The Department has long recognized the need to evaluate the
potential for THPs, Nonindustrial Timber Management Plans (NTMPs),
or PTHPs (plans) to have a significant impact on any species and,
where the impact may be significant, implement appropriate survey
and mitigation measures. Further, CDF has, in the past, requested
information or surveys prior to plan approval for listed species
or unlisted species where potential significant impacts have been
identified in the plan review process. These actions are based on
code sections 14 CCR 895.1, 1034 (w), 919.4[ 939.4, 959.4], 15380,
and Fish and Game Code Sections 3503.5, 3511, 4700, and 5050.
CDF believes that these procedures need to be more clearly
included in the plan review process in order to comply with all
the applicable laws, including California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). Failure to provide complete and accurate information
about all species on which a significant impact may occur only
slows down the plan review process since such information must be
included and considered before a plan can be approved.
CDF has provided the following information to assist the RPF in
meeting the various legal requirements, and in particular
sections 14 CCF 1034(w) and 919.4 [939.4, 959.4]. While each
circumstance confronting the RPF will dictate the precise
procedures to use, the process we recommend begins with scoping,
followed by surveys and mitigation development, if needed. The
RPF should also remember that an assessment area which extends
well beyond the plan boundaries may be needed for certain species.
Scoping
1. The scoping process would normally begin with the
identification of species (plants, invertebrates, fish, and
wildlife) and habitats (e.g. wetlands, vernal pools, serpentine
outcrops) that may be impacted by the project. Sources for
identification of these species could include, but are not
limited to, state and federal resource agency lists, Department
of Fish & Game Natural Diversity Database (NDDB a.k.a.
RAREFIND), California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System (CWHR),
California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory, agency contacts,
environmental documents for other projects in the vicinity,
academics, and professional or scientific organizations. (For
more information regarding appropriate sources for the
identification of species of management concern refer to the
September 6, 1995, mass mailing). For landowners with SYPs, the
RPF should remember that the document needs to provide guidance
on each species, where necessary, within a particular project’s
assessment area. In regards to habitat issues, the RPF would
normally identify their characteristics, describe their presence
in the direct and cumulative assessment area, and where
potentially impacted, a description of the impact, measures to
minimize the impacts, and an analysis of the significance.
The RPF may, at this point, only proceed with those species on
which this identification phase indicates there could be a
significant impact.
2. For each individual species that might be significantly
effected:
a. A succinct, yet informative discussion of the species’
relevant habitat and life history needs, including risks,
limiting factors, and current status (e.g. Federal Endangered
Species Act (ESA), State ESA, Board Sensitive, California Species
of Special Concern, etc.). This indicates to reviewing agencies,
general public, and courts the RPF's familiarity with the species.
This also provides vital information for impact analysis to both
the RPF preparing the project and the reviewers.
b. A discussion regarding the availability, quality, and quantity
of suitable habitat both within the project and assessment area.
If habitat for the particular species is not present within the
project and/or assessment area, it should be so stated as well as
the justification for the statement.
c. If suitable habitat is present, a discussion regarding the
actual or potential presence of the species within both the
project and assessment area. For the assessment area this should
be detailed enough to allow the reviewing agencies and public to
understand and evaluate potential impacts. For species within or
immediately adjacent to the project area, detailed information (e.g.,
a map, UTM coordinates, or description) on its location(s) should
be provided as appropriate. The term “immediately adjacent”
varies with species and mechanism of impact. The determination of
“immediately adjacent” should be based on the proposed
action’s potential to result in a direct impact to a species.
Surveys
A discussion of the efforts made to determine the presence or
absence of the species within and immediately adjacent to the
project area when there is suitable habitat. This includes a
discussion of the methods, survey dates, duration, weather
conditions, and personnel involved in the effort. Alternately,
the RPF should be prepared to discuss why no effort was expended
to confirm species presence.
Surveys can be utilized in the THP process in one of two ways:
a. Surveys are conducted and the results of the survey work
included in the plan
prior to public review; or
b. The plan identifies habitat and excludes it from timber
operations, or the RPF
identifies specific mitigation measures in the plan prior to
public review in the event the species is found in subsequent
surveys. Major amendments to the plan could also be made based on
the survey results. For NTMPs, subsequent species surveys and
reporting requirements may also be required prior to the conduct
of any future operations.
Mitigation Development
The RPF should keep the following concepts in mind when
developing mitigations:
a. An analysis of the hazards posed by the proposed action to
result in either a
direct, indirect, or cumulative significant adverse effect on the
species. If the RPF concludes “no significant adverse effect,”
then it is appropriate to have a justification for the assessment
.
b. If it is determined that the proposed action will result, or
potentially result, in a significant adverse effect, then a
discussion or reference to the mitigation
measures proposed to substantially lessen or avoid these impacts
should be included.
c. Where mitigation measures are proposed to avoid significant
adverse effects, the RPF should identify monitoring proposals for
the measure.
Northern Spotted Owl Consultations
The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) has notified CDF that it
will no longer conduct consultations for Northern Spotted Owls (NSO)
on THPs and NTMPs as of
June 30, 1999. At the request of CDF, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) will begin processing NSO consultations on July 1,
1999. The DFG and USFWS desire the transition to occur without
noticeable disruption. Therefore, much of the current procedure
for processing consultations will remain unchanged. As a response
to workload, submittals from private consulting biologists (PCB)
will receive priority, but all requests will be processed
provided the consultation packet contains the same information
and level of detail as under the current program.
Until directed otherwise by the USFWS, PCBs and RPFs should
continue to receive consultation request numbers and process
their NSO database inquiries through the Santa Rosa, Fortuna, and
Redding CDF offices. These requests will be forwarded to the
Arcata office of the USFWS and held in suspense pending submittal
of their consultation packet. The consultation package must
include language with protection measures that are enforceable
under the THP.
The USFWS will process your consultation packet similar to DFG’s
procedure and provide you a letter of technical assistance for
inclusion with the THP or NTMP. To our knowledge, the USFWS will
process presurvey consultations (Option C) according to workload.
Contact the USFWS prior to submittal.
With the departure of DFG from the process, landowners and RPFs
in the Counties of Mendocino, Sonoma, Lake, Napa, and Glenn are
encouraged to hire and utilize PCBs for their NSO consultations.
For further details on the process, contact Mr. Ken Hoffman of
the USFWS, 1125 16th Street, Room 209, Arcata, CA 95521, (707)
822-7201.
ANDREA E. TUTTLE, DIRECTOR
July 2, 1999
RRRAUL Home | Search RRRAUL | News | Logging | Fishery | Watershed | Photographs | Contacts | Organization | Calendar | External Links |