Solomon Canyon Pavement Preservation Project from post mile R36.4 to 49.2, but signage will be...

Solomon Canyon Pavement Preservation Project

Santa Barbara County, California 05-SB-01-PM R36.1/49.5

05-1G130 0514000110

Initial Study with Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration

Prepared by the State of California Department of Transportation

December 2017

Solomon Canyon Maintenance Project ii

General Information about This Document What’s in this document: The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has prepared this Initial Study, which examines the potential environmental impacts of alternatives being considered for the proposed project in Santa Barbara County, California. The document explains why the project is being proposed, the alternatives being considered for the project, the existing environment that could be affected by the project, potential impacts of each of the alternatives, and proposed avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures.

What you should do: • Read this document.

• Additional copies of the document and the related technical studies are available for review at the Caltrans District Office at 50 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, 93401, and at the following public libraries:

• Santa Maria Public Library, 421 S. McClelland Street, Santa Maria, CA 93454 • Guadalupe Branch Library, 4719 W. Main Street D, Guadalupe, CA 93434 • Orcutt Branch Library, 175 Broadway Street, Orcutt, CA 93455

• The document can also be downloaded at the following website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/d5/.

• Tell us what you think. If you have any comments regarding the proposed project, or would like to request a public information meeting, please contact or send your written comments to Caltrans by date February 15, 2108. Submit your request or comments via U.S. mail to: Jason Wilkinson, Senior Environmental Planner, Central Coast Environmental Branch, California Department of Transportation, 50 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, 93401.

• Submit meeting request or comments via email to: [email protected].

• Submit comments by the deadline: February 15, 2018

What happens next: After comments are received from the public and reviewing agencies, Caltrans may:

1) Give environmental approval to the proposed project

2) Do additional environmental studies

3) Abandon the project. If the project is given environmental approval and funding is appropriated, Caltrans could design and construct all or part of the project.

For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document can be made available in Braille, in large print, on audiocassette, or on computer disk. To obtain a copy in one of these alternate formats, please write to or call Caltrans, Attn: Allison Donatello, Central Coast Environmental Planning Branch, 50 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, 93401; 805-542-4685 (Voice), or use the California Relay Service 1-800-735-2929 (TTY), 1-800-735-2929 (Voice), or 711.

mailto:[email protected]

Solomon Canyon Maintenance Project iv

This page intentionally left blank

Solomon Canyon Maintenance Project v

Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Pursuant to: Division 13, Public Resources Code

Project Description The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is proposing a maintenance project (CAPM) in Santa Barbara County on State Route 1 from Solomon Road near the town of Orcutt, to its intersection with Highway 166 in the city of Guadalupe. New pavement is proposed from post mile R36.4 to 49.2, but signage will be placed from post mile R36.1 to 49.5.

Determination This proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is included to give notice to interested agencies and the public that it is Caltrans’ intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project. This does not mean that Caltrans’ decision on the project is final. This Mitigated Negative Declaration is subject to change based on comments received from interested agencies and the public.

Caltrans has prepared an Initial Study for this project and, following public review, expects to determine from this study that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment for the following reasons:

The proposed project would have no effect on land use, coastal zone, wild and scenic rivers, parks and recreational facilities, growth, farmlands/timberlands, community character/cohesion, relocations or acquisitions, environmental justice, utilities and emergency services, aesthetics, air quality, cultural or historical resources, hydrology or water quality, geology/soils, and wetlands.

The project will not create impacts due to: noise, vibration, hazardous wastes or materials, climate change; the proposed project would not be particularly vulnerable to seismic activity.

The proposed project would have less than significant effect on natural communities, animal and plant species or invasive species with incorporation of the avoidance and minimization measures identified in the Initial Study for these environmental resources topics, as applicable.

In addition, the proposed project would not have a significant adverse effect to threatened or endangered species and natural communities/habitat because the following avoidance, minimization and/or mitigation measures would reduce potential effects to insignificance:

Red-legged frog: • Only U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-approved biologists shall participate in activities

associated with the capture, handling, and monitoring of California red-legged frogs. • Ground disturbance shall not begin until written approval is received from the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service that the biologist is qualified to conduct the work.

• A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-approved biologist shall survey the project area no more than 48 hours before the onset of work activities.

• Before any activities begin on a project, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-approved biologist shall conduct a training session for all construction personnel.

Mitigated Negative Declaration

Solomon Canyon Maintenance Project viii

• A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-approved biologist shall be present at the work site until all California red-legged frogs have been removed, workers have been instructed, and disturbance of habitat has been completed.

• During project activities, all trash that may attract predators or scavengers shall be properly contained, removed from the work site, and disposed of regularly.

• All refueling, maintenance and staging of equipment and vehicles shall occur at least 60 feet from riparian habitat or water bodies.

• Environmentally Sensitive Areas shall be established and fenced to confine access routes and construction areas to the minimum area necessary to complete construction, and minimize the impact to California red-legged frog habitat

• Caltrans shall attempt to schedule work for times of the year when impacts to the California red-legged frog would be minimal.

• To control sedimentation during and after project completion, Caltrans shall implement Best Management Practices outlined in any authorizations or permits issued under the authorities of the Clean Water Act received for the project.

• Caltrans shall not use herbicides as the primary method to control invasive, exotic plants.

• However, if it is determined that the use of herbicides is the only feasible method for controlling invasive plants at a specific project site; it will implement the following additional protective measures for the California red-legged frog.

California tiger salamander: • Caltrans shall obtain U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of

Fish and Wildlife approval of Designated Biologist(s) and Designated Monitor(s) prior to project-related activities that may result in impacts to the California tiger salamander.

• Ground disturbance will not begin until written approval is received from the USFWS that the biologist is qualified to conduct the work.

• Before any activities begin, the approved biologist shall conduct an education program for all persons employed or otherwise working on the project site.

• A representative sample of small mammal burrows within the proposed areas of permanent and temporary impacts shall be hand-excavated by a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/California Department of Fish and Wildlife -approved biologist prior to construction.

• Effects to California tiger salamander shall be minimized during rainy weather and at night.



• Copies of all relevant agreements/permits (e.g., Biological Opinion, Section 2081 Incidental Take Permit) shall be maintained at the worksite.

• All refueling, maintenance, and staging of equipment and vehicles will occur at least 60 feet from riparian and pond habitat.

Bell’s vireo, Southwestern willow flycatcher, and Swainson’s hawk: • If least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and/or Swainson’s hawk are

observed within 100 feet of the Area of Potential Impact during the course of construction, a qualified biologist shall implement an exclusion zone and work shall be avoided within the exclusion zone until the least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and/or Swainson’s hawk is located greater than 100 feet from project-related disturbance.

Federally Designated Critical Habitat: • The various measures for California tiger salamander, La Graciosa thistle, and other

taxa and are also applicable to federally designated critical habitat. These measures have been assessed as sufficient to minimize impacts to California tiger salamander and La Graciosa thistle critical habitat.

• Prior to initiating ground- or vegetation-disturbing project activities, Caltrans shall satisfy the requirement to provide an anticipated 15.99 acres of California tiger salamander habitat by complying with one of the following:

• Purchase credits equivalent of up to 15.99 acres at a California Endangered Species Act-certified and California Department of Fish and Wildlife-approved Conservation Bank (in a location to be determined) authorized to sell credits for California tiger salamander; or,

• Acquire, permanently preserve, and perpetually manage up to 15.99 acres of Habitat Management Lands.

______________________________ _______________ Jason Wilkinson Date Senior Environmental Planner District 05 California Department of Transportation

Solomon Canyon Maintenance Project ix

Table of Contents Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration ........................................................................................ v Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. ix List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. x List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. x Chapter 1 Proposed Project ................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Purpose and Need .................................................................................................. 2

1.2.1 Purpose ........................................................................................................... 2 1.2.2 Need ................................................................................................................ 2

1.3 Project Description ................................................................................................ 3 1.4 Project Alternatives ................................................................................................ 3

1.4.1 Build Alternative ............................................................................................ 3 1.4.2 No-Build (No-Action) Alternative ................................................................. 4

1.5 Permits and Approvals Needed .............................................................................. 4 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................... 5

2.1 Biological Environment ......................................................................................... 7 2.1.1 Natural Communities ...................................................................................... 7 2.1.2 Animal Species ............................................................................................. 10 2.1.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................................ 16 2.1.4 Invasive Species ........................................................................................... 32

2.2 Construction Impacts ........................................................................................... 34 2.3 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................. 37 2.4 Climate Change .................................................................................................... 41

Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination .............................................................................. 55 Chapter 4 List of Preparers .................................................................................................. 57 Chapter 5 Distribution List .................................................................................................. 59 Appendix A California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Checklist ................................. 61 Appendix B Title VI Policy Statement .................................................................................... 75 Appendix C Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Summary ...................................... 77 Appendix D Biological Study Area Maps ............................................................................... 86 List of Technical Studies ................................................................................................................ 92

Solomon Canyon Maintenance Project x

List of Figures

Figure 1-1 Project Vicinity Map ...................................................................................................... 1 Figure 1-2 Project Location Map ..................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2-1 Resource Study Area Map for California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander Critical Habitat ............................................................................................................. 20 Figure 2-2. Resource Study Area Map for CTS and La Graciosa Thistle Critical Habitat ............. 24 Figure 2-3 2020 Business as Usual (BAU) Emissions Projection 2014 Edition ........................... 47 Figure 2-4 The Governor’s Climate Change Pillars: 2030 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals ..... 49

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Impacts to Natural Communities and Critical Habitat ...................................................... 8 Table 2.2 Special-Status Animals – Presence within the Biological Study Area .......................... 12 Table 2.3 Threatened and Endangered Species – Presence within the Biological Study Area ...... 17 Table 2.4 Plants Observed in the Biological Study Area Included in the California Invasive Plant Council’s Invasive Plant Inventory........................................................................................ 33 Table 2.5 Typical Construction Noise ............................................................................................ 36

Solomon Canyon Maintenance Project 1

Chapter 1 Proposed Project

1.1 Introduction

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), as assigned by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is the lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Caltrans is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Caltrans proposes a pavement overlay maintenance project in northwest Santa Barbara County on State Route 1 from Solomon Road near the town of Orcutt, to its intersection with Highway 166 in the city of Guadalupe (approximately 9.5 miles). Construction is proposed from post mile 36.4 to 49.2, but work will take place, including signage, from post mile 36.1 to 49.5 (See Figures 1-1 and 1-2). The proposed project does not include improvements to the two existing overhead structures (Waldorf and Solomon Creek). The project will require a right-of-way acquisition for the relocation of a driveway.

Figure 1-1 Project Vicinity Map



Figure 1-2 Project Location Map

The project was programmed in the 2016 State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) and construction is currently scheduled to begin in June 2020. Project construction is currently estimated to cost $8,254,800 and is expected to take about 4.5 months to complete.

1.2 Purpose and Need

1.2.1 Purpose The purpose of this project is to preserve and extend the life of the existing pavement and improve ride quality for the traveling public.

1.2.2 Need The project is needed because the Caltrans Pavement Condition Survey identified this section of SR 1 as having major pavement distress.



1.3 Project Description

This section describes the proposed project and the project alternatives developed to meet the purpose and need of the project, while avoiding or minimizing environmental impacts. The alternatives are the “Build Alternative” and the “No-Build Alternative”.

The project proposes improvements to State Route (SR) 1 in Santa Barbara County, east of Santa Maria and north of the town of Orcutt. Within the limits of the proposed project, SR 1 is a two-lane, undivided highway with 12-foot lanes and 0-to 2 foot non-standard shoulders. The project area consists of 9.5 miles of a two-lane highway which passes through rich agricultural land on which high-value crops are grown year round. The purpose of the project is to improve the ride quality of the pavement. This segment of roadway includes two undercrossing structures; the Waldorf (railroad) and Solomon Canyon (creek) bridge structures. There are no proposed improvements to these structures as a part of this project.

Capital preventative maintenance projects (CAPM) are non-structural pavement overlays that seek to maintain the roadway and prevent it from structural failure. The project proposes to dig out roadway surfaces that are heavily stressed and replace these areas with hot-mix asphalt. The roadway will then be overlaid with 0.2-foot of rubberized asphalt concrete. Three feet of compacted shoulder backing will be placed on both side of the roadway throughout the project limits. Shoulder backing consists of imported gravel material that helps prevent edge cracking and roadway departures. Dikes will be replaced in-kind. Compacted embankment material will be placed behind the back of dikes where necessary. Drainage features such as overside drains, flumes and asphalt concrete spillways will be replaced as needed. Existing metal beam guardrail will be upgraded to the current standard.

One driveway located near Solomon Creek will be relocated to correct sight distance deviancies, therefore, acquisition of right of way will be required. Potholing will be required to verify utility depths. Utility relocation is not anticipated.

1.4 Project Alternatives

Two alternatives are under consideration: the Build Alternative and the No Build Alternative.

1.4.1 Build Alternative This project alternative proposes to overlay the existing two-lanes and shoulders with 0.20' of gap graded rubberized hot-mix asphalt concrete. Heavily distressed pavement locations on the traveled way lanes will be cold planed and replaced with 0.33' of hot-mix asphalt prior to the rubberized hot-mix as overlay. Dikes will be replaced and 3’ feet of shoulder backing will be installed along the entire length of the project. Drainage features such as over side drains, flumes and asphalt concrete spillways will be replaced as needed. Existing metal beam guardrail will be upgraded to the current standard.



1.4.2 No-Build (No-Action) Alternative The existing conditions of the without the proposed project, the pavement will continue to deteriorate and the ride quality could potentially compromise the safety of the traveler at this location. Additionally, if a protective layer of asphalt is not overlaid to the existing pavement, there is nothing to prevent it from structural failure, extend the life of the existing roadway pavement, or improve ride quality and safety of the travelers of this section of SR 1.

1.5 Permits and Approvals Needed

Agency Permit/Approval Status

California Department of Fish and Wildlife

Section 2081-Incidental Take Permit for California Tiger Salamander

To be obtained prior to construction

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion for California Tiger Salamander

To be obtained prior to completion of the final environmental document.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Programmatic Opinion for California Red-legged Frog

To be obtained prior to completion of the final environmental document.


Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

As part of the scoping and environmental analysis done for the project, the following environmental issues were considered, but no adverse impacts were identified. As a result, there is no further discussion of these issues in this document.

• Land Use: The project would not change land use designations and is consistent with the local Land use Plans and Policies. (Source: Santa Barbara County Orcutt Community Plan 2012)

• Consistency with Local Plans: The project is consistent local policy documents.

• Coastal Zone: The project is not located within the Coastal Zone.

• Wild and Scenic Rivers: The project is not located adjacent to or near a wild and scenic rivers. (Source: Federal Emergency Management Act 2015)

• Parks and Recreational Facilities: There are no public or private recreational trails within the project’s Area of Potential Impact (See Figure 2.X) and none are proposed. A privately owned golf course is located along the highway between PM 40.4 to PM 41.1 and since it is privately owned, it is not protected by the Park Preservation Act.

• Growth: The project will not affect growth as it is a CAPM surface overlay to the existing roadway. (Source: Project Description)

• Farmlands and Timberlands: This section of highway bisects an area that is heavily traveled and used by agricultural workers. It will be a benefit to the workers when the road receives new overlay pavement.

• Community Character and Cohesion: The project does not affect community character and cohesion as it is a CAPM surface overlay to the existing roadway. (Source: Project Description)

• Relocations and Real Property Acquisition: No right of way, businesses, residences or private property would be acquired for this project. All work and construction staging will occur within the existing right-of-way. (Source: Project Description)

• Environmental Justice: No minority or low income populations will be adversely by the project. Therefore, this project is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12898. (Source: Project Description)



• Utilities and Emergency Services: There would be no adverse impacts on utilities and emergency services associated with this project. There will be no temporary or permanent relocation or interruption in utility services during construction. This portion of Highway 1 will remain open during construction with occasional lane closures. There will be little disruption in traffic flow in cases of emergency access. (Source: Project Description

• Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities: There would be no adverse impacts on traffic and transportation and traffic volumes will not increase due to this project. The highway will remain open during construction and no prolonged lane closures are anticipated during construction. (Source: Project Description)

• Visual/Aesthetics: There are no visual impacts anticipated as a result of this project. The appearance of this section of Highway 1 will remain the same. (Source: Visual Impact Assessment)

• Cultural Resources: The Caltrans right of way in the project area has been surveyed multiple times between 1981 and the present. One portion of the Area of Potential Impact was not surveyed because access was not granted by the property owner; however, a review of prior Caltrans project files revealed that the area is the location of a previous State Route alignment, creek rechannelization, and 100 years of farm activities. As a result, this area has no potential for intact cultural resources. (Source: Historic Property Survey Report, September 2017 and Archaeological Survey Report, August 2017)

• Hydrology and Floodplain: The project Area of Potential Impact is located outside the 100 year floodplain located to the east. No construction or work is proposed within the floodplain. (Source: Project Description)

• Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff: A Water Quality Assessment has determined that no water quality impacts are anticipated for the proposed project. (Source: Water Quality Assessment, August 21, 2017)

• Geology, Soils, Seismicity and Topography: The project will not impact geology, soils, seismicity or topography. (Source: Project Description)

• Paleontology: Paleontological resources are not expected to be encountered or impacted during construction of the project. (Source: Paleontology Assessment, July 31, 2017)

• Hazardous Waste and Materials: The issues identified in the Hazardous Waste Memorandum are routine construction issues that are handled in the construction contract through inclusion of standard special provisions. This project can proceed with very little risk of impacts due to unanticipated hazardous waste or other contamination related issues. (Source: Initial Site Assessment, June 18, 2014, Updated June 6, 2017)

• Air Quality: The provisions of Caltrans Standard Specifications pertaining to dust control and dust palliative requirements require the contractor to comply with Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District’s rules, ordinances, and



regulations. As per Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District CEQA guidelines, this project involves nominal construction emissions of air contaminants and therefore is exempt from CEQA guidelines. (Source: Air and Noise Compliance Studies, June 13, 2017)

• Noise and Vibration: A combination of abatement techniques with equipment noise control and administrative measures can be selected to provide the most effective means to minimize effects of construction activity impacts. Application of abatement measures will reduce the construction impacts, though temporary increase in noise and vibration would likely occur. Construction noise and vibration impacts are included in the Construction Impacts-Section 2.2. (Source: Air and Noise Compliance Studies, June 13, 2017)

• Wetlands and Other Waters: As a result of this project, no wetlands, other waters, or riparian areas under the jurisdiction of USACE, Regional Water Quality Control Board, or CDFW will be impacted by the proposed project. CWA Section 404/401 permits and a California FGC Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement will not be required for this project. (Source: Natural Environmental Study, September 2017)

• Plant Species: Botanical surveys were conducted within the Biological Study Area (BSA) in April, May, July, and August 2017. While potential habitat occurs within the BSA for several taxa, none were observed within the BSA during botanical surveys and none are anticipated to occur. No avoidance/minimization measures for special status plant species are required.(Source: Natural Environment Study, September 2017)

2.1 Biological Environment

2.1.1 Natural Communities This section of the document discusses natural communities of concern. The focus of this section is on biological communities, not individual plant or animal species. This section also includes information on wildlife corridors and habitat fragmentation. Wildlife corridors are areas of habitat used by wildlife for seasonal or daily migration. Habitat fragmentation involves the potential for dividing sensitive habitat and thereby lessening its biological value. Habitat areas that have been designated as critical habitat under the Federal Endangered Species Act are discussed below in the Threatened and Endangered Species Section (Section 2.2.3).

Affected Environment The Natural Environmental Study (September 2017) provided information on special status species known to occur within the Biological Study Area (BSA). The BSA is defined as the area that may be directly, indirectly, temporarily, or permanently impacted by construction and construction-related activities. The BSA include the entire 9.5 miles the project from PM 36.4 at Solomon road near Orcutt to PM 49.2 near the intersection of SR 166. The BSA is approximately 149.76 acres and extends



an additional 50 feet out from the fog line on both sides of SR-1. The BSA includes the construction staging and access areas. (See Appendix C for BSA maps)

The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; 2017) documents five regional habitats of concern that are considered sensitive as occurring within the search area: Central Dune Scrub, Central Foredunes, Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh, Southern California Threespine Stickleback Stream, and Southern Vernal Pool.

Habitats are considered to be of special concern based on 1) federal, State, or local laws regulating their development; 2) limited distributions; and/or 3) the habitat requirements of special-status plants or animals occurring on site. Federally designated critical habitats for California tiger salamander and La Graciosa thistle are present within the BSA.

Impact areas are a subset of the BSA and represented as the Area of Potential Impact. The Area of Potential Impact includes areas of permanent and temporary impacts and assumes the maximum amount of disturbance/impact associated with construction of the project (including staging areas). Impacts to natural communities/habitats within the project BSA have been quantified based on ground disturbance and are shown below in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 Impacts to Natural Communities and Critical Habitat

Community/Habitat Permanent Impacts Acre (ac)

Temporary Impacts Acre (ac)

Ruderal / Disturbed 6.53 4.74

California Tiger Salamander Critical Habitat1 1.77 1.19

La Graciosa Thistle Critical Habitat1 6.02 4.02 1 Critical habitat was quantified up to the edge of existing pavement.

Three feet of compacted shoulder backing will be placed on both side of the roadway throughout the project limits. Shoulder backing consists of imported gravel material that helps prevent edge cracking and roadway departures. The implementation of shoulder backing will result in temporary impacts throughout the overall BSA that extends approximately two feet from the edge of the shoulder backing (5’ overall from the edge of pavement). Sources of impacts will occurs during construction due to equipment access and staging as well as worker foot-traffic.

The project BSA was determined to support California tiger salamander habitats with adjacent breeding ponds and small mammal burrows directly adjacent to the edge of pavement. The project BSA was also determined to support habitat critical for La Graciosa thistle.



Environmental Consequences Based on the disturbance footprint of the area of potential impact along SR-1, estimated permanent and temporary impacts to federally designated critical habitat for California tiger salamander and La Graciosa thistle have been quantified in Table 2.1.

California tiger salamander critical habitat Unit 1 is comprised of approximately 4,135 acres west and southwest of the city of Santa Maria and supports one or more of the primary constituent elements that are essential for the conservation of the species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004). The permanent and temporary impacts to California tiger salamander critical habitat associated with the proposed project along this 9.3 mile stretch of highway are estimated to equate to less than 0.07% this critical habitat unit, with the impacts attributed to ruderal/disturbed habitat.

The FESA Section 7 effects determination is that the proposed project may affect, and is likely to adversely affect, California tiger salamander critical habitat. There would be a relatively small amount of permanent impacts (1.77 ac) to California tiger salamander critical habitat along the shoulders of SR-1 as a result of shoulder backing activities.

La Graciosa thistle critical habitat is comprised of approximately 13,227 acres and extends from the lower five miles of the Santa Maria River and along the length of Orcutt Creek approximately 13 miles (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009). The impacts to La Graciosa critical habitat associated with the proposed project along this 9.3 mile stretch of highway are estimated to equate to less than 0.08% of the critical habitat in this unit. Additionally, the project BSA was determined to support La Graciosa thistle PCEs that were the basis for determining the habitat as critical.

The Federal Endangered Species Act Section 7 effects determination is that the proposed project may affect, and is likely to adversely affect, La Graciosa thistle critical habitat. The basis for this determination is that there would be a relatively small amount of permanent impacts (6.02 acres) to La Graciosa thistle critical habitat along the shoulders of SR-1 as a result of shoulder-backing activities. The natural habitat that will be impacted as a result of these activities is ruderal and highly disturbed.

Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures In order to minimize disturbance to sensitive habitats and vegetation, Environmentally Sensitive Area fencing will be installed in areas where the Area of Potential Impact is adjacent to jurisdictional waterways. Special Provisions for the installation of Environmentally Sensitive Area fencing and silt fencing will be included in the construction contract and the Environmentally Sensitive Areas will be identified on the project plans. Prior to the start of construction activities, Environmentally Sensitive Areas to be fenced will be delineated in the field and will be approved by the Caltrans District 5 Environmental.

Numerous measures in Section 2.1.3 apply to California tiger salamander, La Graciosa thistle, and other taxa and are also applicable to federally designated critical



habitat. These measures have been assessed as sufficient to minimize impacts to California tiger salamander critical habitat. Refer to Section 2.1.3 for detail regarding these avoidance, minimization and/or mitigation measures.

Compensatory Mitigation A condition of the Section 2081 ITP (to be acquired) under CESA will be to fully mitigate impacts of take of covered species that will result from implementation of the proposed project. In addition to the impacts to CTS critical habitat, there is also potential CTS upland and migratory/dispersal habitat that will be impacted as a result of this project. Caltrans anticipates that CDFW will require compensatory habitat permanent protection and perpetual management of up to 12.87 ac for permanent impacts to potential CTS upland and migratory/dispersal habitat (up to a 3:1 compensatory mitigation ratio for 4.29 ac of permanent impacts) and up to 3.12 ac for temporary impacts to potential CTS upland habitat (up to a 1:1 compensatory mitigation ratio for 3.12 ac of temporary impacts), resulting in an anticipated compensatory mitigation lands total of 15.99 ac. It is possible that CDFW may require lower mitigation ratios if they determine that the impacted area is less than high quality habitat.

1. Prior to initiating ground- or vegetation-disturbing project activities, Caltrans shall satisfy the requirement to provide an anticipated 15.99 ac of CTS habitat by complying with one of the following:

2. Purchase credits equivalent of up to 15.99 ac at a CESA-certified and CDFW-approved Conservation Bank (in a location to be determined) authorized to sell credits for CTS; or,

3. Acquire, permanently preserve, and perpetually manage up to 15.99 ac of Habitat Management Lands.

4. Details regarding the selection and implementation of one of these two options and the exact amount of mitigation required will be detailed during the Section 2081 permitting process.

2.1.2 Animal Species

Regulatory Setting Many state and federal laws regulate impacts to wildlife. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife are responsible for implementing these laws. This section discusses potential impacts and permit requirements associated with animals not listed or proposed for listing under the federal or state Endangered Species Act. Species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered are discussed in the Threatened and Endangered Species Section 2.1.3 below. All other special-status animal species are discussed here, including California Department of Fish and Wildlife fully protected species and



species of special concern, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Fisheries Service candidate species.

Federal laws and regulations relevant to wildlife include the following:

• National Environmental Policy Act

• Migratory Bird Treaty Act

• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

State laws and regulations relevant to wildlife include the following:

• California Environmental Quality Act

• Sections 1600 – 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code

• Sections 4150 and 4152 of the California Fish and Game Code

Affected Environment The Natural Environmental Study (September 2017) provided information on special status species known to occur within the BSA.

Table 2.2 shows the animal species that have the potential to be affected by the proposed project.

Of the numerous special-status animal species addressed in Table 2.1 (below), the following discussions include those species that have the potential for presence and/or to be impacted by the proposed project. Based on occurrence records and suitable aquatic habitat nearby, California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) and California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) presence is inferred in the BSA. Because of their threatened and/or endangered status, the California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander are discussed in Section 2.1.3, Threatened and Endangered Species.

Nesting bird species are addressed here as a group because they have similar habitat requirements, project-related impacts, and avoidance and minimization measures. Nesting birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Section 3503. Refer to Section 2.1.3 for specific species survey results and avoidance/minimization measures.

None of the special-status bird species previously described were observed during appropriately-timed reconnaissance surveys of the BSA. Common birds species observed in or near the BSA included American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), American robin (Turdus migratorius), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), California towhee (Melozone crissalis), cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), lesser goldfinch (Carduelis psaltria), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), and western scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica). Numerous swallow nests were observed under the Waldorf and Solomon structures and potential nesting habitat for birds occurs in trees within



the BSA, although the habitat within proximity to the SR-1 travel corridor is somewhat compromised.

Table 2.2 Special-Status Animals – Presence within the Biological Study Area

Invertebrates Status Presence Pallid Bat Antrozous pallidus

California Species of Special Concern

No roosting bats or bat signs were observed at either of the structures or in adjacent habitat.

Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii


No roosting bats or bat signs were observed at either of the structures or in adjacent habitat

Western Red Bat Lasiurus blossevillii


No roosting bats or bat signs were observed at either of the structures or in adjacent habitat

Yuma Myotis Myotis yumanensis

CNDDB Special Animals List No roosting bats or bat signs were observed at either of the structures or in adjacent habitat

American Badger Taxidea taxus


Very low potential for denning occurrence of American badger within the API

Note: Species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered are discussed in Section 2.3.4 Pallid Bat The pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) is considered a Species of Special Concern (SSC) by California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Pallid bats range over much of the western United States, from central Mexico to British Columbia. They are found throughout California, especially in lowland areas below 6,400 ft. Pallid bats are apparently not migratory, but make local, seasonal movements. This nocturnal species resides in colonies consisting of a dozen to over 100 individuals. Pallid bats roost in deep crevices, caves, mines, rock faces, bridges and buildings. Like many bat species, pallid bats maintain both day and night roosts. Night roosts are used for feeding and are typically 0.25 mile from the day roosts, which are used for sleeping. Their primary food source is ground-dwelling insect species including crickets, grasshoppers, beetles, and centipedes. They maintain nursery colonies with 30 to over 100 individuals. Females have one to two pups for each pregnancy, usually born between mid to late June. Pallid bats commonly establish day, maternity, and night roosts on bridges.

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) is considered a Species of Special Concern by California Department of Fish and Wildlife and was considered a candidate for state listing as threatened but the California Fish and Game Commission determined that listing was not warranted on October 25, 2016. The Townsend's big-eared bat requires caves, mines, tunnels, buildings, or other human-made structures for roosting. It may use separate sites for night, day, hibernation, or maternity roosts. Maternity roosts are the most important limiting resource and are found in caves, tunnels, mines, and buildings. Small clusters or groups (usually fewer than 100



individuals) of females and young form the maternity colony. Maternity roosts are in relatively warm sites. Most mating occurs from November to February. Births occur in May and June, peaking in late May. This species is extremely sensitive to disturbance of roosting sites. A single visit may result in abandonment of the roost. Numbers reportedly have declined steeply in California. Townsend’s big-eared bats occasionally establish day, maternity, and night roosts on bridges.

Western Red Bat The western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii) is considered a Species of Special Concern by California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The western red bat is locally common in some areas of California, occurring from Shasta County to the Mexican border, west of the Sierra Nevada/Cascade crest and deserts. Roosting habitat includes forests and woodlands from sea level up through mixed conifer forests. The western red bat feeds over a wide variety of habitats including grasslands, shrublands, open woodlands and forests, and croplands. Mating occurs in August and September and births are from late May through early July. Western red bats are not known to roost on bridges but may roost in trees.

Yuma Myotis The Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis) is included on the California Natural Diversity Database- Special Animals List (California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2017). This species is common and widespread in California. Optimal habitats are open forests and woodlands with sources of water over which to feed. The Yuma myotis roosts in buildings, mines, caves, or crevices. It mates in the fall and birth of pups occurs in late May to mid-June with a peak in early June. It is likely that some young are born in July in some areas. The Yuma myotis commonly establishes day, maternity, and night roosts on bridges.

Survey Results Bridges frequently have structural features that are similar to natural roosts, and the large mass offers the thermal buffering that roosting bats require; also, bridges frequently serve to replace natural roosts in altered landscapes. Night roosts are most commonly found in concrete girder bridges, where the steel girders create warm air pockets and the bridge deck temperature is typically warmer and more stable than ambient temperature.

Solomon Canyon Creek Bridge, Waldorf Overhead Railroad Crossing, and surrounding vegetation within the BSA were assessed for the potential of providing habitat for roosting bats. Based on Caltrans guidance, the Solomon structure was assessed to have no suitable habitat for any bat species and the Waldorf structure was assessed to have minimal habitat for any bat species. The structures were surveyed for roosting bats and bat sign (e.g., guano, grease or urine stains, prey remains) during the general wildlife survey efforts in April, May, July, and August 2017. No roosting bats or bat signs were observed at either of the structures or in adjacent habitat. The clearance below the existing bridge deck at Solomon Creek may be too low and lacks typical bridge features (e.g., concrete girders, joints, and crevices) that form suitable microclimates conducive to roosting. While the Waldorf structure has significantly



higher clearance and also has typical bridge features such as crevices and joints, it spans a frequently used railway line and this may prevent it from being used as roosting habitat. Although these features may preclude the presence of roosting bats under both structures, each of the special-status bat taxa also has the potential to roost in trees within the BSA.

American Badger The American badger (Taxidea taxus) is considered a California Department of Fish and Wildlife Special Status species. It is an uncommon, permanent resident found throughout most of the state of California, except in the northern North Coast area. The species is abundant in drier open stages of most shrub, forest, and herbaceous habitats, with friable soils. Badgers are a stocky, low-slung member of the weasel family (Mustelidae) with distinctive white and black head markings, short powerful legs, and long claws adapted for digging. Badgers are carnivorous and eat burrowing rodents such as rats, mice, chipmunks, and especially ground squirrels and pocket gophers. Their diet shifts seasonally and yearly in response to availability of prey and they will also eat some reptiles, insects, earthworms, eggs, birds, and carrion.

Badgers dig burrows in friable soil for cover. They frequently reuse old burrows, although some may dig a new den each night, especially in summer. Dens are typically greater than six inches in diameter and horizontally oval-shaped, occasionally with claw marks along the inner surface. They are active yearlong and are both nocturnal and diurnal, with variable periods of inactivity in the winter. Badgers mate in the summer and early fall and two to three young are born mostly in March and April. Badgers are non-migratory and their home range estimates vary geographically and seasonally from 4.9 to 1791.5 acres.

Survey Results No badgers, live or dead, or potential badger dens were observed during surveys of the project BSA. No dirt piles, prey remains, claw marks inside burrows, or other sign of badgers were observed within the project site. The nearest and most recent California Natural Diversity Database record of an American badger to the project site was from February 1991 when one badger was observed as roadkill on Black Road, one mile from the project location.

While the BSA supports habitat for American badger, the area within the Area of Potential Impact was assessed to be marginal habitat at best as it occurs next to the SR-1 travel corridor, and friable soils are not present within the area of potential impact. There is very low potential for denning occurrence of American badger within the area of potential impact.

Environmental Consequences

Birds No vegetation or tree removal is anticipated as a part of this project, so no direct impacts to nesting birds are anticipated. Indirect impacts could result from noise and disturbance associated with construction, which could alter perching, foraging, and/or nesting behaviors. The implementation of the avoidance and minimization measures



such as preactivity surveys and buffer areas will reduce the potential for adverse effects to nesting bird species.

Bats Although no bat roosts were observed during surveys, there is a marginal potential that bats could establish new roosts in trees within the BSA with the passage of time. No direct impacts to bats are anticipated to occur as a result of project activities. Indirect impacts could result from noise and disturbance associated with construction, which could also alter roosting behaviors. The implementation of preactivity surveys will reduce the potential for adverse effects to roosting bat species.

American Badger If present during construction, American badgers could accidentally be injured or killed by construction equipment. Noise and disturbance associated with construction could adversely affect foraging and dispersal behaviors. Although there is marginal potential habitat within the project site, the potential for adverse effects to American badger is estimated to be very low.

Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

Birds Caltrans has agreed to implement the following avoidance measures to protect nesting birds:

1. If construction activities are proposed to occur within 100 feet of potential habitat during the nesting season (February 1 to September 30), a nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a biologist determined qualified by Caltrans no more than three (3) days prior to construction. If an active nest is found, a qualified biologist shall determine an appropriate buffer and monitoring strategy based on the habits and needs of the species. The buffer area shall be avoided until a qualified biologist has determined that juveniles have fledged.

Bats Caltrans has proposed to implement the following avoidance and minimization measures to protect roosting bats:

1. A roosting bat survey shall be conducted for the Waldorf bridge structure by a biologist determined qualified by Caltrans no more than 14 days prior to construction. If an active roost is found, a qualified biologist shall determine an appropriate buffer and monitoring strategy based on the habits and needs of the species. The buffer area shall be avoided until a qualified biologist has determined that all bats have left the roost.

2. If an active bat roost is found, Caltrans shall coordinate with California Department of Fish and Wildlife to determine an appropriate buffer based on the habits and needs of the species. Readily visible exclusion zones shall be established in areas where roosts must be avoided using Environmentally Sensitive Area fencing. Work in the buffer area shall be avoided until a qualified biologist has determined that roosting activity has ceased. Active bat maternity roosts shall not be disturbed or destroyed at any time.



American Badger The following avoidance and minimization measures are recommended to protect badgers:

1. No less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to beginning of ground disturbance and/or construction activities, a qualified biologist will conduct a survey to determine if any American badger dens are present at the project site. If dens are found, they will be monitored for badger activity. If it is determined that dens may be active, the entrances of the dens will be blocked with soil, sticks, and debris for three to five days to discourage the use of these dens prior to project disturbance activities. The den entrances will be blocked to an incrementally greater degree over the three to five day period. After it has been determined that badgers have stopped using active dens, the dens will be hand-excavated with a shovel to prevent re-use during construction. No disturbance of active dens will take place when cubs may be present and dependent on parental care.

2. Any observations of occupied badger dens or American badgers within the project area will be reported to California Department of Fish and Wildlife by the project biologist.

2.1.3 Threatened and Endangered Species

Regulatory Setting The primary federal law protecting threatened and endangered species is the Federal Endangered Species Act: 16 United States Code Section 1531, et seq. See also 50 Code of Federal Regulations Part 402. This act and later amendments provide for the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Under Section 7 of this act, federal agencies, such as the Federal Highway Administration (and Caltrans as assigned), are required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service to ensure that they are not undertaking, funding, permitting, or authorizing actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. Critical habitat is defined as geographic locations critical to the existence of a threatened or endangered species. The outcome of consultation under Section 7 may include a Biological Opinion with an Incidental Take statement or a Letter of Concurrence. Section 3 of Federal Endangered Species Act defines take as “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect or any attempt at such conduct.”

California has enacted a similar law at the state level, the California Endangered Species Act, California Fish and Game Code Section 2050, et seq. California Endangered Species Act emphasizes early consultation to avoid potential impacts to rare, endangered, and threatened species and to develop appropriate planning to offset project-caused losses of listed species populations and their essential habitats. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife is the agency responsible for



implementing California Endangered Species Act. Section 2080 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits "take" of any species determined to be an endangered species or a threatened species. Take is defined in Section 86 of the California Fish and Game Code as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” California Endangered Species Act allows for take incidental to otherwise lawful development projects; for these actions an incidental take permit is issued by California Department of Fish and Wildlife. For species listed under both Federal Endangered Species Act and California Endangered Species Act requiring a Biological Opinion under Section 7 of Federal Endangered Species Act, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife may also authorize impacts to California Endangered Species Act species by issuing a Consistency Determination under Section 2080.1 of the California Fish and Game Code.

Another federal law, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, was established to conserve and manage fishery resources found off the coast, as well as anadromous species and Continental Shelf fishery resources of the United States, by exercising (A) sovereign rights for the purposes of exploring, exploiting, conserving, and managing all fish within the exclusive economic zone established by Presidential Proclamation 5030, dated March 10, 1983, and (B) exclusive fishery management authority beyond the exclusive economic zone over such anadromous species, Continental Shelf fishery resources, and fishery resources in special areas.

Affected Environment The Natural Environmental Study (September 2017) provided information on special-status species known to occur within the BSA.

Table 2.2 shows the threatened and endangered animal species that have the potential to be affected by the proposed project.

Table 2.3 Threatened and Endangered Species – Presence within the Biological Study Area

Invertebrates Status Presence Amphibians California red-legged frog Rana draytonii

California Species of Special Concern; federally threatened

Inferred presence; suitable aquatic habitat present

California Tiger Salamander Ambystoma californiense

State threatened; federally threatened

Inferred presence; suitable aquatic habitat present near project BSA

Birds Least Bell’s Vireo Vireo bellii pusillus

State and Federally endangered species

suitable nesting habitat present

Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus

State and Federally endangered species

suitable nesting habitat present



Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni

State threatened species Very low potential for occurrence within the BSA

Plants La Graciosa Thistle Federally endangered

species Not observed during appropriately timed surveys. Low potential for occurrence within the BSA

Critical Habitat California Tiger Salamander

Federally Designated Critical Habitat

Critical habitat occurs within the BSA.

La Graciosa Thistle Federally Designated Critical Habitat

Critical habitat occurs within the BSA.

Amphibians:

California red-legged frog The California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) is a federally threatened and a California Species of Special Concern. It is recognized by the reddish color that forms on the underside of its legs and belly and the presence of a diagnostic dorsolateral fold. The California red-legged frog historically ranged from Marin County southward to northern Baja California. Presently, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara Counties support the largest remaining California red-legged frog populations within California.

The California red-legged frog uses a variety of areas, including aquatic, riparian, and upland habitats. They prefer aquatic habitats with little or no flow, the presence of surface water to at least early June, surface water depths to at least 27.6 inches, and the presence of fairly sturdy underwater supports such as cattails. The largest densities of this species are typically associated with dense stands of overhanging willows and an intermixed fringe of sturdy emergent vegetation. California red-legged frog typically breeds from January to July, with peak breeding occurring in February and March. Softball-sized egg masses are attached to subsurface vegetation, and hatched tadpoles require 11 to 20 weeks to metamorphose. Metamorphosis typically occurs from July to September.

The California red-legged frog uses both riparian and upland habitats for foraging, shelter, cover, and nondispersal movement. Upland refugia may be natural, such as the spaces under boulders or rocks and organic debris (e.g., downed trees or logs), or manmade, such as certain industrial debris and agricultural features (e.g., drains, watering troughs, abandoned sheds, or stacks of hay or other vegetation); California red-legged frog will also use small mammal burrows and moist leaf litter as refugia (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010). Adults are predominantly nocturnal, while juveniles can be active at any time of day. Riparian habitat degradation, urbanization, predation by bullfrogs, and historic market harvesting has all reportedly contributed to the decline of the species.



Survey Results No protocol surveys were conducted for California red-legged frog and the species was not observed during reconnaissance surveys. There are known occurrence records for California red-legged frog within and near the project BSA (California Natural Diversity Database 2017) and presence within the BSA is inferred. The California red-legged frog critical habitat area near the project site is approximately 0.2 miles southwest of the BSA and will be completely avoided. See Figure 2-1 California tiger salamander California tiger salamanders are also listed as a threatened species under California Endangered Species Act. The California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) is a large, seven to eight inch, stocky, terrestrial salamander with a broad rounded snout (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004a). California tiger salamander are known only in California, and occur in the Central Valley, Sierra foothills, and coast ranges and intermountain valleys from near Petaluma and Sacramento in the north to Tulare and Santa Barbara Counties in the south.

The Santa Barbara County distinct population segment of the California tiger salamander was listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service throughout its entire range as endangered in 2000 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004a). This distinct population segment is endemic to the northern portion of Santa Barbara County and currently consists of six distinct metapopulations. The recovery priority number for the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander indicates a high potential for recovery and a high degree of threat in conflict with development (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016). West Santa Maria/Orcutt, which the BSA occurs within, is one of the six metapopulations and contains 15 known extant breeding ponds. (See Figure 2-1)

California tiger salamanders spend the majority of their lives underground in small mammal burrows, primarily those of the California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) and Botta’s pocket gopher (Thommomys bottae) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016). California tiger salamanders may also use landscape features such as leaf litter or desiccation cracks in the soil for upland refugia. Winter rain events trigger California tiger salamander to emerge from refugia and seek breeding ponds (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016).

California tiger salamanders breeding habitat includes vernal pools, and seasonal and perennial ponds (such as stock ponds), and California tiger salamander also inhabit surrounding upland areas in grassland and oak savannah plant communities (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004a). Adult California tiger salamander mate in vernal pools and similar aquatic habitats. Females typically lay their eggs in the water from December to February, attaching eggs to vegetation or debris. In ponds with little or no vegetation, females may attach eggs to objects such as rocks and boards on the bottom. Larvae hatch in 10 to 28 days and the larval stage lasts three to six months until metamorphosis. Metamorphosed juveniles leave breeding sites in late spring or early summer.



Figure 2-1 Resource Study Area Map for California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander Critical Habitat

California tiger salamanders can undertake long-distance migrations, and can disperse long distances as well. Many studies have recorded migration and dispersal distances by adult and juvenile California tiger salamander, and although none of these studies were conducted within the range of the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander, they are considered to be the best available scientific information on the species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016). In general, studies show that adults can move 1.2 miles to more than 1.4 miles from breeding ponds (Orloff 2011). Estimates differ on the proportion of the population likely to move large distances,



with studies finding that 95 percent of a population occurs within 2,034 feet or 1.1 miles of a breeding pond (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016).

Survey Results No protocol surveys were conducted for California tiger salamander and the species was not observed during reconnaissance surveys. Presence is inferred based on known occurrence records and suitable aquatic and upland habitat for California tiger salamander near the project BSA (California Natural Diversity Database 2017).

Birds:

Least Bell’s Vireo The least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) is a federal and state endangered species. Federal critical habitat has been designated for the species, but not within the BSA. Historically, the least Bell’s vireo was a common to locally abundant species in lowland riparian habitat, ranging from coastal southern California through the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys. By the time of listing in 1986, the least Bell’s vireo had been eliminated from most of its historic range. Populations were confined to eight counties south of Santa Barbara, with the majority of birds occurring in San Diego County.

Least Bell's vireos require riparian areas to breed and typically inhabit structurally diverse woodlands along watercourses. They occur in a number of riparian habitat types, including cottonwood-willow woodlands/forests, oak woodlands, and mule fat scrub. Least Bell’s vireos usually arrive in California during mid- to late-March. They build their nests in a variety of plants that provide concealment in the form of dense foliage.

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher The southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) is a federal and state endangered species. Federal critical habitat has been designated for the species, but not within the BSA. The southwestern willow flycatcher is one of several subspecies of the willow flycatcher, three of which occur in California.

The historical breeding range of the southwestern willow flycatcher included southern California, southern Nevada, southern Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, western Texas, southwestern Colorado, and extreme northwestern Mexico (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002b). The current range is similar to the historical range, but the quantity of suitable habitat is heavily reduced from historical levels. The southwestern willow flycatcher occurs from near sea level to over 8,500 feet, but is primarily found in lower elevation riparian habitats. In Santa Barbara County, it is known to occur along the Santa Ynez River system. The southwestern willow flycatcher usually breeds in patchy to dense riparian habitats along streams or other wetlands, near or adjacent to surface water or underlain by saturated soil. Southwestern willow flycatchers typically arrive on breeding grounds between early May and early June.



Swainson ’s hawk The Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) was listed as a state threatened species in 1983 by the California Fish and Game Commission. The species is a medium-sized buteo with relatively long, pointed wings which curve up somewhat in a slight dihedral while the bird is in flight (California Department of Fish and Game 1993).

The Swainson’s hawk breeds in the western United States and Canada and winters in South America as far south as Argentina. A raptor adapted to the open grasslands, it has become increasingly dependent on agriculture, especially alfalfa crops, as native communities are converted to agricultural lands (California Fish and Game 1993). Their diet is varied, with California vole (Microtus californicus) being the staple of the diet; however, a variety of other small mammals, birds, and insects are also taken. Swainson’s hawks often nest peripheral to riparian systems. They will also use lone trees in agricultural fields or pastures and roadside trees when available and adjacent to suitable foraging habitat (California Fish and Game 1993).

The species described above are each protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Section 3503. In addition to these species, numerous other nesting bird species protected by these two regulatory laws have the potential to nest in habitats within the BSA.

Survey Results There are no known records for either southwestern willow flycatcher or least Bell's vireo within the BSA (California Natural Diversity Database 2017, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998, 2002b). The nearest record for least Bell's vireo is a 1979 sighting of a single vireo, 12.7 miles to the east along the Sisquoc River in Foxen Canyon (California Natural Diversity Database 2017). The most recent California Natural Diversity Database record for least Bell’s vireo is from a 2016 sighting of a territorial male vireo in the Santa Ynez River, 23 miles southeast of the proposed project site (California Natural Diversity Database 2017). The nearest and most recent California Natural Diversity Database record for southwestern willow flycatcher is from a 1995 sighting of two breeding adults in the Santa Ynez River, approximately 23 miles southeast of the proposed project site (California Natural Diversity Database 2017).

While the BSA supports riparian habitat, it was assessed to be marginal habitat at best as it occurs next to the SR-1 travel corridor, dense riparian vegetative cover low to the ground is sparse, and the riparian corridor lacks a stratified canopy. Southwestern willow flycatcher and least Bell's vireo were determined to have very marginal habitat and a very low potential for occurrence within the BSA. Additionally, the riparian habitat within the BSA occurs outside of the area of potential impact and is not anticipated to be impacted as a result of project activities.

A single Swainson’s hawk record from 1896 was mapped to locality “Guadalupe” and the exact location is unknown. The closest Swainson’s hawk sightings record is of a nesting pair near SR-166 east of Cuyama, approximately 52 miles east of the proposed project site (California Natural Diversity Database 2017).

While foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk is present in the open grassland and cropland habitat of the BSA, it was assessed to be marginal habitat as it occurs next to



the busy SR-1 travel corridor. Swainson’s hawk was determined to have a very low potential for occurrence within the BSA. Additionally, the open grassland and cropland habitat within the BSA occurs outside of the API and is not anticipated to be impacted as a result of project activities.

Critical Habitat La Graciosa Thistle and California tiger salamander The project area occurs within federally designated critical habitats for the Santa Barbara county DPS of California tiger salamander: Western Santa Maria/Orcutt and La Graciosa thistle: Santa Maria River-Orcutt Creek. California tiger salamander critical habitat is comprised of approximately 4,135 acres west and southwest of the city of Santa Maria. La Graciosa thistle critical habitat is comprised of approximately 13,227 acres and extends from the lower 5 miles of the Santa Maria River and along the length of Orcutt Creek for approximately 13 miles. (See Figure 2-2)

Environmental Consequence Amphibians: California red-legged frog Minimal direct and indirect impacts are anticipated to California red-legged frog as a result of this project. Project construction could result in the injury or mortality of California red-legged frogs if present. The potential need to capture and relocate California red-legged frogs could subject these animals to stresses that could result in adverse effects. Injury or mortality could occur via accidental crushing by worker foot-traffic or construction equipment. The potential for impacts to California red-legged frogs are anticipated to be low due to no observations of the species within the BSA during reconnaissance surveys, but this could change through time, where the species could potentially disperse and/or expand populations throughout the BSA.

The Federal Endangered Species Act Section 7 effects determination is that the proposed project may affect, and is likely to adversely affect, California red-legged frog. The basis for this determination is that the presence of California red-legged frogs has been inferred and there would be a low but possible potential for take of the species as a result of construction activities.

California tiger salamander Approximately 4.29 acres (permanent) and 3.12 acres (temporary) of ruderal/disturbed upland and dispersal habitat (7.41 acres total) would be impacted by shoulder-backing activities as a result of this project. This activity could result in the injury or mortality (via accidental crushing by equipment) of an unknown number of California tiger salamander residing in small mammal burrows within upland habitat in the BSA. This could be particularly detrimental during rain events during the breeding season (typically from about November 1 to May 6) when adults could potentially disperse to ponds surrounding the BSA to breed or during moist nights in May/June when juveniles are dispersing out of ponds to upland habitat. (See Figure 2-2)



Figure 2-2. Resource Study Area Map for CTS and La Graciosa Thistle Critical Habitat



California tiger salamander could also be entombed in small mammal burrows collapsed by construction activities, which could result in injury or mortality. Finally, the potential need to capture and relocate California tiger salamander could subject these animals to stresses that could result in adverse effects. There will be no impacts to breeding habitat as a result of this project.

The Federal Endangered Species Act Section 7 effects determination is that the proposed project may affect, and is likely to adversely affect, California tiger salamander. The basis for this determination is that California tiger salamander presence is inferred and there would be a low but possible potential for take of the species as a result of project activities.

Birds:

Southwestern willow flycatcher, least Bell's vireo, and Swainson’s hawk Because avoidance and minimization measures will be employed to protect all nesting bird species protected by Federal Endangered Species Act, California Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and California Fish and Game Code, the Federal Endangered Species Act Section 7 effects determination is that the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, least Bell's vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher.

The southwestern willow flycatcher, least Bell's vireo, and Swainson’s hawk are state listed taxa under the California Endangered Species Act, but because these taxa are not expected to be encountered during construction and measures will be implemented to avoid impacts to nesting birds, coordination with California Department of Fish and Wildlife is not anticipated to be necessary.

Critical Habitat:

La Graciosa Thistle The FESA Section 7 effects determination is that the proposed project may affect, and is likely to adversely affect, La Graciosa thistle critical habitat. The impacts to La Graciosa critical habitat, associated with the proposed project, along this 9.3 mile stretch of highway, are estimated to equate to less than 0.08% of the critical habitat. The basis for this determination is that there would be a relatively small amount of permanent impacts (6.02 acres) to La Graciosa thistle critical habitat along the shoulders of SR-1 as a result of shoulder-backing activities. The natural habitat that will be impacted as a result of these activities is ruderal and highly disturbed. (See Figure 2-2)

Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

Amphibians: Caltrans has agreed to implement the following avoidance measures to protect amphibians:



California red-legged frog Caltrans anticipates the proposed project will qualify for Federal Endangered Species Act incidental take coverage under the Programmatic Biological Opinion for Projects Funded or Approved under the Federal Highway Administration’s Federal Aid Program (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011), which includes the following applicable measures:

1. Only U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-approved biologists shall participate in activities associated with the capture, handling, and monitoring of California red-legged frogs.

2. Ground disturbance shall not begin until written approval is received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that the biologist is qualified to conduct the work.

3. A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-approved biologist shall survey the project area no more than 48 hours before the onset of work activities. If any life stage of the California red-legged frog is found and these individuals are likely to be killed or injured by work activities, the approved biologist shall be allowed sufficient time to move them from the site before work begins. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-approved biologist shall relocate the California red-legged frogs the shortest distance possible to a location that contains suitable habitat and will not be affected by the activities associated with the project. The relocation site shall be in the same drainage to the extent practicable. Caltrans shall coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the relocation site prior to the capture of any California red-legged frogs.

4. Before any activities begin on a project, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-approved biologist shall conduct a training session for all construction personnel. At a minimum, the training shall include a description of the California red-legged frog and its habitat, the specific measures that are being implemented to conserve the California red-legged frog for the current project, and the boundaries within which the project may be accomplished. Brochures, books, and briefings may be used in the training session, with a qualified person on hand to answer any questions.

5. A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-approved biologist shall be present at the work site until all California red-legged frogs have been removed, workers have been instructed, and disturbance of habitat has been completed. After this time, Caltrans shall designate a person to monitor on-site compliance with all minimization measures. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-approved biologist shall ensure this monitor receives the training outlined in measure 4 above and in the identification of California red-legged frogs. If the monitor or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-approved biologist recommend that work be stopped because California red-legged frogs would be affected in a manner not anticipated by Caltrans and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during review of the proposed action, they shall notify the resident engineer



immediately. The resident engineer shall resolve the situation by requiring that all actions that are causing these effects be halted. When work is stopped, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service shall be notified as soon as possible.

6. During project activities, all trash that may attract predators or scavengers shall be properly contained, removed from the work site, and disposed of regularly. Following construction, all trash and debris shall be removed from work areas.

7. All refueling, maintenance and staging of equipment and vehicles shall occur at least 60 feet from riparian habitat or water bodies and not in a location from where a spill would drain directly toward aquatic habitat, unless otherwise preapproved by the necessary agencies. The monitor shall ensure contamination of habitat does not occur during `operations. Prior to the onset of work, Caltrans shall ensure that a plan is in place for prompt and effective response to any accidental spills. All workers shall be informed of the importance of preventing spills and of the appropriate measures to take should a spill occur.

8. Habitat contours shall be returned to a natural configuration at the end of the project activities. This measure shall be implemented in all areas disturbed by activities associated with the project, unless the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Caltrans determine that it is not feasible or modification of original contours would benefit the California red-legged frog.

9. The number of access routes, size of staging areas, and the total area of activity shall be limited to the minimum necessary to achieve the project. Environmentally Sensitive Areas shall be established and fenced to confine access routes and construction areas to the minimum area necessary to complete construction, and minimize the impact to California red-legged frog habitat; this goal includes locating access routes and construction areas outside of wetlands and riparian areas to the maximum extent practicable.

10. Caltrans shall attempt to schedule work for times of the year when impacts to the California red-legged frog would be minimal. For example, work that would affect large pools that may support breeding would be avoided, to the maximum degree practicable, during the breeding season (November through May). Isolated pools that are important to maintain California red-legged frogs through the driest portions of the year would be avoided, to the maximum degree practicable, during the late summer and early fall. Habitat assessments, surveys, and technical assistance between Caltrans and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during project planning shall be used to assist in scheduling work activities to avoid sensitive habitats during key times of year.

11. To control sedimentation during and after project completion, Caltrans shall implement Best Management Practices outlined in any authorizations or permits issued under the authorities of the Clean Water Act received for the



project. If Best Management Practices are ineffective, Caltrans shall attempt to remedy the situation immediately, in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

12. If a work site is to be temporarily dewatered by pumping, intakes shall be completely screened with wire mesh not larger than 0.2 inch to prevent California red-legged frogs from entering the pump system. Water shall be released or pumped downstream at an appropriate rate to maintain downstream flows during construction. Upon completion of construction activities, any diversions or barriers to flow shall be removed in a manner that would allow flow to resume with the least disturbance to the substrate. Alteration of the streambed shall be minimized to the maximum extent possible; any imported material shall be removed from the streambed upon completion of the project.

13. Unless approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, water shall not be impounded in a manner that may attract California red-legged frogs.

14. A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-approved biologist shall permanently remove any individuals of exotic species, such as bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana), signal and red swamp crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus; Procambarus clarkii), and centrarchid fishes from the project area, to the maximum extent possible. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-approved biologist shall be responsible for ensuring his or her activities are in compliance with the California Fish and Game Code.

15. If Caltrans demonstrates that disturbed areas have been restored to conditions that allow them to function as habitat for the California red-legged frog, these areas will not be included in the amount of total habitat permanently disturbed.

16. To ensure that diseases are not conveyed between work sites by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-approved biologist, the fieldwork code of practice developed by the Declining Amphibian Task Force shall be followed at all times.

17. Project sites shall be revegetated with an assemblage of native riparian, wetland, and upland vegetation suitable for the area. Locally collected plant materials shall be used to the extent practicable. Invasive, exotic plants shall be controlled to the maximum extent practicable. This measure shall be implemented in all areas disturbed by activities associated with the project, unless U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Caltrans determine that it is not feasible or practical.

18. Caltrans shall not use herbicides as the primary method to control invasive, exotic plants. However, if it is determined that the use of herbicides is the only feasible method for controlling invasive plants at a specific project site; it will



implement the following additional protective measures for the California red-legged frog:

a. Caltrans shall not use herbicides during the breeding season for the California red-legged frog;

b. Caltrans shall conduct surveys for the California red-legged frog immediately prior to the start of herbicide use. If found, California red-legged frogs shall be relocated to suitable habitat far enough from the project area that no direct contact with herbicide would occur;

c. Giant reed and other invasive plants shall be cut and hauled out by hand and painted with glyphosate-based products, such as Aquamaster® or Rodeo®;

d. Licensed and experienced Caltrans staff or a licensed and experienced contractor shall use a hand-held sprayer for foliar application of Aquamaster® or Rodeo® where large monoculture stands occur at an individual project site;

e. All precautions shall be taken to ensure that no herbicide is applied to native vegetation;

f. Herbicides shall not be applied on or near open water surfaces (no closer than 60 feet from open water);

g. Foliar applications of herbicide shall not occur when wind speeds are in excess of 3 miles per hour;

h. No herbicides shall be applied within 24 hours of forecasted rain;

i. Application of all herbicides shall be done by qualified Caltrans staff or contractors to ensure that overspray is minimized, that all applications is made in accordance with the label recommendations, and with implementation of all required and reasonable safety measures. A safe dye shall be added to the mixture to visually denote treated sites. Application of herbicides shall be consistent with the U.S Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Pesticide Programs, Endangered Species Protection Program county bulletins;

j. All herbicides, fuels, lubricants, and equipment shall be stored, poured, or refilled at least 60 feet from riparian habitat or water bodies in a location where a spill would not drain directly toward aquatic habitat, unless otherwise preapproved by the necessary agencies. Prior to the onset of work, Caltrans shall ensure that a plan is in place for a prompt and effective response to accidental spills. All workers shall be



informed of the importance of preventing spills and of the appropriate measures to take should a spill occur.

California tiger salamander The following avoidance and minimization measures are recommended for protection to the California tiger salamander:

1. Caltrans shall obtain U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife approval of Designated Biologist(s) and Designated Monitor(s) prior to project-related activities that may result in impacts to the California tiger salamander. The Designated Biologist(s) shall hold all applicable State and Federal Permits including an active Scientific Collecting Permit from California Department of Fish and Wildlife that specifically names California tiger salamander surveys as an authorized activity. Any proposed Biologist(s) that do not have the required permits must work under the supervision of one who does have the required permits. These individuals shall be referred to as Designated Monitors.

The Designated Biologist with the active permits must be present at all surveys and during all initial ground disturbing activities in areas of potential California tiger salamander habitat to help minimize or avoid impact to the California tiger salamander and to minimize disturbance of habitat. Designated Biologist and/or Designated Monitors who handle California tiger salamander shall ensure that their activities do no transmit diseases or pathogens harmful to amphibians, such as chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis), by following the fieldwork code of practice developed by the Declining Amphibians Task Force. Designated Monitors may monitor project activities after initial ground disturbing activities have been completed provided the Designated Biologist with the active permits can be contacted should the need arise to relocate a California tiger salamander. Work that could potentially harm the California tiger salamander would have to be stopped until the Designated Biologist arrived to relocate the California tiger salamander to the pre-approved location. If the Designated Biologist or Designated Monitor recommends that work be stopped they shall notify the resident engineer immediately. The resident engineer shall resolve the situation by requiring that all actions that are causing these effects be halted.

2. Ground disturbance will not begin until written approval is received from the USFWS that the biologist is qualified to conduct the work.

3. Before any activities begin, the approved biologist shall conduct an education program for all persons employed or otherwise working on the project site prior to performing any work on-site. The program shall include a discussion of the biology of the California tiger salamander and project-specific avoidance and minimization measures. Upon completion



of the program, employees shall sign a form stating they attended the program and understand all protection measures.

4. A representative sample of small mammal burrows within the proposed areas of permanent and temporary impacts shall be hand-excavated by a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/California Department of Fish and Wildlife -approved biologist prior to construction. Timing of hand excavation shall occur outside of the California tiger salamander breeding season. Excavation of burrows between June 15 and November 1 would avoid the breeding season (November to March) and most juvenile dispersal movements.

5. During the Section 2081 permitting process Caltrans would like to propose hand-excavation of several dozen small mammal burrows that have the greatest potential to serve as refugia for California tiger salamander, in coordination with and approval from California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Determination of these burrows would include known parameters of preferred refugia, such as proximity to ponds and burrow type. If no California tiger salamander are found during hand-excavation of high-potential burrows, Caltrans proposes to infer the area is not serving as upland habitat and proceed with work as planned. Details regarding burrow excavation will be discussed and finalized during the upcoming Section 2081 permitting process.

6. Effects to California tiger salamander shall be minimized during rainy weather and at night. Between November 1 and April 1, the project site shall be surveyed nightly by the Designated Biologist of a Designated Monitor prior to any night work. When the chance of rainfall within 24 hours is predicted to be 70 percent or greater, only critical project activities will be allowed at night within potential California tiger salamander habitat, until no further rain is forecast.

7. Copies of all relevant agreements/permits (e.g., Biological Opinion, Section 2081 Incidental Take Permit) shall be maintained at the worksite.

8. During project activities, all trash that may attract predators will be properly contained, removed from the work site, and disposed of regularly. Following construction, all trash and construction debris will be removed from work areas.

9. All refueling, maintenance, and staging of equipment and vehicles will occur at least 60 feet from riparian and pond habitat. Measures will be taken to avoid situations where a spill could drain directly toward aquatic habitat.

Birds: Caltrans has agreed to implement the following avoidance measures to protect birds:

Southwestern willow flycatcher, least Bell's vireo, and Swainson’s hawk 1. If least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and/or Swainson’s

hawk are observed within 100 feet of the Area of Potential Impact during



the course of construction, a qualified biologist shall implement an exclusion zone and work shall be avoided within the exclusion zone until the least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and/or Swainson’s hawk is located greater than 100 ft from project-related disturbance. If an active least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and/or Swainson’s hawk nest is observed within 100 ft of the area of potential impact, all project activities shall immediately cease and Caltrans shall contact California Department of Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife within 48 hours. If required, Caltrans shall then initiate Federal Endangered Species Act Section 7 formal consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for least Bell’s vireo and/or southwestern willow flycatcher and California Endangered Species Act coordination with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and/or Swainson’s hawk and implement additional measures as necessary.

Critical Habitat: Caltrans has agreed to implement the following avoidance measures to protect federally designated critical habitat: California tiger salamander and La Graciosa thistle The various measures for California tiger salamander, La Graciosa thistle, and other taxa and are also applicable to federally designated critical habitat. These measures have been assessed as sufficient to minimize impacts to California tiger salamander and La Graciosa thistle critical habitat. (See Section 2.1.1 for Compensatory Mitigation Measures)

2.1.4 Invasive Species

Regulatory Setting On February 3, 1999, President William J. Clinton signed Executive Order (EO) 13112 requiring federal agencies to combat the introduction or spread of invasive species in the United States. The order defines invasive species as “any species, including its seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological material capable of propagating that species, that is not native to that ecosystem whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.” Federal Highway Administration guidance issued August 10, 1999 directs the use of the State’s invasive species list, maintained by the California Invasive Species Council to define the invasive species that must be considered as part of the National Environmental Policy Act analysis for a proposed project.

Affected Environment A total of 19 plant species included in the online California Invasive Species Council Database (2017) were observed within the BSA (refer to Table 2.4). Four exotic plant species with a “High” invasiveness rating were observed in the BSA: red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), highway iceplant (Carpobrotus edulis), yellow star-thistle, and fennel (Foeniculum vulgare). These taxa were not observed as

http://www.iscc.ca.gov/




invasive within the BSA. A total of seven plant species were observed within the BSA with a California Invasive Species Council invasiveness rating of “Moderate” and eight species were observed with an invasiveness rating of “Limited.” The distribution of invasive plant species is mainly sparsely scattered throughout the BSA and most common in ruderal/disturbed areas along the edges of SR-1.

Table 2.4 Plants Observed in the Biological Study Area Included in the California Invasive Plant Council’s Invasive Plant Inventory

Scientific Name Common Name Cal-IPC

Invasiveness Rating

Relative Density within the Biological Study

Area

Avena barbata slender wild oat Moderate Moderate Brassica nigra black mustard Moderate Moderate Bromus diandrus ripgut brome Moderate Moderate Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens foxtail brome High Sparse Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle Moderate Low/Moderate Carpobrotus edulis iceplant High Low Centaurea solstitialis yellow star-thistle High Sparse Cirsium vulgare bull thistle Moderate Sparse Conium maculatum poison hemlock Moderate Low/Moderate Erodium cicutarium redstem filaree Limited Moderate Eucalyptus globulus blue gum eucalyptus Limited Sparse Foeniculum vulgare fennel High Low Helminthotheca echioides bristly ox-tongue Limited Low Hordeum murinum foxtail barley Moderate Sparse Medicago polymorpha burclover Limited Sparse Plantago lanceolata English plantain Limited Sparse Polypogon monspeliensis rabbitsfoot grass Limited Sparse Raphanus sativus wild radish Limited Sparse Silybum marianum milk thistle Limited Moderate

Environmental Consequences In compliance with Executive Order 13112 and guidance from the Federal Highway Administration, the landscaping and erosion control included in the project will not use species listed as invasive. None of the species on the California list of invasive species is used by the Department for erosion control or landscaping in Northern Santa Barbara County. All equipment and materials will be inspected for the presence of invasive species and cleaned if necessary. In areas of particular sensitivity, extra precautions will be taken if invasive species are found in or next to the construction areas. These include the inspection and cleaning of construction equipment and eradication strategies to be implemented should an invasion occur.

Ground disturbance and other aspects of project construction (e.g., staging areas) could potentially spread or introduce invasive species within the BSA. As described previously in Chapter 3, the distribution of most invasive plant species is mostly sparsely scattered throughout the BSA and most common in ruderal/disturbed areas along the edges of SR-1.




Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures The following avoidance and minimization measures are recommended:

1. During construction, Caltrans will ensure that the spread or introduction of invasive exotic plant species will be avoided to the maximum extent possible.

2. Only clean fill shall be imported. When practicable, invasive exotic plants in the project site shall be removed and properly disposed. All vegetation removed from the construction site shall be taken to a landfill to prevent the spread of invasive species. If soil from weedy areas must be removed off-site, the top six inches containing the seed layer in areas with weedy species shall be disposed of at a landfill.

3. If necessary, wash stations onsite shall be established for construction equipment under the guidance of Caltrans in order to avoid/minimize the spread of invasive plants and/or seed within the construction area.

2.2 Construction Impacts

The construction schedule is based on preliminary estimates and is subject to change. Construction is anticipated to start on June 1, 2020, with approximately 100 work days, with completion by approximately October 15, 2020.

Construction staging and storage for equipment will be located in various previously disturbed “pull out” areas along the project route that are within the state right-of way, such as the area at PM 46.7 and 41.8. These locations have an area on the side of the highway wide enough to accommodate construction equipment without disrupting traffic flow. Single lane closures are anticipated and night time work is expected in an effort to reduce delay and disruption of daytime travelers.

Environmentally Sensitive Area fencing would be installed throughout areas of the project to limit construction activities and protect habitats of concern. Provisions for the installation of Environmentally Sensitive Area fencing and silt fencing shall be included in the construction contract for this project and also identified on the project plans. Although all Environmentally Sensitive Areas will be delineated on the plans, Environmentally Sensitive Areas must also be delineated in the field and shall be approved by Caltrans environmental prior to beginning any construction activities, including equipment storage.

Affected Environment Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities This segment of SR-1 does not have shoulders or designated lanes for pedestrian and bicycle use. If pedestrians and cyclists use this segment during construction, care should be taken as the pedestrians and cyclists will have to share the road with vehicles.



Air Quality Certain construction activities can be the source of temporary impacts to air quality. These potential impacts include dust-producing activities that occur during demolition, grading, and paving.

Construction Noise While this project will not produce long-term noise impacts due to increases in traffic volumes, it is important to look a potential short-term noise impacts caused by the repaving of the roadway.

Environmental Consequences Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities While the roadway will remain open to traffic, cyclists and pedestrians, single lane closures are anticipated during construction.

Air Quality During construction, the proposed project will generate air pollutants. The exhaust from construction equipment contains hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, suspended particulate matter, and odors. However, the largest percentage of pollutants would be windblown dust generated during demolition, hauling, and various other activities.

The impacts of these activities would vary each day as construction progresses. Dust and odors during construction could cause occasional annoyance and complaints from residence near the construction area.

Construction Noise Noise due to project construction will be intermittent and the intensity of it will vary. The degree of construction noise impacts may vary for different areas of the project site and depending on the construction activities. Long-term noise exposure descriptors are difficult to quantify due to the intermittent nature of construction noise. Highway construction is accomplished in several different phases. These phases and their estimated overall noise levels within the right-of-way can be characterized by the information in Table 2.3.

The project in not a Type 1 project and with the implementation of temporary construction noise mitigation measures, additional noise investigation in accordance with Caltrans' Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol is not required.



Table 2.5 Typical Construction Noise

Construction Phase Leq(h), dBA

15 meters (50 feet) from Centerline

30 meters (100 feet) from Centerline

Clearing and Grubbing 86 83 Earthwork 88 85 Foundation 85 82 Base Preparation 88 85 Paving 89 86 Construction noise impacts can be assessed by comparing the existing noise levels with the expected noise levels produced by various construction activities. More detailed construction noise levels cannot be calculated at this time because some of the necessary data, such as the type of equipment, effective usage factor, and number of each equipment type, are not yet available.

According to the above information no adverse noise impacts from construction are anticipated because construction noise activities would be temporary and would be conducted in accordance with Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 14-8.

Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities This project will require a Traffic Management Plan that includes methods for minimizing and managing traffic delays and disruptions during construction operations of the project. Night work is anticipated to help reduce daytime delays and disruptions. Single lane closures will be necessary. Signing, including portable changeable message signs, and a Public Awareness Campaign will be used to inform the public of current and upcoming construction activities. Construction Zone Enhanced Enforcement Program or Patrol (COZEEP) will be used for this project.

Air Quality Caltrans Standard Specifications pertaining to dust control and dust palliative requirement is a required part of all construction contracts and should effectively reduce and control emission impacts during construction. The provisions for Caltrans Standard Specifications, “Air Pollution control” and “Dust Control” require the contractor to comply with the applicable Air Pollution Control District’s rules, ordinances, and regulations. Standard provisions included on all Caltrans projects would address potential emissions generated by construction equipment, grading activities, and use of various construction materials.

Noise Standard provisions included on all Caltrans projects would address noise generated by construction equipment, and grading and paving activities. However, the following measures should be implemented in order to minimize noise and vibration disturbances at sensitive receptors during periods of construction:



Equipment Noise Control • Use newer equipment with improved noise muffling and ensure that all equipment items have the manufacturers' recommended noise abatement measures, such as mufflers, engine enclosures, and engine vibration isolators intact and operational. Newer equipment will generally be quieter in operation than older equipment. All construction equipment should be inspected at periodic intervals to ensure proper maintenance and presence of noise control devices (e.g., mufflers and shrouding, etc.).

• Utilize construction methods or equipment that will provide the lowest level of noise and ground vibration impact such as alternative low-noise pile installation methods. • Turn off idling equipment. • Temporary noise barriers should be used and relocated, as needed, to protect sensitive receptors against excessive noise from construction activities. Noise barriers can be made of heavy plywood, or moveable insulated sound blankets.

Administrative Measures

• Implement a construction noise and/or vibration monitoring program in order to limit the impacts. • Limit construction activities to daytime hours, if possible. If nighttime construction is absolutely necessary, obtain the proper permits. • Keep noise levels relatively uniform and avoid impulsive noises.

A combination of sound reducing techniques with equipment noise control and administrative measures can be selected to provide the most effective means to minimize effects of the construction activity impacts. Application of these mitigation measures will reduce construction related noise impacts; however, a temporary increase in noise and vibration may still occur.

2.3 Cumulative Impacts

Regulatory Setting Cumulative impacts are those that result from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, combined with the potential impacts of the proposed project. A cumulative effect assessment looks at the collective impacts posed by individual land use plans and projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively substantial impacts taking place over a period of time.

Cumulative impacts to resources in the project area may result from residential, commercial, industrial, and highway development, as well as from agricultural development and the conversion to more intensive agricultural cultivation. These land use activities can degrade habitat and species diversity through consequences such as displacement and fragmentation of habitats and populations, alteration of hydrology, contamination, erosion, sedimentation, disruption of migration corridors, changes in water quality, and introduction or promotion of predators. They can also contribute to



potential community impacts identified for the project, such as changes in community character, traffic patterns, housing availability, and employment.

The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15130 describes when a cumulative impact analysis is necessary and what elements are necessary for an adequate discussion of cumulative impacts. The definition of cumulative impacts under California Environmental Quality Act can be found in Section 15355 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. A definition of cumulative impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act can be found in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 1508.7.

Affected Environment Caltrans guidance for National Environmental Policy Act /California Environmental Quality Act cumulative impacts assessments includes defining a Resource Study Area (RSA). A Resource Study Area is the geographic area within which impacts on a particular resource are analyzed. The boundaries of Resource Study Areas for cumulative impacts analysis are often broader than the boundaries used for project-specific analysis (such as the BSA). The Resource Study Area identified for California tiger salamander critical habitat cumulative impact analysis is the federally designated critical habitat for the species located in Western Santa Maria/Orcutt and the Resource Study Area identified for La Graciosa thistle critical habitat cumulative impact analysis is the federally designated critical habitat for the species located near the Santa Maria River-Orcutt Creek (Figure 2-2).

Other projects within the vicinity of the proposed project and the Resource Study Area for which cumulative impacts were considered are:

1. Santa Maria Airport Business Park –Proposal to build mixed-use development encompassing 1,002 acres adjacent to the Santa Maria Airport. Proposed project is within California tiger salamander critical habitat area.

2. The Neighborhoods of Willow Creek and Hidden Canyon – Proposal to build up to 146 residential units on 189.2 acres around the Rancho Maria Golf Course on SR-1 near PM 40.8. Proposed project is within La Graciosa thistle critical habitat area.

3. Curletti Farmworker Housing Project – Proposed farm labor camp that would consist of 30 bunk houses and 3 common area structures with a total square footage of 49,446 square ft. The proposed project is located approximately 1 mile northwest of the intersection of Highway 1 and Black Road and is within California tiger salamander critical habitat area and La Graciosa thistle critical habitat area.

4. Laguna County Sanitation District Expansion Project – Upgrade, modify, replace, and expand the capacity of the wastewater reclamation facility within the next 30 years, located approximately 0.8 miles west of the intersection of



Black Road and Dutard Road. Proposed project is within California tiger salamander critical habitat area and La Graciosa thistle critical habitat area.

5. Solomon Canyon Rumble Strip/Shoulder Project–This Caltrans project is located on the same stretch of Highway 1 as the current CAPM project that is the subject of this Initial Study (PM 35.0-PM 49.2). The proposed Solomon Canyon Rumble Strip/Shoulder project will widen shoulders, install shoulder rumble strip, upgrade guardrails, transitions, and extend guardrail where needed, relocate or remove utility poles and other objects from the clear recovery zone wherever practical without major retaining walls or structural work required. Utility poles and easements will be relocated outside the Clear Recovery Zone and permanent easements will need to be obtained from property owners along a majority of the project area between PM 36.4 to PM 49.2. Caltrans will prepare a separate Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project.

Environmental Consequences Critical habitat for Santa Barbara distinct population segment for California tiger salamander was designated in 2004 (USFWS 2004a). For the California tiger salamander critical habitat Resource Study Area under consideration, the greatest threats are those of agricultural activities and residential and commercial development. Santa Barbara County’s population is projected to grow by at least 160,000 people in the next 30 years and all of the urban areas in the county except Santa Maria and Orcutt have nearly exhausted land zoned for residential development (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004a). Prime farmland east and west of Santa Maria currently designated by the City of Santa Maria as “No Urban Development Areas” are expected to face increasing pressure to develop as the city exhausts land available for development (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004a). See Figure 2-2.

Critical habitat for La Graciosa thistle was originally designated in 2004 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004b) and revised in 2009. For the La Graciosa critical habitat RSA under consideration, the greatest threats are those from habitat fragmentation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004b). If populations of La Graciosa thistle in habitat with PCEs are able to remain connected, it is believed that the species could be conserved and recovered (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004b). La Graciosa thistle critical habitat area is essential to the conservation of the species because it contains the last La Graciosa thistle population in riparian habitat. This habitat also contains what has historically been recognized as the largest La Graciosa thistle population. The area contains large blocks of intact riparian habitat along the Santa Maria River and the southwest side of Orcutt Creek and is essential as a dispersal corridor for the species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004b).

Within California tiger salamander critical habitat area the Santa Maria Airport District has proposed a Specific Plan for the development of the Santa Maria Airport Business Park. The main features of this Specific Plan include open space and recreation areas, mixed use commercial, commercial/professional office, airport services, public facilities, and area designated for light manufacturing use. Initially,



the Specific Plan was developed in the 1980s and has undergone numerous revisions since then. Currently, a Draft Biological Assessment for the Airport Business Park Specific Plan has been prepared. The Specific Plan Action Area encompasses 1,002 acres (all of which occurs within critical habitat) and includes lands designated for California tiger salamander and vernal pool fairy shrimp conservation. The Airport Business Park Specific Plan will impact 188.32 acres of California tiger salamander upland habitat, while conserving and restoring 543 acres of habitat to offset impacts from the Airport Business Park development.

Within La Graciosa thistle critical habitat area, Orcutt Rancho project includes the proposal to construct up to 146 residential units on 189.2 acres around the Rancho Maria Golf Course on SR-1 near PM 40.8 (County of Santa Barbara 2017). This project is still in the application review stage and environmental review has not begun as of the writing of this Initial Study. This development, the Neighborhoods of Willow Creek and Hidden Canyon, could potentially impact La Graciosa thistle critical habitat. The proposed Specific Plan for this project states that it has been designed to maximize contiguous natural open space and minimize potential impacts to wildlife and sensitive vegetation (County of Santa Barbara 2017). Wildlife corridors and habitat connectivity is maintained throughout the site through protection of natural corridors such as canyons and creeks in dedicated open space. The proposed Specific Plan includes 96.7 acres of private undisturbed open space which makes up 51% of the overall Specific Plan area (County of Santa Barbara 2017).

The Curletti Farmworker Housing Project proposes to build 30 bunk houses and 3 common area structures within California tiger salamander critical habitat area and La Graciosa thistle habitat area. According to the Habitat Conservation Plan (Rincon Consultants, Inc. 2017) for this project, the cumulative effects of project implementation on the persistence of California tiger salamander are considered to be low given the small number of small mammal burrows within the project area, and the low quality of the project site due to existing disturbance and development. To compensate for California tiger salamander upland habitat loss, the applicant is in the process of coordinating with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to establish either a conservation easement on applicant-owned land or purchasing credits from an approved California tiger salamander mitigation bank prior to commencing any ground disturbing activities or any other activity that could result in take of California tiger salamander.

The Laguna County Sanitation District Expansion Project proposes to construct new treatment facilities on District property as well as conduct ongoing operation and maintenance activities within established rights-of-way over a 30 year period. According to the Habitat Conservation Plan (Santa Barbara County Public Works Department 2017) for this project, the covered activities that would take place as part of this project would permanently remove 37.63 acres of upland habitat suitable for California tiger salamander and La Graciosa thistle; however it would permanently protect and preserve 132.83 acres of upland habitat and a known breeding pond, preventing future loss of breeding and upland habitat within the conservation easement area.



The trend since the early twentieth century has undoubtedly been a decline of the health and available habitat in Santa Maria Valley. Because of the endangered status of California tiger salamander and La Graciosa thistle, implementation of conservation measures will be required for future projects for Endangered Species Act compliance to ensure the long-term survival of this species as development in the region occurs. For example, the Airport Business Park Specific Plan would result in a cumulative net loss of currently available habitat for the California tiger salamander. However, the commensurate conservation, enhancement and creation of breeding and upland refuge habitat would offset the project’s contribution to the cumulative loss of habitat for California tiger salamander in the region (Sage Institute, Inc. 2015). Additionally, although environmental review has not begun for the Neighborhoods of Willow Creek and Hidden Canyon development, the Specific Plan has been designed to maximize contiguous open space and preserve large expanses of upland and riparian habitat while restoring native communities for listed species.

Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Considering the small amount of area outside the road prism of the pavement overlay project, the proposed project is not expected to have a substantial contribution to cumulative impacts to area resources. No additional measures would be required beyond those already included for impacts to specific resources.

2.4 Climate Change

Climate change refers to long-term changes in temperature, precipitation, wind patterns, and other elements of the earth's climate system. An ever-increasing body of scientific research attributes these climatological changes to greenhouse gas emissions, particularly those generated from the production and use of fossil fuels. While climate change has been a concern for several decades, the establishment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) by the United Nations and World Meteorological Organization in 1988 has led to increased efforts devoted to greenhouse gas emissions reduction and climate change research and policy. These efforts are primarily concerned with the emissions of greenhouse gases generated by human activity, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), tetrafluoromethane, hexafluoroethane, sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), HFC-23 (fluoroform), HFC-134a (s, s, s, 2-tetrafluoroethane), and HFC-152a (difluoroethane).

In the U.S., the main source of greenhouse gas emissions is electricity generation, followed by transportation.1 In California, however, transportation sources (including passenger cars, light-duty trucks, other trucks, buses, and motorcycles) are the largest contributors of greenhouse gas emissions.2 The dominant greenhouse gas emitted is CO2, mostly from fossil fuel combustion.

1 https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/us-greenhouse-gas-inventory-report-1990-2014 2 https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/us-greenhouse-gas-inventory-report-1990-2014

https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm



Two terms are typically used when discussing how we address the impacts of climate change: “greenhouse gas mitigation” and “adaptation.” “Greenhouse gas mitigation” is a term for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to reduce or “mitigate” the impacts of climate change. “Adaptation” refers to planning for and responding to impacts resulting from climate change (such as adjusting transportation design standards to withstand more intense storms and higher sea levels).

Regulatory Setting This section outlines federal and state efforts to comprehensively reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation sources.

Federal To date, no national standards have been established for nationwide mobile-source GHG reduction targets, nor have any regulations or legislation been enacted specifically to address climate change and greenhouse gas emissions reduction at the project level. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 United States Code [USC] Part 4332) requires federal agencies to assess the environmental effects of their proposed actions prior to making a decision on the action or project.

The Federal Highway Administration recognizes the threats that extreme weather, sea-level change, and other changes in environmental conditions pose to valuable transportation infrastructure and those who depend on it. Federal Highway Administration therefore supports a sustainability approach that assesses vulnerability to climate risks and incorporates resilience into planning, asset management, project development and design, and operations and maintenance practices.3 This approach encourages planning for sustainable highways by addressing climate risks while balancing environmental, economic, and social values—“the triple bottom line of sustainability.”4 Program and project elements that foster sustainability and resilience also support economic vitality and global efficiency, increase safety and mobility, enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, and improve the quality of life. Addressing these factors up front in the planning process will assist in decision-making and improve efficiency at the program level, and will inform the analysis and stewardship needs of project-level decision-making. Various efforts have been promulgated at the federal level to improve fuel economy and energy efficiency to address climate change and its associated effects. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT92, 102nd Congress H.R.776.ENR): With this act, Congress set goals, created mandates, and amended utility laws to increase clean energy use and improve overall energy efficiency in the United States. EPACT92 consists of 27 titles detailing various measures designed to lessen the nation's dependence on imported energy, provide incentives for clean and renewable

3 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/resilience/ 4 https://www.sustainablehighways.dot.gov/overview.aspx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/resilience/

https://www.sustainablehighways.dot.gov/overview.aspx



energy, and promote energy conservation in buildings. Title III of EPACT92 addresses alternative fuels. It gave the U.S. Department of Energy administrative power to regulate the minimum number of light-duty alternative fuel vehicles required in certain federal fleets beginning in fiscal year 1993. The primary goal of the Program is to cut petroleum use in the United States by 2.5 billion gallons per year by 2020. Energy Policy Act of 2005 (109th Congress H.R.6 (2005–2006): This act sets forth an energy research and development program covering: (1) energy efficiency; (2) renewable energy; (3) oil and gas; (4) coal; (5) Indian energy; (6) nuclear matters and security; (7) vehicles and motor fuels, including ethanol; (8) hydrogen; (9) electricity; (10) energy tax incentives; (11) hydropower and geothermal energy; and (12) climate change technology. Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (42 USC Section 6201) and Corporate Average Fuel Standards: This act establishes fuel economy standards for on-road motor vehicles sold in the United States. Compliance with federal fuel economy standards is determined through the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program on the basis of each manufacturer’s average fuel economy for the portion of its vehicles produced for sale in the United States. Executive Order 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, 74 Federal Register 52117 (October 8, 2009): This federal EO set sustainability goals for federal agencies and focuses on making improvements in their environmental, energy, and economic performance. It instituted as policy of the United States that federal agencies measure, report, and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions from direct and indirect activities. Executive Order 13693, Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade, 80 Federal Register 15869 (March 2015): This EO reaffirms the policy of the United States that federal agencies measure, report, and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions from direct and indirect activities. It sets sustainability goals for all agencies to promote energy conservation, efficiency, and management by reducing energy consumption and GHG emissions. It builds on the adaptation and resiliency goals in previous executive orders to ensure agency operations and facilities prepare for impacts of climate change. This order revokes Executive Order 13514. U.S. EPA’s authority to regulate GHG emissions stems from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007). The Supreme Court ruled that GHGs meet the definition of air pollutants under the existing Clean Air Act and must be regulated if these gases could be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Responding to the Court’s ruling, U.S. EPA finalized an endangerment finding in December 2009. Based on scientific evidence it found that six GHGs constitute a threat to public health and welfare. Thus, it is the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the existing Act and EPA’s assessment of the scientific evidence that form the basis for EPA’s regulatory actions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Department_of_Energy

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_05_1120/

http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/

http://www.c2es.org/federal/executive/epa-endangerment-finding



U.S. EPA in conjunction with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued the first of a series of GHG emission standards for new cars and light-duty vehicles in April 20105 and significantly increased the fuel economy of all new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the United States. The standards required these vehicles to meet an average fuel economy of 34.1 miles per gallon by 2016. In August 2012, the federal government adopted the second rule that increases fuel economy for the fleet of passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles for model years 2017 and beyond to average fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. Because NHTSA cannot set standards beyond model year 2021 due to statutory obligations and the rules’ long timeframe, a mid-term evaluation is included in the rule. The Mid-Term Evaluation is the overarching process by which NHTSA, EPA, and ARB will decide on CAFE and GHG emissions standard stringency for model years 2022–2025. NHTSA has not formally adopted standards for model years 2022 through 2025. However, the EPA finalized its mid-term review in January 2017, affirming that the target fleet average of at least 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 was appropriate. In March 2017, President Trump ordered EPA to reopen the review and reconsider the mileage target.6 NHTSA and EPA issued a Final Rule for “Phase 2” for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles to improve fuel efficiency and cut carbon pollution in October 2016. The agencies estimate that the standards will save up to 2 billion barrels of oil and reduce CO2 emissions by up to 1.1 billion metric tons over the lifetimes of model year 2018–2027 vehicles. Presidential Executive Order 13783, Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth, of March 28, 2017, orders all federal agencies to apply cost-benefit analyses to regulations of GHG emissions and evaluations of the social cost of carbon, nitrous oxide, and methane. State With the passage of legislation including State Senate and Assembly bills and executive orders, California has been innovative and proactive in addressing GHG emissions and climate change. Assembly Bill 1493, Pavley Vehicular Emissions: Greenhouse Gases, 2002: This bill requires the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to develop and implement regulations to reduce automobile and light truck GHG emissions. These stricter emissions standards were designed to apply to automobiles and light trucks beginning with the 2009-model year.

5 ] http://www.c2es.org/federal/executive/epa/greenhouse-gas-regulation-faq 6 http://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/trump-rolls-back-obama-era-fuel-economy-standards-n734256 and https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/03/22/2017-05316/notice-of-intention-to-reconsider-the-final-determination-of-the-mid-term-evaluation-of-greenhouse

http://www.c2es.org/federal/executive/vehicle-standards

http://www.c2es.org/federal/executive/vehicle-standards

http://www.c2es.org/federal/executive/epa/greenhouse-gas-regulation-faq

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/trump-rolls-back-obama-era-fuel-economy-standards-n734256

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/trump-rolls-back-obama-era-fuel-economy-standards-n734256

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/03/22/2017-05316/notice-of-intention-to-reconsider-the-final-determination-of-the-mid-term-evaluation-of-greenhouse

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/03/22/2017-05316/notice-of-intention-to-reconsider-the-final-determination-of-the-mid-term-evaluation-of-greenhouse



Executive Order S-3-05 (June 1, 2005): The goal of this executive order (EO) is to reduce California’s GHG emissions to: (1) year 2000 levels by 2010, (2) year 1990 levels by 2020, and (3) 80 percent below year 1990 levels by 2050. This goal was further reinforced with the passage of Assembly Bill 32 in 2006 and SB 32 in 2016. Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), Chapter 488, 2006: Núñez and Pavley, The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: AB 32 codified the 2020 GHG emissions reduction goals as outlined in EO S-3-05, while further mandating that ARB create a scoping plan and implement rules to achieve “real, quantifiable, cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gases.” The Legislature also intended that the statewide GHG emissions limit continue in existence and be used to maintain and continue reductions in emissions of GHGs beyond 2020 (Health and Safety Code Section 38551(b)). The law requires ARB to adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG reductions.

Executive Order S-20-06 (October 18, 2006): This order establishes the responsibilities and roles of the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) and state agencies with regard to climate change.

Executive Order S-01-07 (January 18, 2007): This order sets forth the low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) for California. Under this EO, the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels is to be reduced by at least 10 percent by the year 2020. ARB re-adopted the LCFS regulation in September 2015, and the changes went into effect on January 1, 2016. The program establishes a strong framework to promote the low-carbon fuel adoption necessary to achieve the Governor's 2030 and 2050 GHG reduction goals.

Senate Bill 97 (SB 97), Chapter 185, 2007, Greenhouse Gas Emissions: This bill requires the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop recommended amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines for addressing GHG emissions. The amendments became effective on March 18, 2010. Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), Chapter 728, 2008, Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection: This bill requires ARB to set regional emissions reduction targets for passenger vehicles. The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for each region must then develop a "Sustainable Communities Strategy" (SCS) that integrates transportation, land-use, and housing policies to plan how it will achieve the emissions target for its region. Senate Bill 391 (SB 391), Chapter 585, 2009, California Transportation Plan: This bill requires the State’s long-range transportation plan to meet California’s climate change goals under AB 32. Executive Order B-16-12 (March 2012) orders State entities under the direction of the Governor, including ARB, the California Energy Commission, and the Public Utilities Commission, to support the rapid commercialization of zero-emission



vehicles. It directs these entities to achieve various benchmarks related to zero-emission vehicles. Executive Order B-30-15 (April 2015) establishes an interim statewide GHG emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 in order to ensure California meets its target of reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. It further orders all state agencies with jurisdiction over sources of GHG emissions to implement measures, pursuant to statutory authority, to achieve reductions of GHG emissions to meet the 2030 and 2050 GHG emissions reductions targets. It also directs ARB to update the Climate Change Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e). Finally, it requires the Natural Resources Agency to update the state’s climate adaptation strategy, Safeguarding California, every 3 years, and to ensure that its provisions are fully implemented. Senate Bill 32, (SB 32) Chapter 249, 2016, codifies the GHG reduction targets established in EO B-30-15 to achieve a mid-range goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Environmental Setting In 2006, the Legislature passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), which created a comprehensive, multi-year program to reduce GHG emissions in California. AB 32 required ARB to develop a Scoping Plan that describes the approach California will take to achieve the goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The Scoping Plan was first approved by ARB in 2008 and must be updated every 5 years. ARB approved the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan on May 22, 2014. ARB is moving forward with a discussion draft of an updated Scoping Plan that will reflect the 2030 target established in EO B-30-15 and SB 32. The AB 32 Scoping Plan and the subsequent updates contain the main strategies California will use to reduce GHG emissions. As part of its supporting documentation for the Draft Scoping Plan, ARB released the GHG inventory for California.7 ARB is responsible for maintaining and updating California's GHG Inventory per H&SC Section 39607.4. The associated forecast/projection is an estimate of the emissions anticipated to occur in the year 2020 if none of the foreseeable measures included in the Scoping Plan were implemented. An emissions projection estimates future emissions based on current emissions, expected regulatory implementation, and other technological, social, economic, and behavioral patterns. The projected 2020 emissions provided in Figure ## represent a business-as-usual (BAU) scenario assuming none of the Scoping Plan measures are implemented. The 2020 BAU emissions estimate assists ARB in demonstrating

7 2017 Edition of the GHG Emission Inventory Released (June 2017): https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm

https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm

https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/updatedscopingplan2013.htm

https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/updatedscopingplan2013.htm

https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030target_sp_dd120216.pdf




progress toward meeting the 2020 goal of 431 MMTCO2e.8 The 2017 edition of the GHG emissions inventory (released June 2017) found total California emissions of 440.4 MMTCO2e, showing progress towards meeting the AB 32 goals. The 2020 BAU emissions projection was revisited in support of the First Update to the Scoping Plan (2014). This projection accounts for updates to the economic forecasts of fuel and energy demand as well as other factors. It also accounts for the effects of the 2008 economic recession and the projected recovery. The total emissions expected in the 2020 BAU scenario include reductions anticipated from Pavley I and the Renewable Electricity Standard (30 MMTCO2e total). With these reductions in the baseline, estimated 2020 statewide BAU emissions are 509 MMTCO2e.

Figure 2-3 2020 Business as Usual (BAU) Emissions Projection 2014 Edition

Project Analysis An individual project does not generate enough GHG emissions to significantly influence global climate change. Rather, global climate change is a cumulative impact. This means that a project may contribute to a potential impact through its incremental change in emissions when combined with the contributions of all other sources of GHG.9 In assessing cumulative impacts, it must be determined if a

8 The revised target using Global Warming Potentials (GWP) from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) 9 This approach is supported by the AEP: Recommendations by the Association of Environmental Professionals on How to Analyze GHG Emissions and Global Climate Change in CEQA Documents (March 5, 2007), as well as the South Coast Air Quality Management District (Chapter 6: The CEQA Guide, April 2011) and the US Forest Service (Climate Change Considerations in Project Level NEPA Analysis, July 13, 2009).

https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/bau.htm


https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/bau.htm



project’s incremental effect is “cumulatively considerable” (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(h) (1) and 15130). To make this determination the incremental impacts of the project must be compared with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects. To gather sufficient information on a global scale of all past, current, and future projects to make this determination is a difficult, if not impossible, task. GHG emissions for transportation projects can be divided into those produced during operations and those produced during construction. The following represents a best faith effort to describe the potential GHG emissions related to the proposed project. Operational Emissions Because the project is a CAPM/pavement rehabilitation project, the operation of this project will have low to no potential for an increase in GHG emissions. While construction emissions are unavoidable, there will likely be long-term GHG benefits by the improved operation and smoother pavement surfaces as a result of the upgrade in the pavement surface. Construction Emissions Construction GHG emissions would result from material processing, on-site construction equipment, and traffic delays due to construction. These emissions will be produced at different levels throughout the construction phase; their frequency and occurrence can be reduced through innovations in plans and specifications and by implementing better traffic management during construction phases. In addition, with innovations such as longer pavement lives, improved traffic management plans, and changes in materials, the GHG emissions produced during construction can be offset to some degree by longer intervals between maintenance and rehabilitation activities. Construction Climate Change emissions, represented as Carbon Dioxide, were estimated using the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Pollution Control District Construction Emissions Tool, version 8.1.0. The project is expected to take 4.5 months and the total CO2 emissions will be 6 tons. Caltrans Standard Specifications, a part of all construction contracts, include requirements that contractors recognize and agree to comply with all rules, regulations and ordinances of the CARB and regional and local air quality management districts. Measures such as idling time restrictions help reduce GHG emissions.

CEQA Conclusion While the project will result in a slight increase in GHG emissions during construction, it is anticipated that the project will not result in any increase in operational GHG emissions. While it is Caltrans’ determination that in the absence of further regulatory or scientific information related to GHG emissions and CEQA significance, it is too speculative to make a significance determination regarding the



project’s direct impact and its contribution on the cumulative scale to climate change, Caltrans is firmly committed to implementing measures to help reduce GHG emissions. These measures are outlined in the following section.

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies

Statewide Efforts In an effort to further the vision of California’s GHG reduction targets outlined an AB 32 and SB 32, Governor Brown identified key climate change strategy pillars (concepts). These pillars highlight the idea that several major areas of the California economy will need to reduce emissions to meet the 2030 GHG emissions target. These pillars are (1) reducing today’s petroleum use in cars and trucks by up to 50 percent; (2) increasing from one-third to 50 percent our electricity derived from renewable sources; (3) doubling the energy efficiency savings achieved at existing buildings and making heating fuels cleaner; (4) reducing the release of methane, black carbon, and other short-lived climate pollutants; (5) managing farm and rangelands, forests, and wetlands so they can store carbon; and (6) periodically updating the state's climate adaptation strategy, Safeguarding California.

Figure 2-4 The Governor’s Climate Change Pillars: 2030 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals

The transportation sector is integral to the people and economy of California. To achieve GHG emission reduction goals, it is vital that we build on our past successes in reducing criteria and toxic air pollutants from transportation and goods movement activities. GHG emission reductions will come from cleaner vehicle technologies, lower-carbon fuels, and reduction of vehicle miles traveled. One of Governor Brown's key pillars sets the ambitious goal of reducing today's petroleum use in cars and trucks by up to 50 percent by 2030.

https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/pillars/pillars.htm

https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/pillars/pillars.htm



Governor Brown called for support to manage natural and working lands, including forests, rangelands, farms, wetlands, and soils, so they can store carbon. These lands have the ability to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through biological processes, and to then sequester carbon in above- and below-ground matter. Caltrans Activities Caltrans continues to be involved on the Governor’s Climate Action Team as the ARB works to implement EOs S-3-05 and S-01-07 and help achieve the targets set forth in AB 32. EO B-30-15, issued in April 2015, and SB 32 (2016), set a new interim target to cut GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The following major initiatives are underway at Caltrans to help meet these targets. California Transportation Plan (CTP 2040) The California Transportation Plan (CTP) is a statewide, long-range transportation plan to meet our future mobility needs and reduce GHG emissions. The CTP defines performance-based goals, policies, and strategies to achieve our collective vision for California’s future statewide, integrated, multimodal transportation system. It serves as an umbrella document for all of the other statewide transportation planning documents. SB 391 (Liu 2009) requires the CTP to meet California’s climate change goals under AB 32. Accordingly, the CTP 2040 identifies the statewide transportation system needed to achieve maximum feasible GHG emission reductions while meeting the state’s transportation needs. While MPOs have primary responsibility for identifying land use patterns to help reduce GHG emissions, CTP 2040 identifies additional strategies in Pricing, Transportation Alternatives, Mode Shift, and Operational Efficiency. Caltrans Strategic Management Plan The Strategic Management Plan, released in 2015, creates a performance-based framework to preserve the environment and reduce GHG emissions, among other goals. Specific performance targets in the plan that will help to reduce GHG emissions include:

• Increasing percentage of non-auto mode share • Reducing VMT per capita • Reducing Caltrans’ internal operational (buildings, facilities, and fuel) GHG

emissions

Funding and Technical Assistance Programs In addition to developing plans and performance targets to reduce GHG emissions, Caltrans also administers several funding and technical assistance programs that have GHG reduction benefits. These include the Bicycle Transportation Program, Safe Routes to School, Transportation Enhancement Funds, and Transit Planning Grants. A more extensive description of these programs can be found in Caltrans Activities to Address Climate Change (2013).

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/orip/climate_change/assessment.shtml

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/orip/climate_change/assessment.shtml



Caltrans Director’s Policy 30 (DP-30) Climate Change (June 22, 2012) is intended to establish a department policy that will ensure coordinated efforts to incorporate climate change into departmental decisions and activities. Caltrans Activities to Address Climate Change (April 2013) provides a comprehensive overview of activities undertaken by Caltrans statewide to reduce GHG emissions resulting from agency operations. Project-Level GHG Reduction Strategies The following measures will also be implemented in the project to reduce GHG emissions and potential climate change impacts from the project.

• Caltrans Standard Specification 7-1.02C Emissions Reduction requires the contractor to certify, prior to performing work, awareness of and intent to comply with emissions reduction regulations mandated by CARB.

• Caltrans Standard Specification 14-9.02 Air Pollution Control requires contractors to comply with air-pollution-control rules, regulations, ordinances, and statutes.

• The following measures recommended in the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments’ 2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Final EIR will also be implemented to help reduce GHG emissions:

o All on and off-road diesel equipment shall not idle for more than 5 minutes.

o Electric equipment will be used when feasible

o Alternatively fueled construction equipment will be used on-site where feasible (e.g., compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, propane, or biodiesel).

o To the extent possible, construction activity will utilize electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline powered generators.

Adaptation Strategies “Adaptation strategies” refer to how Caltrans and others can plan for the effects of climate change on the state’s transportation infrastructure and strengthen or protect the facilities from damage—or, put another way, planning and design for resilience. Climate change is expected to produce increased variability in precipitation, rising temperatures, rising sea levels, variability in storm surges and their intensity, and the frequency and intensity of wildfires. These changes may affect the transportation infrastructure in various ways, such as damage to roadbeds from longer periods of

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/orip/climate_change/documents/Caltrans_ClimateChangeRprt-Final_April_2013.pdf#zoom=75



intense heat; increasing storm damage from flooding and erosion; and inundation from rising sea levels. These effects will vary by location and may, in the most extreme cases, require that a facility be relocated or redesigned. These types of impacts to the transportation infrastructure may also have economic and strategic ramifications. Federal Efforts At the federal level, the Climate Change Adaptation Task Force, co-chaired by the CEQ, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), released its interagency task force progress report on October 28, 201110, outlining the federal government's progress in expanding and strengthening the nation's capacity to better understand, prepare for, and respond to extreme events and other climate change impacts. The report provided an update on actions in key areas of federal adaptation, including: building resilience in local communities, safeguarding critical natural resources such as fresh water, and providing accessible climate information and tools to help decision-makers manage climate risks. The federal Department of Transportation issued U.S. DOT Policy Statement on Climate Adaptation in June 2011, committing to “integrate consideration of climate change impacts and adaptation into the planning, operations, policies, and programs of DOT in order to ensure that taxpayer resources are invested wisely and that transportation infrastructure, services and operations remain effective in current and future climate conditions.”11 To further the DOT Policy Statement, in December 15, 2014, FHWA issued order 5520 (Transportation System Preparedness and Resilience to Climate Change and Extreme Weather Events).12 This directive established FHWA policy to strive to identify the risks of climate change and extreme weather events to current and planned transportation systems. The FHWA will work to integrate consideration of these risks into its planning, operations, policies, and programs in order to promote preparedness and resilience; safeguard federal investments; and ensure the safety, reliability, and sustainability of the nation’s transportation systems. FHWA has developed guidance and tools for transportation planning that fosters resilience to climate effects and sustainability at the federal, state, and local levels.13 State Efforts On November 14, 2008, then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed EO S-13-08, which directed a number of state agencies to address California’s vulnerability to sea-

10 https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/resilience 11 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/resilience/policy_and_guidance/usdot.cfm 12 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/orders/5520.cfm 13 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/resilience/

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/resilience

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/resilience/policy_and_guidance/usdot.cfm

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/resilience/policy_and_guidance/usdot.cfm

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/orders/5520.cfm

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/resilience/



level rise caused by climate change. This EO set in motion several agencies and actions to address the concern of sea-level rise and directed all state agencies planning to construct projects in areas vulnerable to future sea-level rise to consider a range of sea-level rise scenarios for the years 2050 and 2100, assess project vulnerability and, to the extent feasible, reduce expected risks and increase resiliency to sea-level rise. Sea-level rise estimates should also be used in conjunction with information on local uplift and subsidence, coastal erosion rates, predicted higher high water levels, and storm surge and storm wave data. Governor Schwarzenegger also requested the National Academy of Sciences to prepare an assessment report to recommend how California should plan for future sea-level rise. The final report, Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington (Sea-Level Rise Assessment Report)14 was released in June 2012 and included relative sea-level rise projections for the three states, taking into account coastal erosion rates, tidal impacts, El Niño and La Niña events, storm surge, and land subsidence rates; and the range of uncertainty in selected sea-level rise projections. It provided a synthesis of existing information on projected sea-level rise impacts to state infrastructure (such as roads, public facilities, and beaches), natural areas, and coastal and marine ecosystems; and a discussion of future research needs regarding sea-level rise. In response to EO S-13-08, the California Natural Resources Agency (Resources Agency), in coordination with local, regional, state, federal, and public and private entities, developed The California Climate Adaptation Strategy (Dec 2009),15 which summarized the best available science on climate change impacts to California, assessed California's vulnerability to the identified impacts, and outlined solutions that can be implemented within and across state agencies to promote resiliency. The adaptation strategy was updated and rebranded in 2014 as Safeguarding California: Reducing Climate Risk (Safeguarding California Plan). Governor Jerry Brown enhanced the overall adaptation planning effort by signing EO B-30-15 in April 2015, requiring state agencies to factor climate change into all planning and investment decisions. In March 2016, sector-specific Implementation Action Plans that demonstrate how state agencies are implementing EO B-30-15 were added to the Safeguarding California Plan. This effort represents a multi-agency, cross-sector approach to addressing adaptation to climate change-related events statewide. EO S-13-08 also gave rise to the State of California Sea-Level Rise Interim Guidance Document (SLR Guidance), produced by the Coastal and Ocean Working Group of the California Climate Action Team (CO-CAT), of which Caltrans is a member. First published in 2010, the document provided “guidance for incorporating sea-level rise (SLR) projections into planning and decision making for projects in California,”

14Sea Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future (2012) is available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13389. 15 http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/adaptation/strategy/index.html

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13389


http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/adaptation/

http://resources.ca.gov/climate/safeguarding/

http://resources.ca.gov/climate/safeguarding/

http://opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/agenda_items/20110311/12.SLR_Resolution/SLR-Guidance-Document.pdf

http://opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/agenda_items/20110311/12.SLR_Resolution/SLR-Guidance-Document.pdf


http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/adaptation/strategy/index.html



specifically, “information and recommendations to enhance consistency across agencies in their development of approaches to SLR.” The March 2013 update16 finalizes the SLR Guidance by incorporating findings of the National Academy’s 2012 final Sea-Level Rise Assessment Report; the policy recommendations remain the same as those in the 2010 interim SLR Guidance. The guidance will be updated as necessary in the future to reflect the latest scientific understanding of how the climate is changing and how this change may affect the rates of SLR. Climate change adaptation for transportation infrastructure involves long-term planning and risk management to address vulnerabilities in the transportation system from increased precipitation, and flooding; the increased frequency and intensity of storms and wildfires; rising temperatures; and rising sea levels. Caltrans is actively engaged in in working towards identifying these risks throughout the state and will work to incorporate this information into all planning and investment decisions as directed in EO B-30-15. The proposed project is outside the coastal zone and not in an area subject to sea-level rise. Accordingly, direct impacts to transportation facilities due to projected sea-level rise are not expected. 16 http://www.opc.ca.gov/2013/04/update-to-the-sea-level-rise-guidance-document/

http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/docs/2013_SLR_Guidance_Update_FINAL1.pdf

http://www.opc.ca.gov/2013/04/update-to-the-sea-level-rise-guidance-document/


Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination Biological Resource Coordination: Caltrans originally requested and received an official USFWS species list for the project in August 2014. This list was most recently updated through the IPaC website on June 14, 2017 and is included in Appendix D of the September, 2017 Natural Environmental Study. On April 11, 2017, A the biological survey team had a field visit to survey the roadway edges for evidence of burrow holes in close proximity of SR 1 within the API of the project. The team also consulted with the owners of the golf course regarding if they have ever sited any of the animal species (CTS and CRLF). On June 28, 2017, Ms. Millan contacted Collette Thogerson (USFWS Assistant Field Supervisor, South Coast Division) to introduce the Solomon CAPM project and ask for assistance with identifying any foreseeable future projects USFWS is aware of that may be located within critical habitat for CTS Unit 1 and/or La Graciosa thistle Unit 2. On July 18, 2017, an official species list was requested and received from NMFS (Appendix D). The list indicated that no EFH for federally managed species occurs at the proposed project location. On August 3, 2017, Ms. Millan sent a follow-up email to Ms. Thogerson requesting assistance with her previous email dated June 28, 2017 and received an automated response that Ms. Thogerson would be out of the office until August 7. Ms. Millan forwarded her request to Lena Chang (USFWS Senior Fish and Wildlife Biologist) who replied that a USFWS biologist would be in touch shortly. On August 7, 2017, Rachel Henry (USFWS Biologist) sent an email to Ms. Millan requesting a map of the project area and clarification on her original email. Ms. Millan replied with additional details and a project map. Ms. Henry responded with a list of projects known to USFWS that will be occurring in the two critical habitat units in the foreseeable future. Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Summary There is no EFH for federally managed species at the proposed project location (as noted by NMFS in Appendix D); therefore, no EFH consultation will be necessary. California Endangered Species Act Consultation Summary On May 31, 2017, Caltrans contacted CDFW via email to present a summary of the Solomon Canyon CAPM project and for technical assistance regarding mitigation requirements for CTS habitat, biological monitoring, and burrow excavation.

Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination


On June 2, 2017, CDFW responded to Caltrans’ email, stating that there is no standard ratio for CTS habitat mitigation, but CDFW does have standards regarding monitoring and burrow excavation. On June 19, 2017, Caltrans responded to CDFWs email, asking for an expansion on CDFWs standards for CTS burrow excavation and monitoring. Specifically, Caltrans asked for CDFWs take on excavating CTS burrows that are within a certain distance of known breeding ponds. For other Caltrans projects where there were similar impacts to CTS, the ITP required burrow excavation only in areas with a higher probability of harboring CTS based on proximity to breeding sites. Caltrans inquired as to the possibility that similar adjustments can be made for the Solomon project so that every burrow along the project length won’t require excavation. On June 20, 2017, CDFW responded to Caltrans’ email, stating that CDFWs ITP would most likely require burrow excavation as an avoidance and minimization measure anywhere CTS would have potential for being in a burrow in the path of construction. CDFW also included the burrow excavation condition from a recent ITP. On August 3, 2017, Ms. Millan contacted Mr. Potter to ask for assistance with identifying any foreseeable future projects CDFW is aware of that may be located within critical habitat for CTS Unit 1 and/or La Graciosa thistle Unit 2. On August 8, 2017, Mr. Potter responded to Ms. Millan’s email with future projects that CDFW is aware of within the critical habitat units in the foreseeable future. The proposed project may result in the take of California tiger salamander, which is a state listed threatened species, therefore CESA consultation is required. A Section 2081 Incidental Take Permit from CDFW will be required.


Chapter 4 List of Preparers The following Caltrans Central Region staff contributed to the preparation of this Initial Study:

Allam Alhabaly, Transportation Engineer. B.S., California State University, Fresno, School of Engineering; 15 years of experience in environmental technical studies, with emphasis on noise studies. Contribution: Air Quality and Noise Assessment.

Justin Borders, B.S., Civil Engineering, California State University, Chico, 17 years of experience in highway design. Contribution: Project Manager

Robert Carr, Associate Landscape Architect. B.S., Landscape Architecture, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo; 27 years of experience preparing Visual Impact Assessments. Contribution: Visual Impact Assessment.

Allison Donatello, Associate Environmental Planner, B.S., Landscape Architecture, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo; 30 years of experience in environmental planning and land use design. Contribution: Preparation of the Initial Study.

David Ewing, Graphic Designer III. B.A., Graphic Design, Minor in Business Administration, California State University, Fresno; more than 20 years of graphic design, transportation graphics, and public participation experience. Contribution: Prepared maps and graphics.

Karen Holmes, Senior Environmental Planner. B.A., Environmental Studies/Biogeography, University of California, Los Angeles; 12 years of experience in environmental planning and analysis, biology, and regulatory permitting. Contribution: Supervised regulatory process.

Joel Kloth, Engineering Geologist. B.S., Geology, California Lutheran University; more than 30 years of experience in petroleum geology, geotechnical geology, and environmental engineering/geology-hazardous waste. Contribution: [Hazardous Waste and Initial Site Assessment.

Kozub, Lindsay, Associate Environmental Planner (Architectural Historian). M.A., History/Cultural Resource Management, Colorado State University; B.A., History; B.S., Business; 8 years of experience in historical research and analysis, historic preservation, and cultural resource management. Contribution: Architectural History

Isaac Leyva, Engineering Geologist. B.S., Geology; 27 years of experience in petroleum geology, environmental geology, geotechnical engineering. Contribution: Water Quality and Paleontology.

Chapter 4 List of Preparers


Christina MacDonald, Associate Environmental Planner (Arch). M.A., Cultural Resources Management, Sonoma State University; B.A., Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles; 14 years of experience in California prehistoric and historical archaeology. Contribution: Archeological Survey Report and Historic Property Survey Report.

Amy Millan, Associate Environmental Planner (Natural Sciences). B.S., Ecology and Systematic Biology, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo; 12 years of experience in California biology, wildlife and habitat studies, management, and monitoring. Contribution: Natural Environment Study.

Pete Riegelhuth, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/Stormwater Coordinator, Landscape Associate. Bachelor of Landscape Architecture, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo; 12 years of experience as District Construction Stormwater Coordinator and 10 years as National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/Stormwater Coordinator. Contribution: Stormwater Assessment.

Jason Wilkinson, Senior Environmental Planner. B.S., Natural Resource Management, Minor in Geographical Information System (GIS), California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo; 10 years of environmental planning experience. Contribution: Supervised preparation of the Initial Study


Chapter 5 Distribution List

Guadalupe Branch Library 4719 W. Main Street D Guadalupe, CA 93434

Santa Barbara County Planning and Building Dept. 123 East Anapamu St. Santa Barbara, CA 93101-2058

Santa Maria Public Library 421 S. McClelland Street Santa Maria, CA 93454

John Karamitsos, Supervising Planner Santa Barbara County Planning and Building Dept. North County Office 624 West Foster Road, Suite C Santa Maria, CA 93455-6258

Orcutt Branch Library 175 Broadway Street Orcutt, CA 93455

Santa Barbara County Public Works Department 620 West Foster Road Santa Maria, CA 93455

Jay Ogawa National Marine Fisheries Service 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200 Long Beach, CA 90802-4213

California Highway Patrol Santa Maria Office 1710 North Carlotti Drive Santa Maria, CA 93454-1505

Christine Found-Jackson California Department of Fish and Wildlife South Coast Region 3883 Ruffin Rd. San Diego, CA 92123

City of Lompoc Fire Department 115 South G St. Lompoc, CA 93436

Native American Heritage Commission 1560 Harbor Blvd., Room 100 West Sacramento, CA 95691


Appendix A California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Checklist

This checklist identifies physical, biological, social, and economic factors that might be affected by the proposed project. In many cases, background studies performed in connection with the projects will indicate that there are no impacts to a particular resource. A NO IMPACT answer in the last column reflects this determination. The words "significant" and "significance" used throughout the following checklist are related to CEQA, not NEPA, impacts. The questions in this form are intended to encourage the thoughtful assessment of impacts and do not represent thresholds of significance.

Project features, which can include both design elements of the project, and standardized measures that are applied to all or most Caltrans projects such as Best Management Practices (BMPs) and measures included in the Standard Plans and Specifications or as Standard Special Provisions, are considered to be an integral part of the project and have been considered prior to any significance determinations documented below; see Chapters 1 and 2 for a detailed discussion of these features. The annotations to this checklist are summaries of information contained in Chapter 2 in order to provide the reader with the rationale for significance determinations; for a more detailed discussion of the nature and extent of impacts, please see Chapter 2. This checklist incorporates by reference the information contained in Chapters 1 and 2.

Potentially Significant Impact

Less Than Significant with Mitigation

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact

I. AESTHETICS: Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?



A. No Impact: The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista because the project area does not included any scenic vistas and the project will only resurface the existing highway at this location.

B. No Impact: the project will not damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway, because the project does not include tree removal, rock outcroppings or historic buildings.

C. No Impact: The project will not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings because the project will only resurface the existing highway at this location.

D. No Impact- Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area

II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:




No Impact

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

a) No Impact: No farmland conversions are proposed as a part of the project

b) No Impact: No conflicts will with property within the Williamson or Agriculturally zoned

c) No Impact: there are no forest land or timberland adjacent to the project area

d) No Impact- The project will not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use

e) No Impact The project will not involve changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use

There are no parcels under a Williamson Act contract within the project limits and there is no forest or timberlands within the project area. There are no changes to farmland or forest land.



III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:




No Impact

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

a) No Impact: The project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan

b) No Impact: The project will not violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation

c) No Impact: The project will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)

d) No Impact- The project will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. There is no residential development adjacent to the project area.

e) No Impact the project will not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. There is no residential development adjacent to the project area.

Temporary construction activities could generate fugitive dust from the operation of construction equipment. Caltrans Standard Specifications pertaining to dust control and dust palliative requirement is a required part of all construction contracts and should effectively reduce and control emission impacts during construction. The provisions for Caltrans Standard Specifications, “Air Pollution control” and “Dust Control” require the contractor to comply with the applicable Air Pollution Control District’s rules, ordinances, and regulations. Impacts will be less than significant. No mitigation is required. (See Chapter 2.2 - Construction Impacts for more information)

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?






No Impact

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated

1. The California red-legged frog is a federally threatened and a California Species of Special Concern and has critical habitat unit near the project site (STB-2, San Antonio Terrace) is approximately 0.2 mi southwest of the BSA and will be completely avoided.

2. California tiger salamanders The BSA occurs within one of the six metapopulations and contains 15 known extant breeding ponds. California tiger salamanders are also listed as a threatened species under California Endangered Species Act. The species was not observed during reconnaissance surveys. Presence within the BSA is inferred based on known occurrence records for California tiger salamander near the project BSA. Approximately 4.29 acres (permanent) and 3.12 acres (temporary) of ruderal/disturbed upland and dispersal habitat (7.41 acres total) would be impacted by shoulder-backing activities as a result of this project. (See the Threatened and Endangered Species section in Chapter 2 for a detailed discussion)

3. Least Bell’s Vireo The least Bell’s vireo is a federal and state endangered species. Federal critical habitat has been designated for the species, but not within the BSA.

4. Southwestern willow flycatcher The southwestern willow flycatcher is a federal and state endangered species. Federal critical habitat has been designated for the species, but not within the BSA.

5. Swainson’s Hawk While foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk is present in the open grassland and cropland habitat of the BSA, it was assessed to be marginal habitat as it occurs next to the busy SR-1 travel corridor. Swainson’s hawk was determined to have a very low potential for occurrence within the BSA.

T and E -1: A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-approved biologists shall participate in activities associated with the capture, handling, and monitoring of California red-legged frogs prior to and during construction.

T and E -2: Purchase credits equivalent of up to 15.99 ac at a CESA-certified and CDFW-approved Conservation Bank (in a location to be determined) authorized sell credits for CTS.

T and E -3, 4, 5: Because avoidance and minimization measures will be employed to protect all nesting bird species protected by Federal Endangered Species Act, California Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and California Fish and Game Code, the Federal Endangered Species Act Section 7 effects determination is that the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, least Bell's vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher.

b) Less Than Significant: Federally designated critical habitats for California tiger salamander and La Graciosa thistle are present within the BSA. Sources of impacts would be primarily from the use of construction equipment and associated worker foot-traffic. In order to minimize disturbance to sensitive habitats and vegetation, Environmentally Sensitive Area fencing will be installed in areas where the Area of Potential Impact is adjacent to jurisdictional waterways

c) No Impact: As a result of this project, no wetlands, other waters, or riparian areas under the jurisdiction of USACE, Regional Water Quality Control Board, or CDFW will be impacted by the proposed project. CWA Section 404/401 permits and a California FGC Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement will not be required for this project.

d) No Impact: This project will not affect any migratory wildlife corridors or the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. This project will not impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.



e) No Impact: This project will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.

f) No Impact: This project will not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:




No Impact

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?

a) No Impact: Caltrans has determined a Finding of No Historic Properties Affected is appropriate, according to Section 106PA Stipulation IX.A and 36 800.4(d)(1), and no further studies are warranted.

b) No Impact: There are no archaeological resources within the project limits c) No Impact: There are no paleontological resources or unique geologic features within the project limits. d) No Impact: There were no human remains found within the project limits as a result of the Archeological research and surveys.

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:

a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42?

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

iv) Landslides?

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?






No Impact

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

a) No Impact: The project will not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: due to rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, seismic ground shaking, seismic-related liquefaction, or landslides

b) No Impact: The project will not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil

c) No Impact: The project will not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable.

d) No Impact: The project will not be located on expansive soils.

e) No Impact: The project does not include the use of septic tanks or waste water disposal systems

VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project:

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

Caltrans has used the best available information based to the extent possible on scientific and factual information, to describe, calculate, or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that may occur related to this project. The analysis included in the climate change section of this document provides the public and decision-makers as much information about the project as possible. It is Caltrans’ determination that in the absence of statewide-adopted thresholds or GHG emissions limits, it is too speculative to make a significance determination regarding an individual project’s direct and indirect impacts with respect to global climate change. Caltrans remains committed to implementing measures to reduce the potential effects of the project. These measures are outlined in the climate change (See Chapter 2.4) section that follows the CEQA checklist and related discussions.

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?






No Impact

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

a) No Impact: Transportation and disposal of hazardous waste will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Caltrans has Standard Special Provisions for disposal and transportation hazardous materials during construction that follow Federal, State, and Local regulations.

b) No Impact: Reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Caltrans has Standard Special Provisions regarding foreseeable upset and accident conditions during construction that follow Federal, State, and Local regulations.

c) No Impact: The project is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school

d) No Impact: The project is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment

e) No Impact: The project is not located within an airport land use area plan The project is located within two miles of the Santa Maria Airport but not within overflight zones. The project does not include residential or commercial development, therefore the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.

f) No Impact: The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, therefore the project will not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area

g) No Impact: The project will not impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan

h) No Impact: The project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. The project area is not located near wildlands or adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?






No Impact

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow

a) No Impact: The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements

b) No Impact: The project not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)

c) No Impact: The project not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site

d) No Impact: The project will not substantially alter the existing drainage patterns of the site area. The project will not alter and existing streams or rivers. The project will not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site because the project is resurfacing an existing roadway and will not increase the surface area runoff.

e) No Impact: The project design accommodates and does not exceed or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff

f) No Impact: The project will not substantially degrade water quality

g) No Impact: Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map

h) No Impact: Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows

i) No Impact: Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam

j) No Impact: Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow

X. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:

a) Physically divide an established community?

b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?






No Impact

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

a) No Impact: The project located on this section of highway does not physically divide an established community.

b) No Impact: The project does not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect

c) No Impact: The project does not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.

XI. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

a) No Impact: The project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

b) No Impact: The project will not result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan

XII. NOISE: Would the project result in:

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?






No Impact

a) No Impact: The project will not expose people to or generate noise at levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies

b) No Impact: The project will not expose people to or generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise.

c) No Impact: The project will not result in a permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project

d) No Impact: The project will not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project

e) No Impact: The project is not located within an airport land use area plan The project is located within two miles of the Santa Maria Airport but not within overflight zones. The project does not include residential or commercial development, therefore the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels

f) No Impact: The project will not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. (See comment “e” above)

XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:

a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

a) No Impact: The project will not induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). The project does not propose new homes or businesses or the extension or the highway or other infrastructure.

b) No Impact: The project will not displace existing housing, and therefore will not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere

c) No Impact: The project will not displace substantial numbers of people, and therefore will not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere

XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES:

a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?

Police protection?

Schools?

Parks?






No Impact

Other public facilities?

a) No Impact: The project will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire, police, schools and parks.

XV. RECREATION:

a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

a) No Impact: The project will not cause an increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities (in this case the Rancho Santa Maria Golf Course). The project is only resurfacing the existing highway, therefore, substantial physical deterioration of the facility should not occur or be accelerated

b) No Impact: The project will not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.

XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:

a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

e) Result in inadequate emergency access?

f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?






No Impact

a) No Impact: Because the project is a highway resurfacing project for an existing highway, the project will not conflict with applicable plans, ordinances or policies establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. This includes all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, as well as, intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit.

b) No Impact: The project will conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways.

c) No Impact: The project will not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks.

d) No Impact: The project will not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). The project includes plans to adjust one driveway location to improvement the existing sight distance.

e) No Impact: The project will not result in inadequate emergency access.

f) No Impact: The project will not conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.

Note: A Transportation Management Plan (TMP) Data Sheet/Checklist has been prepared for this project. This plan will help minimize and manage traffic delays during construction operations. Nigh work will be utilized during the construction of this project to help minimize impacts to the traveling public. Lane closures will be necessary to complete most of the work included in this project. Signing, including portable changeable message signs, and a Public Awareness Campaign, will be used for this project.

Stage Construction will not be required for his project. This project will be constructed using one way traffic control. Oversize loads may be detoured during construction of this project. Any restrictions to permitted loads will be coordinated with construction activities on alternative routes to ensure goods movement is not disrupted.

XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or

b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

a) No Impact: The project area/property is not listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)

b) No Impact: The project area is not a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, is not significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Note: On October 2016, Caltrans Archaeologist, sent letter to initiate Section 106 and AB 52 (PRC 21082.3.1) consultation for the project. All recipients of the consultation had no concerns for the project as it is not a highway widening project.

XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:

a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?






No Impact

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

a) No Impact: The project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board

b) No Impact: The project will not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects

c) No Impact: The project will not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects

d) No Impact: The project will have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources. No new or expanded entitlements are needed.

e) No Impact: The project will not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.

f) No Impact: The project will be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs.

g) No Impact: The project will comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste

XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?






No Impact

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

a) No Impact: The project will not potentially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

b) No Impact: The project will not have impacts that are individually limited, or cumulatively considerable?

c) No Impact: The project will not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly


Appendix B Title VI Policy Statement

Appendix C Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Summary


Appendix C Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Summary

This is the current list of measures as of September 2017. These recommendations are pending final comments and concurrence by the regulatory agencies who have yet to review this project through the FESA Section 7 and the NEPA/CEQA review and permit processes. As project development proceeds, these agreements will become refined and possibly revised.

Biology

A. Measures for California Tiger Salamander and La Graciosa Thistle Critical Habitat

The various measures for California tiger salamander, La Graciosa thistle, and other taxa and are also applicable to federally designated critical habitat. These measures have been assessed as sufficient to minimize impacts to California tiger salamander and La Graciosa thistle critical habitat.

B. Measures for California Red-legged Frog

1. Only USFWS-approved biologists shall participate in activities associated with the capture, handling, and monitoring of California red-legged frogs.

2. Ground disturbance shall not begin until written approval is received from the USFWS that the biologist is qualified to conduct the work.

3. A USFWS-approved biologist shall survey the project area no more than 48 hours before the onset of work activities. If any life stage of the California red-legged frog is found and these individuals are likely to be killed or injured by work activities, the approved biologist shall be allowed sufficient time to move them from the site before work begins. The USFWS-approved biologist shall relocate the California red-legged frogs the shortest distance possible to a location that contains suitable habitat and will not be affected by the activities associated with the project. The relocation site shall be in the same drainage to the extent practicable. Caltrans shall coordinate with USFWS on the relocation site prior to the capture of any California red-legged frogs.

4. Before any activities begin on a project, a USFWS-approved biologist shall conduct a training session for all construction personnel. At a minimum, the training shall include a description of the California red-legged frog and its habitat, the specific measures that are being implemented to conserve the California red-legged frog for the current project, and the boundaries within which the project may be accomplished. Brochures, books, and briefings may be used in the training session, with a qualified person on hand to answer any questions.

Appendix C Minimization and/or Mitigation Summary


5. A USFWS-approved biologist shall be present at the work site until all California red-legged frogs have been removed, workers have been instructed, and disturbance of habitat has been completed. After this time, Caltrans shall designate a person to monitor on-site compliance with all minimization measures. The USFWS-approved biologist shall ensure this monitor receives the training outlined in measure 4 above and in the identification of California red-legged frogs. If the monitor or the USFWS-approved biologist recommends that work be stopped because California red-legged frogs would be affected in a manner not anticipated by Caltrans and USFWS during review of the proposed action, they shall notify the resident engineer immediately. The resident engineer shall resolve the situation by requiring that all actions that are causing these effects be halted. When work is stopped, USFWS shall be notified as soon as possible.

6. During project activities, all trash that may attract predators or scavengers shall be properly contained, removed from the work site, and disposed of regularly. Following construction, all trash and debris shall be removed from work areas.

7. All refueling, maintenance and staging of equipment and vehicles shall occur at least 60 ft from riparian habitat or water bodies and not in a location from where a spill would drain directly toward aquatic habitat, unless otherwise preapproved by the necessary agencies. The monitor shall ensure contamination of habitat does not occur during `operations. Prior to the onset of work, Caltrans shall ensure that a plan is in place for prompt and effective response to any accidental spills. All workers shall be informed of the importance of preventing spills and of the appropriate measures to take should a spill occur.

8. Habitat contours shall be returned to a natural configuration at the end of the project activities. This measure shall be implemented in all areas disturbed by activities associated with the project, unless USFWS and Caltrans determine that it is not feasible or modification of original contours would benefit the California red-legged frog.

9. The number of access routes, size of staging areas, and the total area of activity shall be limited to the minimum necessary to achieve the project. ESAs shall be established to confine access routes and construction areas to the minimum area necessary to complete construction, and minimize the impact to California red-legged frog habitat; this goal includes locating access routes and construction areas outside of wetlands and riparian areas to the maximum extent practicable.

10. Caltrans shall attempt to schedule work for times of the year when impacts to the California red-legged frog would be minimal. For example, work that would affect large pools that may support breeding would be avoided, to the maximum degree practicable, during the breeding season (November through May). Isolated pools that are important to maintain California red-legged frogs through the driest portions of the year would be avoided, to the maximum degree practicable, during the late summer and early fall. Habitat assessments, surveys, and technical assistance between Caltrans and the USFWS during project planning shall be used



to assist in scheduling work activities to avoid sensitive habitats during key times of year.

11. To control sedimentation during and after project completion, Caltrans shall implement Best Management Practices outlined in any authorizations or permits issued under the authorities of the Clean Water Act received for the project. If BMPs are ineffective, Caltrans shall attempt to remedy the situation immediately, in coordination with USFWS.

12. If a work site is to be temporarily dewatered by pumping, intakes shall be completely screened with wire mesh not larger than 0.2 inch to prevent California red-legged frogs from entering the pump system. Water shall be released or pumped downstream at an appropriate rate to maintain downstream flows during construction. Upon completion of construction activities, any diversions or barriers to flow shall be removed in a manner that would allow flow to resume with the least disturbance to the substrate. Alteration of the streambed shall be minimized to the maximum extent possible; any imported material shall be removed from the streambed upon completion of the project.

13. Unless approved by USFWS, water shall not be impounded in a manner that may attract California red-legged frogs.

14. A USFWS-approved biologist shall permanently remove any individuals of exotic species, such as bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana), signal and red swamp crayfish (Pacifasticus leniusculus; Procambarus clarkii), and centrarchid fishes from the project area, to the maximum extent possible. The USFWS-approved biologist shall be responsible for ensuring his or her activities are in compliance with the California Fish and Game Code.

15. If Caltrans demonstrates that disturbed areas have been restored to conditions that allow them to function as habitat for the California red-legged frog, these areas will not be included in the amount of total habitat permanently disturbed.

16. To ensure that diseases are not conveyed between work sites by the USFWS-approved biologist, the fieldwork code of practice developed by the Declining Amphibian Task Force shall be followed at all times.

17. Project sites shall be revegetated with an assemblage of native riparian, wetland, and upland vegetation suitable for the area. Locally collected plant materials shall be used to the extent practicable. Invasive, exotic plants shall be controlled to the maximum extent practicable. This measure shall be implemented in all areas disturbed by activities associated with the project, unless USFWS and Caltrans determine that it is not feasible or practical.

18. Caltrans shall not use herbicides as the primary method to control invasive, exotic plants. However, if it is determined that the use of herbicides is the only feasible method for controlling invasive plants at a specific project site; it will implement the following additional protective measures for the California red-legged frog:



a. Caltrans shall not use herbicides during the breeding season for the California red-legged frog;

b. Caltrans shall conduct surveys for the California red-legged frog immediately prior to the start of herbicide use. If found, California red-legged frogs shall be relocated to suitable habitat far enough from the project area that no direct contact with herbicide would occur;

c. Giant reed and other invasive plants shall be cut and hauled out by hand and painted with glyphosate-based products, such as Aquamaster® or Rodeo®;

d. Licensed and experienced Caltrans staff or a licensed and experienced contractor shall use a hand-held sprayer for foliar application of Aquamaster® or Rodeo® where large monoculture stands occur at an individual project site;

e. All precautions shall be taken to ensure that no herbicide is applied to native vegetation;

f. Herbicides shall not be applied on or near open water surfaces (no closer than 60 ft from open water);

g. Foliar applications of herbicide shall not occur when wind speeds are in excess of 3 miles per hour;

h. No herbicides shall be applied within 24 hours of forecasted rain;

i. Application of all herbicides shall be done by qualified Caltrans staff or contractors to ensure that overspray is minimized, that all applications is made in accordance with the label recommendations, and with implementation of all required and reasonable safety measures. A safe dye shall be added to the mixture to visually denote treated sites. Application of herbicides shall be consistent with the U.S Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Pesticide Programs, Endangered Species Protection Program county bulletins;

j. All herbicides, fuels, lubricants, and equipment shall be stored, poured, or refilled at least 60 feet from riparian habitat or water bodies in a location where a spill would not drain directly toward aquatic habitat, unless otherwise preapproved by the necessary agencies. Prior to the onset of work, Caltrans shall ensure that a plan is in place for a prompt and effective response to accidental spills. All workers shall be informed of the importance of preventing spills and of the appropriate measures to take should a spill occur.

C. Measures for California tiger salamander

1. Caltrans shall obtain USFWS and CDFW approval of Designated Biologist(s) and Designated Monitor(s) prior to project-related activities that may result in impacts to the CTS. The Designated Biologist(s) shall hold all applicable State and Federal Permits including an active Scientific Collecting Permit from CDFW that



specifically names CTS surveys as an authorized activity. Any proposed Biologist(s) that do not have the required permits must work under the supervision of one who does have the required permits. These individuals shall be referred to as Designated Monitors.

The Designated Biologist with the active permits must be present at all surveys and during all initial ground disturbing activities in areas of potential CTS habitat to help minimize or avoid impact to the CTS and to minimize disturbance of habitat. Designated Biologist and/or Designated Monitors who handle CTS shall ensure that their activities do no transmit diseases or pathogens harmful to amphibians, such as chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis), by following the fieldwork code of practice developed by the Declining Amphibians Task Force. Designated Monitors may monitor project activities after initial ground disturbing activities have been completed provided the Designated Biologist with the active permits can be contacted should the need arise to relocate a CTS. Work that could potentially harm the CTS would have to be stopped until the Designated Biologist arrived to relocate the CTS to the pre-approved location. If the Designated Biologist or Designated Monitor recommends that work be stopped they shall notify the resident engineer immediately. The resident engineer shall resolve the situation by requiring that all actions that are causing these effects be halted.

2. Ground disturbance will not begin until written approval is received from the USFWS that the biologist is qualified to conduct the work.

3. Before any activities begin, the approved biologist shall conduct an education program for all persons employed or otherwise working on the project site prior to performing any work on-site. The program shall include a discussion of the biology of the CTS and project-specific avoidance and minimization measures. Upon completion of the program, employees shall sign a form stating they attended the program and understand all protection measures.

4. A representative sample of small mammal burrows within the proposed areas of permanent and temporary impact shall be hand-excavated by a USFWS/CDFW-approved biologist prior to construction. Timing of hand excavation shall occur outside of the CTS breeding season. Excavation of burrows between June 15 and November 1 would avoid the breeding season (November to March) and most juvenile dispersal movements.

During the Section 2081 permitting process Caltrans would like to propose hand-excavation of several dozen small mammal burrows that have the greatest potential to serve as refugia for CTS, in coordination with and approval from USFWS and CDFW. Determination of these burrows would include known parameters of preferred refugia, such as proximity to ponds and burrow type. If no CTS are found during hand-excavation of high-potential burrows, Caltrans proposes to infer the area is not serving as upland habitat and proceed with work



as planned. Details regarding burrow excavation will be discussed and finalized during the upcoming Section 2081 permitting process.

5. Effects to CTS shall be minimized during rainy weather and at night. Between November 1 and April 1, the project site shall be surveyed nightly by the Designated Biologist of a Designated Monitor prior to any night work. When the chance of rainfall within 24 hours is predicted to be 70 percent or greater, only critical project activities will be allowed at night within potential CTS habitat, until no further rain is forecast.

6. Copies of all relevant agreements/permits (e.g., Biological Opinion, Section 2081 Incidental Take Permit) shall be maintained at the worksite.

7. During project activities, all trash that may attract predators will be properly contained, removed from the work site, and disposed of regularly. Following construction, all trash and construction debris will be removed from work areas.

8. All refueling, maintenance, and staging of equipment and vehicles will occur at least 60 feet from riparian and pond habitat. Measures will be taken to avoid situations where a spill could drain directly toward aquatic habitat.

E. Measures for Least Bell's Vireo, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Swainson’s Hawk, and Other Nesting Birds

1. If construction activities are proposed to occur within 100 ft of potential habitat during the nesting season (February 15 to September 1), a nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a biologist determined qualified by Caltrans no more than three (3) days prior to construction. If an active nest is found, a qualified biologist shall determine an appropriate buffer and monitoring strategy based on the habits and needs of the species. The buffer area shall be avoided until a qualified biologist has determined that juveniles have fledged.

2. If least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and/or Swainson’s hawk are observed within 100 ft of the API during the course of construction, a qualified biologist shall implement an exclusion zone and work shall be avoided within the exclusion zone until the least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and/or Swainson’s hawk is located greater than 100 ft from project-related disturbance. If an active least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and/or Swainson’s hawk nest is observed within 100 ft of the API, all project activities shall immediately cease and Caltrans shall contact USFWS and CDFW within 48 hours. If required, Caltrans shall then initiate FESA Section 7 formal consultation with USFWS for least Bell’s vireo and/or southwestern willow flycatcher and CESA coordination for least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and/or Swainson’s hawk and implement additional measures as necessary.

F. Measures for American Badger



1. No less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to beginning of ground disturbance and/or construction activities, a qualified biologist will conduct a survey to determine if any American badger dens are present at the project site. If dens are found, they will be monitored for badger activity. If it is determined that dens may be active, the entrances of the dens will be blocked with soil, sticks, and debris for three to five days to discourage the use of these dens prior to project disturbance activities. The den entrances will be blocked to an incrementally greater degree over the 3 to 5-day period. After it has been determined that badgers have stopped using active dens, the dens will be hand-excavated with a shovel to prevent re-use during construction. No disturbance of active dens will take place when cubs may be present and dependent on parental care.

2. Any observations of occupied badger dens or American badgers will be reported to CDFW.

G. Measures for Pallid Bat, Townsend's Big-eared Bat, Western Red Bat, and Yuma Myotis

1. A roosting bat survey shall be conducted for the Waldorf structure by a biologist determined qualified by Caltrans no more than 14 days prior to construction. If an active roost is found, a qualified biologist shall determine an appropriate buffer and monitoring strategy based on the habits and needs of the species. The buffer area shall be avoided until a qualified biologist has determined that all bats have left the roost.

2. If an active bat roost is found, Caltrans shall coordinate with CDFW to determine an appropriate buffer based on the habits and needs of the species. Readily visible exclusion zones shall be established in areas where roosts must be avoided using ESA fencing. Work in the buffer area shall be avoided until a qualified biologist has determined that roosting activity has ceased. Active bat maternity roosts shall not be disturbed or destroyed at any.

Invasive Species The following avoidance and minimization measures are recommended to reduce the potential spread or introduction of invasive species within the BSA: 1. During construction, Caltrans will ensure that the spread or introduction of

invasive exotic plant species will be avoided to the maximum extent possible.

2. Only clean fill shall be imported. When practicable, invasive exotic plants in the project site shall be removed and properly disposed. All vegetation removed from the construction site shall be taken to a landfill to prevent the spread of invasive species. If soil from weedy areas must be removed off-site, the top six inches containing the seed layer in areas with weedy species shall be disposed of at a landfill.



3. If necessary, wash stations onsite shall be established for construction equipment under the guidance of Caltrans in order to avoid/minimize the spread of invasive plants and/or seed within the construction area.

Construction Impacts

Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities 1. This project will require a Traffic Management Plan that includes methods for

minimizing and managing traffic delays and disruptions during construction operations of the project. Night work is anticipated to help reduce daytime delays and disruptions. Single lane closures will be necessary. Signing, including portable changeable message signs, and a Public Awareness Campaign will be used to inform the public of current and upcoming construction activities. Construction Zone Enhanced Enforcement Program or Patrol (COZEEP) will be used for this project.

Air Quality 1. Caltrans Standard Specifications pertaining to dust control and dust palliative

requirement is a required part of all construction contracts and should effectively reduce and control emission impacts during construction. The provisions for Caltrans Standard Specifications, “Air Pollution control” and “Dust Control” require the contractor to comply with the applicable Air Pollution Control District’s rules, ordinances, and regulations.

Noise 1. The following measures should be implemented in order to minimize noise and

vibration disturbances at sensitive receptors during periods of construction:

2. Equipment Noise Control a. Use newer equipment with improved noise muffling and ensure that all equipment

items have the manufacturers' recommended noise abatement measures, such as mufflers, engine enclosures, and engine vibration isolators intact and operational. Newer equipment will generally be quieter in operation than older equipment. All construction equipment should be inspected at periodic intervals to ensure proper maintenance and presence of noise control devices (e.g., mufflers and shrouding, etc.).

b. Utilize construction methods or equipment that will provide the lowest level of noise and ground vibration impact such as alternative low-noise pile installation methods.

c. Turn off idling equipment.

3. Administrative Measures a. Implement a construction noise and/or vibration monitoring program in order to

limit the impacts. b. Limit construction activities to daytime hours, if possible. c. Keep noise levels relatively uniform and avoid impulsive noises.



d. Maintain good public relations with the community to minimize objections to the unavoidable construction impacts. Provide frequent activity updates of all construction activities.

Appendix D Biological Study Area Maps





List of Technical Studies

Air Quality Report June 2017

Noise Study Report June 2017

Water Quality Assessment August 2017

Natural Environment Study September 2017

Historical Property Survey Report

• Historic Resource Evaluation Report September 2017

• Historic Property Survey Report September 2017

• Archaeological Survey Report August 2017

Hazardous Waste Reports-Initial Site Assessment June 2107

Scenic Resource Evaluation/Visual Assessment July 2017

Initial Paleontology Study August 2017

Solomon Canyon Pavement Preservation Project from post mile R36.4 to 49.2, but signage will be...

Documents

Transcript of Solomon Canyon Pavement Preservation Project from post mile R36.4 to 49.2, but signage will be...