally, theDraftEIS/EIRdiscloses thattwo acres andone acreof
microphyll woodlandhabitatwould also be affected in the ancillary Project area and
withinthealignmentofthetransmissionline/waterpipeline,respectively.(DraftEIS/EIR,
§3.5.6,pp.3-57to3-58.)
3 1093.SupplementalEISEIR.V07.WPD
ImperialProject
EIS/EIRSupplement
Asregardswildlifespecifically,theDraftEIS/EIRidentifiesatotalof61wildlifespecies
ofconcernknown to occurin thevicinity ofthe areaofthe Proposed Action. (Draft
EIS/EIR, § 3.5.6.1, pp. 3-58 to 3-61.) Ofthe 61 species, 15 species fall within the
definitionintheCEQAGuidelinesofan“endangered,rareorthreatened”wildlifespecies.
(SeeCEQAGuidelines,§ 15380;seealsoDraftEIS/EIR,§3.5.6.1,p.3-59to3-60.)Of
the15listedspecies,onlythree,theDeserttortoise(Gopherusagassizii),whichislisted
asthreatenedunderboththe stateandfederalEndangered Species Acts, theperegrine
falcon (Falcoperegrinus), which is listed as endangered under the state and federal
EndangeredSpeciesActs,andtheGilaWoodpecker(.Melanerpesuropygialis),whichis
listedundertheendangeredCaliforniaEndangeredSpeciesAct,havepotentialhabitatin
theareaoftheProposedAction.(DraftEIS/EIR,§3.5.6.1,pp.3-58to3-61,3-63to3-64,
3-67.)
Twenty-nineofthe61 speciesdonothavepotentialhabitatintheareaoftheProposed
Action.(DraftEIS/EIR,§3.5.6.1,p.3-58.)Incontrast,theDraftEIS/EIRdescribeseach
ofthe32wildlifespeciesofconcernthatmaypotentiallyoccuronorneartheareaofthe
ProposedActionbecauseoftheirgeographicrangesandpreferredhabitatsinthesame
sectionoftheDraftEIS/EIRatpages3-61to3-70.Finally,theDraftEIS/EIRsummarizes
theresultsfromon-sitebiologicalsurveys.(DraftEIS/EIR,§3.5.6.2,pp.3-71 to3-81.)
Systematicon-sitebiologicalsurveysdocumentedthepresenceoftwoofthelistedspecies
intheProjectarea.Thirty-twoobservationsofliveindividuals ofthefirstspecies,the
deserttortoise,wereobservedintheProjectarea.Thesamesurveysalsoidentifiedother
deserttortoise “sign” intheProjectarea.Thus, theDraftEIS/EIRestimates atotalof
between33and57individualdeserttortoisearepresentonorwithintheProjectmineand
processarea.(DraftEIS/EIR,§3.5.6.2,p.3-72.)
ThesecondlistedspeciesobservedduringthebiologicalsurveysoftheProjectareaisthe
Gila woodpecker. This siting, however, was limited to a single event and a single
individual. Because additional searches for the single individual orotherindividuals,
includingusingrecordedbirdcallstoelicitaresponsewerenegative,theDraftEIS/EIR
deemsthesingleobservationoftheindividualwoodpeckeron-siteasthatofa“transient
bird.”(DraftEIS/EIR,§3.5.6.2,p.3-72.)
Finally, theDraftEIS/EIRdisclosesthatnootherlistedwildlifespecies, includingthe
peregrinefalcon,wereobservedduringtheon-sitebiologicalsurveysoftheProjectarea.
(DraftEIS/EIR,§3.5.6.2,p.3-72.)
4 1093.SupplementalEISEIR.V07.WPD
ImperialProject
EIS/EIRSupplement
2.2 EnvironmentalConsequencesandMitigationMeasures
AsexplainedintheDraftEIS/EIR,theassessmentoftheProject’seffectsonbiological
resourcesisbasedonthefindingsdescribedinseveralbiologicaltechnicalinvestigation
reportsoftheProjectareawhichareappendedtotheDraftEIS/EIRasAppendicesF,G,
H,I,J,andK.Asummaryofthosesurveysisprovidedinsection3.5.6.2atpages3-71
to3-81.TheassessmentoftheProject’seffectsonbiologicalresourcesisalsobasedon,
andincludestherecommendedmitigationmeasuressetforthin,theBiologicalAssessment
prepared on behalf of BLM and submitted to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
(“USFWS”).(SeeDraftEIS/EIR,§4.1.5,p.4-46.)
InordertoassessthesignificanceoftheProjecteffectsonbiologicalresources,theDraft
EIS/EIRestablishesthree“thresholdsofsignificance.”Basedupon“NEPAandCEQA
guidelines,andcommonlyacceptedcriteria,”theDraftEIS/EIRstatesthatasignificant
adverseimpactwouldresultifthateffectcould:
Substantiallyaffectarareorendangeredspeciesofanimalorplant
orthehabitatofthespecies;
Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or
migratoryfishorwildlifespecies;or
Substantiallydiminishhabitatforfish,wildlife,orplants.
(DraftEIS/EIR,§4.1.5,p.4-46.)
Basedonthedefinedsignificancethreshold, theDraftEIS/EIRdiscusses, amongother
impacts,eachofthefollowing:
ImpactstoThreatenedorEndangeredPlantSpecies(DraftEIS/EIR,
§4.1.5.2.1,p.4-49);
ImpactsonWildlifeHabitat(DraftEIS/EIR,§4.1.5.3.1,pp.4-50to
4-53);and
Impacts to Threatened or Endangered Wildlife Species (Draft
EIS/EIR,§4.1.5.3.3,pp.4-55to4-57).
• CumulativeEffectstoBiologicalResources(DraftEIS/EIR,§5.3.3,pp.5-
12to5-15).
5 1093.SupplementalEISEIR.V07.WPD
ImperialProject
EIS/EIRSupplement
AbriefsummaryoftheconclusionsintheDraftEIS/EIRwithrespecttoeachimpactis
providedbelow.
2.2.1 ImpactstoThreatenedorEndangeredPlantSpecies
TheDraftEIS/EIRconcludesnoimpactfromtheProjectwouldresulttothreatenedor
endangeredplantspecies.Theconclusionisbasedonfindingsthatnolisted,proposed,
rare,orspecialstatusplantsarelocatedintheProjectareaortheoverbuilt92kV/34.5kV
transmissionlinecorridor.(DraftEIS/EIR,§4.1.5.2.1,p.4-49;seealso§3.5.5.2,pp.3-56
to3-57.)Theconclusionisalsobasedonsubstantialevidencethat,asdescribedabove,
there is nopotential on-sitehabitatforthe Pierson’s milk-vetch, the only listedplant
species known to occur in the general vicinity of the Project area. (Draft EIS/EIR,
§3.5.5.1,p.3-52.)
2.2.2 ImpactsonWildlifeHabitat
The Draft EIS/EIR discloses that the total areaofsurface disturbance resulting from
Projectconstructionandoperationwithinthe Projectmine andprocess areawouldbe
1,302acres.Thatfigureincludesapproximately 1,215acresofdesertscrubhabitatand
approximately87acresofmicrophyllwoodlandhabitat.TheDraftEIS/EIRnotesthatthe
lossofwildlifehabitat,particularlythelossofmicrophyllwoodlandhabitat,wouldresult
inanincrementallossofforaginghabitatforwildlifeand/ormigratoryspeciessuchas
batsandraptors.Theseeffects,theDraftEIS/EIRindicates,wouldcontinueoverthelife
oftheProject,andsomeoftheeffectswouldcontinueforanextendedperiodfollowing
finalreclamation.TheDraftEIS/EIRconcludes,however,thattheimpactsassociatedwith
thelossofhabitat,includingthelossofmicrophyllwoodlandhabitat,wouldbemitigated
tobelow alevelofsignificancethroughacombinationofrequiredreclamation ofthe
Projectarea,off-sitereclamationofpreviously-disturbedpubliclandsnotassociatedwith
the Project, and off-site acquisition of in-kind microphyll woodland habitat. (Draft
EIS/EIR,§4.1.5.3.1,pp.4-50to4-53;seealso§4.1.5.4,pp.4-64to4-71,4-77.)
2.2.3 ImpactstoThreatenedorEndangeredWildlifeSpecies
TheDraftEIS/EIRdiscloses thatonespecies,thedeserttortoise(Gopherusagassizii),
which is listed on both the federal and California threatened species lists, would be
directlyimpactedbytheProject.(DraftEIS/EIR,§4.1.5.3.3,pp.4-55to4-56.)TheDraft
EIS/EIRconcludes,however, thatimpactstotheDeserttortoiseanditshabitatcanbe
mitigatedtobelowalevelofsignificance. (DraftEIS/EIR, § 4.1.5.5,p.4-78; seealso
§4.1.5.4,pp.4-64to4-77.)
6 1093.SupplementalEISEIR.V07.WPD