CAMPBELL HOME RANCH HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN

Santa Barbara County, California

September, 2017

2 | P a g e

Contents

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 5

I. Introduction and Background ................................................................................................. 7

A. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 7

B. Background ......................................................................................................................... 7

C. HCP Overview...................................................................................................................... 8

D. Permit Holder and Duration ............................................................................................... 9

E. Covered Lands ..................................................................................................................... 9

F. Covered Species ................................................................................................................ 10

G. Regulatory Framework ..................................................................................................... 11

1. Federal Endangered Species Act ................................................................................ 11

2. Incidental Take Permit Process .................................................................................. 12

a) Development of the HCP ........................................................................................ 12

b) Processing the Incidental Take Permit.................................................................... 12

c) Post-issuance Compliance ...................................................................................... 12

3. National Environmental Policy Act ............................................................................. 12

4. National Historic Preservation Act ............................................................................. 13

5. Other Relevant Laws and Regulations ........................................................................ 13

II. Project Description and Covered Activities .......................................................................... 14

A. Project Description ........................................................................................................... 14

B. Covered Activities ............................................................................................................. 14

III. Environmental Setting and Covered Species ........................................................................ 15

A. Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................... 15

1. Climate ........................................................................................................................ 15

2. Topography/Geology .................................................................................................. 15

3. Hydrology, Streams, Rivers, Drainages ....................................................................... 15

4. Existing and Surrounding Land Uses........................................................................... 15

5. Covered Species .......................................................................................................... 16

a) California Tiger Salamander .................................................................................... 16

IV. Biological Impacts and Take Assessment.............................................................................. 18

A. California Tiger Salamander .............................................................................................. 19

3 | P a g e

1. Direct and Indirect Biological Impacts on California Tiger Salamander ..................... 19

2. Anticipated Take of California Tiger Salamander ....................................................... 19

3. Impacts to California Tiger Salamander Critical Habitat ............................................ 19

4. Cumulative Impacts to California Tiger Salamander .................................................. 20

5. Anticipated Effects of the Taking of California Tiger Salamander .............................. 20

V. Conservation Strategy ........................................................................................................... 21

A. Biological Goal and Objectives .......................................................................................... 21

B. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures ........................................................ 22

1. Avoidance Measures .................................................................................................. 22

a) Installation/Construction ........................................................................................ 22

2. Minimization Measures .............................................................................................. 23

3. Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................. 24

4. Monitoring .................................................................................................................. 24

5. Adaptive Management Strategy................................................................................. 25

6. Reporting .................................................................................................................... 25

VI. Plan Implementation ............................................................................................................ 26

A. Changed Circumstances .................................................................................................... 26

1. Newly Listed Species................................................................................................... 26

2. Newly Discovered Listed Species .............................................................................. 267

B. Unforeseen Circumstances ............................................................................................... 27

C. Amendments ..................................................................................................................... 27

1. Minor Amendments ................................................................................................... 28

2. Major Amendments .................................................................................................... 28

D. Permit Suspension or Revocation ..................................................................................... 29

E. Permit Renewal ................................................................................................................. 29

F. Permit Transfer ................................................................................................................. 29

VII. Funding ............................................................................................................................. 31

A. HCP Implementation Costs ............................................................................................... 31

B. Funding Source ................................................................................................................. 31

VIII. Alternatives ....................................................................................................................... 32

A. No Action Alternative........................................................................................................ 32

B. Project Redesign Alternative ............................................................................................ 32

4 | P a g e

IX. Literature Cited ........................................................................................................................ 33

Figures Figure 1. Project Vicinity ............................................................................................................... 10

Figure 2. California tiger salamander Known and Potential Breeding Ponds .............................. 18

5 | P a g e

Executive Summary

Mr. Robert Campbell is proposing to develop 40 acres of land to vineyard, berries, other row crops, dry-farmed crops, residential development, or other uses as allowed by the County of Santa Barbara in an unincorporated portion of Santa Barbara County adjacent to Highway 246. The proposed activities include: 1) development rights including permission to install and operate vineyard, berries and other agricultural development involving land-clearing ripping, plowing and other soil cultivation techniques; 2) construction and/or maintenance of water storage features, wells and irrigation infrastructure; 3) application of fertilizers; 4) control of insect pests, rodents and plant maladies and/or diseases; 5) control of invasive weeds; 6) planting and management of crops; 6) protection of crops from frost; 7) harvesting; 8) other activities that may also be necessary to support long-term operations and financial viability; 9) installation and use of hoop houses; 10) creation and maintenance of roads required within the developed area to provide sufficient access; 11) residential development including construction of one single-family residence, accessory structures, outdoor living area, utility service and water infrastructure, garage, driveway, and other roads that facilitate access and other ancillary purposes.

The Project occurs within critical habitat of the state-listed threatened and federally-listed endangered CTS (Service 2004). The Impact Area provides suitable upland grassland habitat for the CTS, but does not support suitable breeding habitat for this species. Several known and potential CTS breeding ponds exist within 1.24 miles (CTS dispersal distance) of the Impact Area.

Mr. Robert Campbell is requesting an Incidental Take Permit to authorize incidental take of CTS and CRLF for a period of 30 years commencing on the date of approval by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological goals and objectives have been developed to ensure that the operating conservation program in the Habitat Conservation Plan is consistent with the conservation and recovery goals for these species. Biological Goal for this Project includes:

Goal 1: Avoid and minimize take, in the form of injury or mortality, of CTS.

Biological objectives are the components needed to achieve the biological goal and they are the rationale behind the minimization and mitigation strategies. The biological objectives are to:

Objective 1. Conduct pre-construction surveys for CTS.

Objective 2. Conduct daily biological clearances and construction monitoring during initial ground-disturbing activities.

Objective 3. Employ Stop Work Authority and relocate any observed CTS.

Mitigation for incidental take to CTS and the loss of upland habitat will be fulfilled through the establishment of a conservation easement on applicant-owned land prior to commencing and ground-disturbing activities or any other activities that could result in the take of CTS.

6 | P a g e

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service performed a habitat quality impact analysis using the Searcy and Shaffer (2008) model with the disturbance of 40 acres of CTS upland habitat which resulted in a determination of a reduction of a reproductive value of 1,653. The conservation easement includes more than enough acreage than what is necessary to compensate for the loss of a reproductive value of 1,653.

7 | P a g e

I. Introduction and Background A. Introduction

The following Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) has been prepared pursuant to Section 10 of the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) to address possible impacts on the federally endangered Santa Barbara County distinct population segment (DPS) of the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense; CTS) that may result from proposed agricultural and residential development (Project). The HCP seeks to enable such development, while providing permanent protection of habitat essential to these species through protection of mitigation land under a conservation easement (Easement). Minimization and avoidance measures designed to reduce or eliminate incidental take of these species are also addressed.

Aquatic breeding and upland habitats for CTS are limited in Santa Barbara County, and their extent is declining in size due to agricultural conversion from rangelands (where activities are generally compatible with these species) to cultivated vineyard, berries and row crops, as well as residential development (all of which severely degrade or destroy such habitat). The areas covered by this HCP lie within the Santa Rita Critical Habitat Unit for the Santa Barbara County Distinct Population Segment of CTS, an area of conservation value that makes its protection a high priority at local, regional and national levels.

B. Background

Campbell Home Ranch, located in Santa Barbara County on State Hwy 246 near Campbell Road, about half-way between the cities of Lompoc and Buellton, is comprised of seven APNs totaling 615 acres. Much of the Ranch has been actively managed for decades under the ownership and conscientious stewardship of the Campbell Family, which continues to own, manage and live on the property under the leadership of Robert Campbell and other members of his family.

Most of the property occupies gentle-to-moderate hillside slopes vegetated primarily in grassland suitable for grazing. As of the time of this application, prime row crops (mostly berries under hoophouses) occupy about 130 acres, with the remaining 485 acres in open rangeland containing scattered stands of oak woodland and savannah. The property includes one large, ephemeral, rain-fed, naturally occurring vernal pool (LOAL-2w), known to support breeding CTS, which occupies about 5.5 acres when full to capacity. The property supports large areas of “upland habitat” that are necessary for the non-aquatic portions of the CTS life-cycle, most of which is spent in underground rodent burrows.

CTS were first documented in this vicinity with the discovery of migrating adults on Highway 246 in November, 1982, and on a single visit to the property later in that year when eggs were found in a pond on adjacent property to the east. Roadway surveys conducted subsequently have identified numerous larval and metamorph youngsters adjacent to the Property, and have resulted in collection of a gravid, adult female CTS found dead along Highway 246 approximately 0.15 miles southeast of the Project Area in February, 2017.

8 | P a g e

Historic research, as well as regional investigations conducted by local biological consultants under the supervision of the Service, has identified this pond and the surrounding upland habitat as critically important to the genetic diversity and recovery of this imperiled species. Protection of the subject property represents an important conservation opportunity, and would increase progress toward achievement of goals set forth in the CTS Recovery Plan (Service 2016).

The upper portions of the site is largely described as annual grassland which is comprised largely of ripgut (Bromus diandrus), barley (Hordeum sp.), rye (Lolium sp.); wild oats (Avena sp.), croton (Croton californica), fiddleneck (Amsinkia intermedia), lupine (Lupinus sp.), ragweed (Ambrosia sp.), and cranesbill (Erodium sp.). Perennial shrubs, including coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), goldenbush (Isocoma sp.) and coastal sage scrub species (Artemesia, Salvia, Eriogonum, Encelia) are scattered across the site in patches, interspersed with oak (Quercus agrifolia) woodland and savannah. Along the edge and within the margins of Pond LOAL-2w, species associated with wetland habitats are found, including those belonging to Juncus, Carex, Scirpus, Typha and Heleocharis.

Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) and California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) both inhabit the site in abundance. Their burrows provide upland habitat critical to the survival of CTS. American badger (Taxidea taxus) may also inhabit or transit the site.

C. HCP Overview

This HCP applies to two portions of the subject parcels: 1) a 40-acre, grassy, upland portion of the Ranch possessing low habitat value for both CTS where proposed new agricultural and/or residential development would render habitat for both species unusable; and 2) mitigation lands totaling about six acres of high-value aquatic habitat that would be protected under a conservation easement held by the Land Trust for Santa Barbara County. These two portions are referred to as the Project Area throughout this document. Throughout this document the 40-acre area proposed for new agricultural and/or residential development is referred to as the Impact Area and the six acres of mitigation lands that would be protected under a conservation easement held by the Land Trust for Santa Barbara County is referred to as the Easement Area.

Issuance of an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) would presumably follow, and would include: 1) development rights including permission to install and operate vineyard, berries and other agricultural development involving land-clearing ripping, plowing and other soil cultivation techniques; 2) construction and/or maintenance of water storage features, wells and irrigation infrastructure; 3) application of fertilizers; 4) control of insect pests, rodents and plant maladies and/or diseases; 5) control of invasive weeds; 6) planting and management of crops; 6) protection of crops from frost; 7) harvesting; 8) other activities that may also be necessary to support long-term operations and financial viability; 9) installation and use of hoop houses; 10) creation and maintenance of roads required within the developed area to provide sufficient access; 11) residential development including construction of one single-family residence,

9 | P a g e

accessory structures, outdoor living area, utility service and water infrastructure, garage, driveway, and other roads that facilitate access and other ancillary purposes.

D. Permit Holder and Duration

Mr. Robert Campbell (Applicant) as the legal owner, requests an ITP to authorize the incidental take of the CTS for a period of 30 years commencing upon the date of approval by the Service. A 30-year permit period is the longest term allowable under this program, and represents the time necessary to undertake the proposed Project, to carry out the proposed measures to conserve the species, and to provide flexibility in Plan execution. The Applicant is requesting this permit pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. As the Applicant, Mr. Campbell would become the permittee of any ITP issued as a result of this HCP.

E. Covered Lands

The proposed plan area is located in an unincorporated portion of Santa Barbara County adjacent to Highway 246 at Latitude 34°39'9.10"N, Longitude 120°18'52.77"W (Figure 1), within the Los Alamos 7.5” U.S. Geological Survey topographic quadrangle. The land to be covered under this HCP is comprised of a 20-acre portion of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 099-110-071 and all 20 acres of APN 099-110-069. Together, these two areas comprise the Impact Area. Covered lands, referred to as the Project Area, also include a six-acre portion of APN 099-170-054 which contains a portion of Pond LOAL-2w. This area encompasses the Easement Area. The covered lands are located in the CTS Santa Rita Metapopulation and are part of Critical Habitat Unit 6 (Santa Rita Valley).

Pond LOAL-2w, occupies a natural depression on an active syncline in the Careaga Formation east of the Santa Rita-Drum Canyon divide along the north side of Highway 246. This pond occupies an area of about 5.5 acres when full to capacity, at which time it is about 2 meters deep. A substantial pit, approximately 25 by 15 meters wide and 2 to 3 meters deep, was excavated at the low point of this pond sometime prior to 1982; it holds water year-round in all but low rainfall years. A smaller CTS breeding pond, LOAL-2e, not located within the covered lands is found about 250 meters to the southeast. LOAL-2e, approximately 20 meters in diameter and 1.5 meters deep, retains water year-round in most years.

10 | P a g e

Figure 1. Project Vicinity

11 | P a g e

F. Covered Species

The species covered in this HCP are the federally-endangered Santa Barbara County DPS of the CTS.

G. Regulatory Framework

1. Federal Endangered Species Act

Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act prohibits the take of any federally listed endangered or threatened animal species. Take is defined in Section 3(18) of the Act as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” The Service regulations in 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 17.3 further define harm to include significant habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering. Harassment is defined as an intentional or negligent action that creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying a species to such an extent that its normal behavioral patterns (e.g., breeding, feeding, or sheltering) are significantly disrupted. The Act provides for civil and criminal penalties for the unlawful taking of listed species. Exemptions to the prohibitions against take may be obtained through coordination with the Service. If a project is to be funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency and may affect a listed species, the Federal agency must consult with the Service pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Act.

In order to comply with Federal law, private individuals and State and local or other entities who propose an action that is likely to result in the take of federally listed animal species and for which there is no Federal nexus, may comply with the Act by applying for, and receiving, an incidental take permit pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Such permits are issued by the Service when take is not the intention of, and is incidental to, otherwise legal activities. The application for an incidental take permit must be accompanied by a habitat conservation plan. The regulatory standard under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act requires that the effects of authorized incidental take be minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. Under section 10(a)(1)(B), a proposed action also must not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the species in the wild. Adequate funding of identified actions to minimize and mitigate impacts must also be ensured.

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires that Federal agencies ensure that their actions, including permit issuance, do not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify listed species’ critical habitat. Pursuant to 50 CFR 402.2, “Jeopardize the continued existence of…” means to engage in an action that would reasonably be expected, directly or indirectly, to appreciably reduce the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species. Issuance of an incidental take permit by the Service, pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B), constitutes a Federal action that is subject to the requirements of section 7(a)(2). As such, as a Federal

12 | P a g e

agency responsible for the issuance of a discretionary permit the Service must prepare an internal consultation to address the effects of their action.

2. Incidental Take Permit Process

The process for obtaining an ITP has three primary phases:

Development of the HCP: During development of the HCP, the project applicant prepares a plan that integrates the proposed project or action with protection of listed species. Every HCP submitted in support of an incidental take permit application must include: those impacts likely to result from the proposed taking of the species for which permit coverage is requested; measures that will be implemented to monitor, minimize, and mitigate impacts; funding that will be made available to undertake such measures; and procedures to deal with unforeseen circumstances; alternatives to the proposed action that would not result in take; and any additional measures Service may require as necessary or appropriate for purposes of the plan. Processing the Incidental Take Permit: When the HCP development phase concludes, the permit processing phase begins when a complete application package is submitted to the appropriate permit-issuing office. A complete application package for a private citizen consists of: (1) an HCP; (2) a permit application; and (3) a $100 fee from the applicant. The Service publishes a Notice of Availability of the HCP package in the Federal Register (FR) to allow for public comment. The Service also prepares an Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Opinion and a Set of Findings, which evaluates the Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit application as in the context of permit issuance criteria (see below). Given that this is being evaluated for processing as a low-effect HCP, compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) consists of a Categorical Exclusion, which requires that the Service prepare an Environmental Action Statement. A Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit is issued upon a determination by the Service that all requirements for permit issuance have been met. Statutory criteria for issuance of the permit specify that: (1) the taking will be incidental; (2) the impacts of incidental take will be minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable; (3) the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the species in the wild; (4) the applicant will provide additional measures that the Service requires as being necessary or appropriate; and (5) the Service has received assurances, as may be required, that the HCP will be implemented. Notification to the public regarding permit issuance is through the publication of a notice in the Federal Register. Post-issuance Compliance: During the post-issuance phase, the permittee(s) and any other responsible entities are responsible for implementing the HCP in accordance with the terms and conditions of the ITP. The Service monitors permittee(s) compliance with the HCP as well as its long-term progress and success.

3. National Environmental Policy Act

The purpose of the NEPA is two-fold: (1) to ensure that Federal agencies examine environmental impacts of their actions (in this case deciding whether to issue an ITP); and (2) to

13 | P a g e

ensure public participation. The NEPA serves as an analytical tool to address direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed project alternatives to help the Service decide whether to issue an ITP. Compliance with the NEPA is required of the Service for each HCP as part of the ITP application process. For this project, given that it is being evaluated for a low-effect HCP, NEPA compliance consists of a Categorical Exclusion.

4. National Historic Preservation Act

All Federal agencies are required to examine the cultural impacts of their actions (e.g., permit issuance). This requires consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and appropriate American Indian tribes. All ITP applicants are requested to submit a Request for Cultural Resources Compliance form to the Service. To complete compliance requirements, the applicants will submit a completed Cultural Resources Compliance form to the Service.

5. Other Relevant Laws and Regulations

California Endangered Species Act: The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) generally parallels the main provisions of the Act and provides for the designation of native species or subspecies of plants, fish, and wildlife as endangered or threatened. Section 2080 prohibits the take of state listed as endangered or threatened species but allows for the incidental take of such species as a result of otherwise lawful development projects under section 2081(b) and (c). The CTS is listed under the CESA; however, the applicant is choosing not to pursue an ITP pursuant to section 2081.

California Environmental Quality Act: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is a state statute that is generally analogous to NEPA on the Federal level in requiring the completion of an environmental review for projects that may impact environmental resources. It requires public agencies to review the environmental impacts of proposed projects, prepare and review negative declarations, mitigated negative declarations or environmental impact reports and to consider feasible alternatives and mitigation measures that would substantially reduce significant adverse environmental effects. It applies to a broad range of environmental resources including any state and federally listed wildlife and plant species, as well as sensitive natural communities. Impacts to such species and natural communities must be evaluated under the CEQA. The County of Santa Barbara is the local (i.e., lead) agency responsible for conducting CEQA review and ensuring compliance for projects in the unincorporated Santa Barbara County. As such, they will evaluate the Conditional Use Permit application and ensure compliance with the CEQA. Impacts to CTS represent one aspect of a CEQA review; however, the potential for impacts to other environmental resources is also reviewed as part of the CEQA compliance process.

14 | P a g e

II. Project Description and Covered Activities A. Project Description

Lands proposed for development covered under this HCP have historically undergone a variety of agricultural improvements, including production of grain and other dry-farmed crops, installation and maintenance of a water well and small reservoir, grazing of dairy and beef cattle, and irrigated row crops. Despite these historic uses, this land, now used largely for cattle grazing, provides upland habitat for CTS. Proposed uses include development in vineyard, berries, other row crops, dry-farmed crops, residential development, or other uses as allowed by the County of Santa Barbara with additional permitting. All of these activities severely reduce or eliminate CTS habitat value on the effected lands.

B. Covered Activities

This HCP covers all activities outlined in the Project Description, all of which could potentially result in take of CTS. Once development occurs, it is assumed that habitat value for the covered species is minimized, thereby reducing to negligible the likelihood of take of covered species. This HCP is therefore tailored primarily to address activities related to installation and construction of agricultural improvements or residential structures and accessory features. Nevertheless, this HCP and the associated ITP provide protection for incidental take after the initial development, and cover all activity that takes place within the covered areas for the term of the ITP.

Vineyard, berries and other agricultural development involves land-clearing to remove excess undesirable vegetation or debris from the surface and ripping, plowing and other soil cultivation techniques that break up hard pans or compaction layers. Construction and/or maintenance of water storage features, wells and irrigation infrastructure; application of fertilizers; control of insect pests, rodents and plant maladies and/or diseases; control of invasive weeds; planting and management of crops; protection of crops from frost; harvesting; and other activities may also be necessary to support long-term operations and financial viability. Hoop houses, a series of large bows covered with a layer of greenhouse plastic, are typically employed throughout the region for the effective production of temperature-sensitive crops. Roads would be required within and/or around the developed area to provide sufficient access.

Residential development under the HCP is also proposed, which would include construction of one single-family residence, accessory structures, outdoor living area, utility service and water infrastructure, garage, driveway, and other roads that facilitate access and other ancillary purposes.

15 | P a g e

III. Environmental Setting and Covered Species A. Environmental Setting

1. Climate

The Mediterranean coastal climate of the Project Area is mild and characterized by long, dry summers and short, wet winters. Fog is common during the late spring and summer months. Temperatures range from 50°F to more than 100°F during the summer, with occasional fog and marine breezes creating a relatively mild average summer temperature of approximately 65°F. Winter temperatures range from approximately 30°F to 80°F, with an average temperature of approximately 55°F. On average, the warmest month is September and the coolest month is January. The average annual precipitation is approximately 15 inches, with most of the precipitation occurring from October to May.

2. Topography/Geology

The proposed plan area is located within an elevation range of approximately 560 feet to 750 feet above mean sea level. The areas covered by the HCP are located on a combination of relatively flat ground and hills with moderate to steep slopes. The Ranch is located in the western portion of California’s Transverse Ranges, a geomorphic province characterized by east/west-trending mountain ranges and valleys. The western portion of the Transverse Ranges where the Property is located consists of Franciscan Complex basement rocks at depth, overlain by petroleum rich Tertiary to Quaternary marine and non-marine sedimentary deposits, in particularly Santa Margarita shale. This formation consists of several thousand feet of diatomaceous claystone and diatomite resting on Monterey siliceous shale (Dibblee 1966).

The Campbell Ranch is dominated by rich loamy soils in the Corralitos, Tierra, Linne and Botella series, as well as large areas of Arnold sand at the northern and southern boundaries of the Property. The areas dominated by the nutrient poor Arnold sand are mostly used for grazing and are typically vegetated with annual grasses and scrub, while the areas with loamy soils are much more suitable for row crop production

3. Hydrology, Streams, Rivers, Drainages

The proposed plan area, located within the Santa Rita Valley watershed, includes two pond features identified on 2010 CTS Map as LOAL-2w and LOAL-41. LOAL-2w has been described above. LOAL-41 is a man-made reservoir feature fed only by well water that has been managed in ways that are not likely to have created aquatic habitat attractive to CTS. Over the last the 25 years, LOAL-41 has generally been empty of water for many periods extending many months or years.

4. Existing and Surrounding Land Uses

The proposed plan area is located in rural agricultural areas within northern Santa Barbara County. The land use of the surrounding areas includes rangelands used for cattle grazing,

16 | P a g e

production of wine grapes, berries and a number of cultivated row crops, as well as dry farming operations.

5. Covered Species

The species covered by this HCP are the federally endangered (and state Threatened) CTS (Santa Barbara County DPS). This section summarizes their status, ecology, range, and distribution in the vicinity of the proposed Project site.

California Tiger Salamander

The Service emergency listed the Santa Barbara County DPS of CTS as an endangered species under the federal Endangered Species Act in January 2000. The final rule issued by the Service August 4, 2004 determined that Santa Barbara County is not a Distinct Population Segment and effectively down- listed the endangered status of the Santa Barbara County population to a threatened species consistent with the taxon as whole throughout its range. On August 19, 2005 the U.S. District Court vacated the down-listing of the Sonoma and Santa Barbara populations from endangered to threatened. Therefore, the Sonoma and Santa Barbara CTS populations are once again listed as endangered. As a result of a District Court Order, Critical Habitat was designated for the Santa Barbara County CTS population on November 24, 2004. The CTS was then listed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) as a threatened species throughout its range in March of 2010.

CTSs are a large (maximum length of 8.5 inches) stout salamander with a short, rounded head, blunt snout, small protuberant eyes, and a tail flattened from side to side to facilitate swimming. South coast individuals may have few spots and a cream band on the lower sides. Young larvae are yellowish gray with broad caudal fins that extend well onto the back, broad flat heads, and bushy gills.

This species is a lowland inhabitant restricted to grasslands and low foothill and oak woodland regions of the central coast, central, and northern California. They breed in long-lasting rain pools (e.g., seasonal ponds, vernal pools, slow-moving streams) that are often turbid, and occasionally in permanent ponds lacking fish predators. During the non-breeding season, adults occur in upland habitats and occupy California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) or pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) burrows. They migrate nocturnally to aquatic sites to breed during relatively warm winter or spring rains. Females lay eggs (several hundred of them) and attach them to underwater vegetation including grass stems, leaves, and twigs, and sometimes to objects such as metal wire. Eggs are typically laid singly or in groups of 2 to 4. Eggs hatch in 2 to 4 weeks and the larval stage last 4 to 5 months. Larvae undergo metamorphosis during the summer, peaking from mid-June to mid-July. Juveniles emigrate at night from the drying pools to upland refuge sites, such as rodent burrows and cracks in the soil. Following breeding, adults have been observed to move 9 to 518 feet (3 to 158 meters) away from breeding ponds within the first night (Loredo et al., 1996; Trenham, 2001). Most salamanders continue to move to different burrow systems further from the pond over the next one to four months, with an average distance of 374 feet (114 meters) from the pond (Trenham, 2001). Trenham and

17 | P a g e

Shaffer (2005) estimated that conserving upland habitats within 2,200 feet (671 meters) of breeding ponds would protect 95 percent of CTSs at their study location in Solano County.

CTS known breeding pond LOAL-2w, occupies a natural depression on an active syncline in the Careaga Formation east of the Santa Rita-Drum Canyon divide along the north side of Highway 246. This pond occupies an area of about 5.5 acres when full to capacity, at which time it is about 2 meters deep. A substantial pit, approximately 25 by 15 meters wide and 2 to 3 meters deep, was excavated at the low point of this pond sometime prior to 1982; it holds water year-round in all but low rainfall years. A smaller CTS breeding pond, LOAL-2e, not located within the Project Area, is found about 250 meters to the southeast. LOAL-2e, approximately 20 meters in diameter and 1.5 meters deep, retains water year-round in most years.

The Service has identified five additional potential CTS breeding ponds within 1.24 miles (the assumed, maximum CTS dispersal distance) of the plan area (Service, 2010; Figure 2): LOAL-3, LOAL-4, LOAL-5, LOAL-6, and LOAL-41. LOAL -3 and LOAL-4 are located on the Foley Estates Vineyard and Winery property and are used for frost protection from mid-February to mid-May, as needed. LOAL-41 is a man-made reservoir feature fed only by well water that has generally been managed in ways that are not likely to have created aquatic habitat attractive to CTS. Over the last the 25 years, LOAL-41 has generally been empty of water for many periods extending many months or years. LOAL-41 has been operated in such a way that this feature has effectively remained too dry to support CTS. Therefore, this pond is not shown on Figure 2 and is not part of the project impact analysis.

18 | P a g e

Figure 2. Project Impact Area and CTS Breeding Ponds

19 | P a g e

IV. Biological Impacts and Take Assessment Covered activities may cause a variety of impacts which may result in take or other impacts to CTS. While each of the impacts relates to activities that may be temporary and/or on-going, most impacts are likely to result from activities with relatively short durations, like initial ground-disturbing activities. Once these permitted activities, many of which may last no longer than a number of days, are complete, it is presumed that the habitat value of the effected lands will be greatly reduced or eliminated, and that the probability of encountering covered species in these developed areas is reduced nearly to zero.

A. California Tiger Salamander

1. Direct and Indirect Biological Impacts on California Tiger Salamander

Direct impacts to CTS individuals are most likely to occur as a result of disturbance to the mammal burrows during installation or construction of agricultural or residential development. Individual animals are also vulnerable to interactions with vehicular/equipment traffic during construction, foot traffic, agricultural installation and subsequent operations, especially if such activities occur during those times of year (weather conditions) when individual animals are moving over the surface of the ground between breeding ponds and surrounding suitable upland habitat.

Indirect impacts associated with the proposed Project can include but are not limited to: creation of barriers to migration, changes in drainage patterns that affect breeding habitats, changes in upland conditions that influence the availability of suitable upland grassland habitat and the presence of fossorial mammal burrows, and the availability of prey in breeding or upland habitats. The proposed Project activities would likely affect frogs moving across the landscape, but would not create an impermeable dispersal barrier to CTSs.

2. Anticipated Take of California Tiger Salamander

The magnitude of anticipated take resulting from implementation of the covered activities described in Section 2 is expected to be low given the amount of habitat proposed to be impacted as a result of the proposed Project activities is relatively small compared to the regional population of the DPS. Take could occur in the form of: injury or mortality resulting from destruction of small mammal burrows within the impact area; harassment individuals occupying adjacent suitable habitat resulting from contact with vehicles/equipment, maintenance and/or operations while attempting to disperse onto or through the Project Area; and capture and relocation of individual animals, if present, prior to implementation of covered activities.

3. Impacts to California Tiger Salamander Critical Habitat

The Project Area is located within Critical Habitat Unit 6: Santa Rita Valley. The proposed Project activities will not adversely affect aquatic features (PCE-1) because no aquatic habitat

20 | P a g e

occurs within the proposed Project Area. On the contrary, the proposed Project is expected to result in beneficial affects to PCE-1 because the proposed conservation area would protect a portion of the known CTS breeding ponds located on-site: LOAL-2w.

Direct impacts would result in the loss of 40 acres of upland refuge and dispersal habitat corresponding to PCEs 2 and 3, respectively, from implementation of the proposed Project.

4. Cumulative Impacts to California Tiger Salamander

In contrast with the analysis of cumulative impacts under section 7, section 10 of the Federal Endangered Species Act, HCPs analyze cumulative impacts as incremental impacts of the proposed Project or action on the environment when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects/actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. The geographic area for the analysis should be defined by the manifestation of direct or indirect impacts as a result of covered activities. Cumulative impacts under section 10 of the Endangered Species Act can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.

Past actions that have occurred in the Project Area and surrounding areas are the conversion of habitat to rangelands and agriculture fields. The Service is unaware of any other present or reasonably foreseeable future projects/actions occurring within the Project Area. Impacts of the proposed Project on the long term persistence of the CTS are low because of the limited size of the Project and the relatively limited occurrence of CTS within the Project Area. These losses are not expected to affect the range-wide survival of the CTS due to the occurrence and abundance of this species and its habitat at several nearby locations, as well as elsewhere throughout its entire geographic range.

5. Anticipated Effects of the Taking of California Tiger Salamander

The incidental take of CTS that is anticipated to result from implementation of those actions necessary for the proposed Project is expected to be low, ranging between 0 and 5 individual CTS. Within the Santa Rita metapopulation area, a small amount of suitable upland habitat for the species will be impacted. The proposed Project would result in the conservation of aquatic habitat for the species, which would be managed and protected for CTS in perpetuity. For these reasons, the level of CTS incidental take that will result from implementation of the entire Project will not hinder or jeopardize recovery of the Santa Rita Metapopulation area.

21 | P a g e

V. Conservation Strategy A. Biological Goal and Objectives

Section 10(a)(2)(A) of the Act requires that an HCP specify the measures that the permittee will take to minimize and mitigate, to the maximum extent practicable, the impacts of the taking of any federally listed animal species as a result of activities addressed by the plan.

As part of the “Five Point” Policy adopted by the Service and National Marine Fisheries Service in 2000, HCPs must establish biological goals and objectives (65 FR 35242). The purpose of the biological goals is to ensure that the operating conservation program in the HCP is consistent with the conservation and recovery goals established for the species. The goals are also intended to provide to the applicant an understanding of why these actions are necessary. The following goal was developed based upon the species’ biology, threats to the species, the potential effects of the covered activities, and the scope of the HCP.

Goal 1: Avoid and minimize take, in the form of injury or mortality, of CTS

Objective 1.1: Conduct pre-construction surveys for CTS

A Service approved biologist will conduct pre-construction reconnaissance surveys to identify suitable habitat or individual CTSs that may be present within the Project area prior to the commencement of activities that could result in take of the species. The objective of pre-construction survey is to identify any CTSs within the Project area and relocate them to nearby suitable habitat as well as identify any resources within the Project area that the destruction of could result in the take of CTSs.

Objective 1.2: Conduct clearances and monitoring during initial activities

Daily pre-activity surveys will be conducted in the Project area for open trenches and excavations, exclusion fences, debris and equipment stock piles and for all equipment to ensure no CTSs have migrated into the Project area during initial ground disturbing activities. Construction work and ground-disturbing work will not be initiated until the biologist has completed the daily biological clearance. The Service approved biologist will remain onsite and be present during the installation of construction fencing or ground-disturbing activities including grading and excavation activities (e.g., clearing of vegetation and stripping of the surface soil layer) to monitor for the presence of CTS.

Objective 1.3: Stop Work and Relocate any observed CTS

If a CTS is encountered within the Project area during work activities, they will be relocated to the nearest suitable habitat out of the work area by a Service approved biologist. The biologist will have the authority to order any reasonable measure necessary to avoid injury or mortality of CTS and to stop any work or activity that is not in compliance with the conditions set forth in the HCP. The Services’ Ventura Office will be notified within 24 hours of any relocation or “stop

22 | P a g e

work” order and this order will remain in effect until the issue has been resolved, or the animal has moved out of the work area on its own.

B. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures

The following measures focus on activities related to the initial installation of agricultural development or initial construction of residential development. Once such development has occurred, the Project area is assumed to be effectively inhospitable to the covered species, and presence of CTS is assumed to be exceedingly unlikely.

Nevertheless, the following list also includes measures designed to reduce the likelihood of CTS take within the Project area during all activities covered by this HCP.

1. Avoidance Measures

a) Installation/Construction

• Initial ground disturbing work shall not occur if the chance of rain for the planned work period, as predicted by the NOAA National Weather Service, is more than 70%; and shall not commence within 48 hours following a rain event greater than 0.5 inch.

• Silt fence or other barrier impermeable to CTS will be installed around the perimeter of the area of disturbance, including areas used for storage of equipment or materials. The silt fence will remain in place for the duration of initial ground-disturbing activities

• Trenching, ripping, plowing or other activities required for installation of silt fence or initial ground-disturbing activities for agricultural or residential development will take place during daylight hours under the supervision of a biologist approved by the Service. Any CTSs discovered during this activity will be moved by the biologist to safe areas adjacent to the area of disturbance.

• The work area will remain clean. All food-related trash items will be enclosed in sealed containers and removed from the site regularly.

• All vehicles/equipment should be in good working condition and free of leaks. All leaks should be contained and cleaned up immediately to reduce the potential of soil/vegetation contamination.

• All vehicle maintenance/fueling/staging will occur no less than 100 feet from any riparian habitat or water body.

• No equipment will be permitted to enter wetted portions of any affected drainage channel or aquatic habitat.

• Trenches with vertical sides will be covered or have adequate means of escape (earthen ramps not more than 2:1 slope).

23 | P a g e

• All trenches, pipes, culverts or similar structures will be inspected for animals prior to burying, capping, moving, or filling.

2. Minimization Measures

These minimization measures have been developed with the intent of reducing the potential of take for CTSs that could enter the Impact Area during dispersal events and focuses on the conditions when these species are most likely to enter the Impact Area.

• Pre-construction Survey: As a condition of ITP issuance, the applicant will retain a biologist, approved by the Service, to conduct surveys prior to the initiation of construction or, if phased, prior to the initiation of each phase as a measure to minimize take of CTS. Pre-construction surveys will only be conducted prior to the initial ground disturbing work and will not be conducted prior to any proposed operation and/or maintenance activities. The objective of pre-construction surveys is to locate as many CTS and other native species as possible and move them out of harm’s way. These surveys will be conducted within 48 hours prior to the start of construction, including exclusion fencing installation, and will include full coverage visual surveys of the Impact Area. To ensure that diseases are not conveyed between work sites by the biologist, the fieldwork code of practice developed by the Declining Amphibian Populations Task Force should be followed at all times. The results of the pre-construction surveys will be presented as part of HCP reporting requirements.

• Capture and Moving of Individuals: All live CTS of any life stage found during the pre-construction surveys (and/or construction monitoring) will be captured and moved out of harm’s to an offsite location by a Service-approved biologist. The biologist will contact the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office to discuss an appropriate point of release. Captured CTS will immediately be placed in containers with moist soil and plant material from the capture location (if any), and released in designated release areas no more than three (3) hours after capture.

• Exclusion Fencing: During initial ground-disturbing work, the work area will be surrounded by a solid temporary exclusion fence (such as silt fence) that will be buried into the ground and extend at least three feet above the ground and buried to a depth of at least six (6) inches to exclude CTS from entering the Impact Area. The location of the fencing will be determined by a Service-approved biologist. The fencing will be installed during the dry conditions prior to rain events that may stimulate movement of CTS. During the period of initial ground-disturbing work, the fence will be inspected daily to assure that it is functioning properly to exclude CTS from the project area. The fence will remain in place throughout construction. Ingress/egress will be temporarily sealed off overnight using a section of fence that is anchored to the ground (e.g., fire hose filled with sand or sand bags can be used to anchor the bottom of the fence or the bottom must be buried).

24 | P a g e

3. Mitigation Measures

For unavoidable adverse effects to CTS and/or its habitat, compensatory mitigation is needed to conserve the CTS. The amount of compensatory mitigation to offset a proposed Project’s impacts is determined by assessing a Project’s level of impacts to CTS and their habitat. For the purposes of this HCP, compensatory mitigation is defined as physical habitat that is permanently conserved, managed, maintained, and endowed in perpetuity to ensure conservation benefits for the CTS.

California tiger salamander

In order to determine the amount of mitigation needed, the value of the impacted habitat was calculated using the methodology outlined in Searcy and Shaffer (2008), incorporating the amount of CTS aquatic breeding habit and upland habitat covering the site to be impacted. A mitigation ratio of 1:1 (reproductive value lost: reproductive value conserved) was then applied for impacts to CTS and its habitats. The method described in Searcy and Shaffer (2008) attaches a value to habitat that scales with the reproductive value of the individuals estimated to be occupying an area. According to Searcy and Shaffer (2008) the reproductive value of a site is a function of:

• Distance from each known or potential breeding pond within dispersal distance of the site, and

• Land-use in the surrounding areas.

For this HCP, the Service conducted a model run (utilizing Searcy and Shaffer [2008]). In order to determine the number of reproductive value units lost through implementation of a covered activity, the model was run to calculate the number of reproductive value units that would be lost. The Project would consequently result in a loss of a reproductive value of 1,653 as calculated in accordance with Searcy and Shaffer (2008) and therefore, compensatory mitigation is based on the loss of this reproductive value for the CTS.

To compensate for the loss of a reproductive value of 1,653, the applicant is in the process of developing a plan to establish a conservation easement on applicant-owned land prior to commencing any ground-disturbing activities or any other activity that could result in take of the CTS. The reproductive value of the proposed Easement Area is 4,044. As stated above, a mitigation ration of 1:1 (reproductive value lost: reproductive value conserved). Therefore, the proposed Easement Area would more than offset the loss of a reproductive value of 1,653 that would occur as a result of the Project and effectively mitigates for the Project’s impacts to CTS and its habitat. The Easement Area will be protected in perpetuity through the easement and in accordance with Conservation Easement document.

4. Monitoring

Monitoring tracks compliance with the terms and conditions of the HCP and ITP. There are three types of monitoring: (1) compliance monitoring tracks permittee compliance with the

25 | P a g e

requirements specified in the HCP and ITP; (2) effects monitoring tracks the impacts of the covered activities on the covered species; and (3) effectiveness monitoring tracks the progress of the conservation strategy in meeting the HCP’s biological goals and objectives.

The monitoring measures that will be implemented to ensure compliance and/or determine if the biological goals and objectives are being met include those previously presented under Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures. Furthermore, documentation of compliance with the terms and conditions of the HCP will be provided in annual and final reports as described below under Reporting.

5. Adaptive Management Strategy

Adaptive management is defined in the HCP Addendum (USFWS 2000b) as a method for examining alternative strategies for meeting measurable biological goals and objectives, and then, if necessary, adjusting future conservation management actions according to what is learned. Adaptive management is a strategy for addressing uncertainty associated with an HCP’s conservation program, particularly uncertainty that poses a significant risk to the covered species. Given that there is little to no uncertainty associated with this HCP’s conservation program, an adaptive management strategy is not warranted for this HCP.

6. Reporting

The Service will be notified via e-mail or telephone within 24 hours of discovery of any dead or injured CTS or of any stop work that occurred due to the presence of either species in the work area. Reporting only needs to occur when construction activities take place or if undisturbed habitat is impacted in a calendar year. Operations and maintenance of proposed activities does not require submission of an annual report. A project completion report will be submitted to the Service by February 1 and include (as necessary): (1) a brief summary or list of Project activities accomplished during the reporting year (e.g., this includes development/construction activities, and other covered activities); (2) Project impacts (e.g., number of acres graded, number of buildings constructed, etc.); (3) a description of any take that occurred for the covered species (includes cause of take, form of take, take amount, location of take and time of day, and deposition of dead or injured individuals); (4) a brief description of conservation strategy implemented; (5) results of monitoring (compliance, effects and effectiveness monitoring) and survey information (if applicable); (6) a description of any changed or unforeseen circumstances that occurred and how they were addressed; (7) all funding expenditures, balance, and accrual; and (8) a description of any minor or major amendments.

26 | P a g e

VI. Plan Implementation A. Changed Circumstances

Section 10 of the ESA regulations [(69 FR 71723, as codified in 50 CFR Sections 17.22(b)(2) and 17.32(b)(2))] require that an HCP specify the procedures to be used for dealing with changed and unforeseen circumstances that may arise during the implementation of the HCP. In addition, the HCP No Surprises Rule [50 CFR 17.22 (b)(5) and 17.32 (b)(5)] describes the obligations of the Applicant and the Service. The purpose of the No Surprises Rule is to provide assurance to the non- federal landowners participating in habitat conservation planning under the Act that no additional land restrictions or financial compensation will be required for species adequately covered by a properly implemented HCP, in light of unforeseen circumstances, without the consent of the Applicant.

Changed circumstances are defined in 50 CFR 17.3 as changes in circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by an HCP that can reasonably be anticipated by plan developers and the Service and for which contingency plans can be prepared (e.g., the new listing of species, a fire, or other natural catastrophic event in areas prone to such event). For this HCP, changed circumstances are only likely to occur within the Farming Area because few activities that could affect a species are proposed within the Conservation Easement. If additional conservation and mitigation measures are deemed necessary to respond to changed circumstances and these additional measures were already provided for in the plan’s operating conservation program (e.g., the conservation management activities or mitigation measures expressly agreed to in the HCP or ITP), then those measures will be implemented as specified in the plan. However, if additional conservation management and mitigation measures are deemed necessary to respond to changed circumstances and such measures were not provided for in the plan’s operating conservation program, the Service will not require these additional measures absent the consent of the Applicant, provided that the HCP is being “properly implemented” (properly implemented means the commitments and the provisions of the HCP and the Conservation Easement document have been or are fully implemented).

The following sections outline reasonably-foreseeable circumstances and their anticipated effects on the covered species. To fund the remedial management to address changed circumstances, approximately 18 percent was added to the estimated management costs (Section VII).

1. Newly Listed Species

If a new species is listed under the Act, the ITP will be reevaluated by the Service. If, after reevaluation, the Service determines that modification of Covered Activities would be prudent to lessen the possibility of jeopardy or take of this newly listed species, then the Applicant and the Service will work together to develop and implement mutually agreeable measures to the Covered Activities in the ITP (“Modification Measure(s)”) each of which Modification Measures must be approved by the Service and the Applicant before implementation. The Applicant will be allowed to continue undertaking the Covered Activities while such Modification Measures

27 | P a g e

are being developed. The Applicant, or their legal successor(s) in ownership, will continue to implement such Modification Measures until such time as the permittee has applied for and the Service has approved an amendment of the Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit, in accordance with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, to cover the newly listed species or until the Service notifies the Applicant in writing that the Modification Measures to the HCP Covered Activities are no longer required to avoid the likelihood of jeopardy of the newly listed species and/or the adverse modification of newly designated critical habitat.

2. Newly Discovered Listed Species

In the event that an already listed species is discovered in the Project Area, and, after evaluation of this already listed species, the Service determines that modification of the Covered Activities would be prudent to lessen the possibility of jeopardy or take of this already listed species, then the Applicant and the Service will work together to develop and implement mutually agreeable Modification Measures to the Covered Activities in the ITP, each of which Modification Measures must be approved by the Service and the Applicant before implementation. The Applicant will be allowed to continue undertaking the Covered Activities while such Modification Measures are being developed. The Applicant, or their legal successor(s) in ownership, will continue to implement such Modification Measures until such time as the Applicant has applied for and the Service has approved an amendment of the Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit, in accordance with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, to cover the listed species or until the Service notifies the Applicant in writing that the Modification Measures to the HCP Covered Activities are no longer required to avoid the likelihood of jeopardy of the listed species and/or the adverse modification of designated critical habitat.

B. Unforeseen Circumstances

Unforeseen circumstances are defined in 50 CFR 17.3 as changes in circumstances that affect a species or geographic area covered by the HCP that could not reasonably be anticipated by plan developers and the Service at the time of the HCP’s negotiation and development and that result in a substantial and adverse change in status of the covered species (50 CRF 17.3). The term “Unforeseen Circumstances” is used to define the limit of the Applicant’s obligation under the “No Surprises” regulations set forth in 50 code of Federal Regulations, Sections 17.22 (b)(5) and 17.32 (b)(5).

In case of an unforeseen circumstance, the Applicant will immediately notify the USFWS. In deciding whether Unforeseen Circumstances exist which might warrant requiring additional conservation measures, the Service will consider, but not be limited to, the factors identified in 50 Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 17.22(b)(5)(C) and 17.32(b)(5)(C) (the No Surprises Rule), which are: size of the current range of the affected species, percentage of range affected by the HCP, percentage of range conserved by the HCP, ecological significance of that portion of the range affected by the HCP, level of knowledge about the affected species and the degree of specificity of the species’ conservation program under the HCP, and whether failure to adopt

28 | P a g e

additional conservation measures would appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the affected species in the wild.

As described in 50 C.F.R., Sections 17.22(b)(5)(C) and 17.32(b)(5)(C), the No Surprises Rule, the Service will have the burden of demonstrating that Unforeseen Circumstances exist, using the best data available. Any findings of Unforeseen Circumstances must be clearly documented and based upon reliable technical information regarding the biological status and habitat requirements of the affected species

Except where there is substantial threat of imminent, significant adverse impacts to a Covered Species, the Service will provide the Applicant at least sixty-(60)-calendar-days written notice of a proposed finding of Unforeseen Circumstances, during which time the Service will meet with the Applicant to discuss the proposed finding, to provide the Applicant with an opportunity to submit information to rebut the proposed finding, and to consider any proposed changes to the conservation program, the HCP, or ITP.

Pursuant to the No Surprises rule, if the Service determines that additional conservation and mitigation measures are necessary to respond to the Unforeseen Circumstances, the additional measures must be as close as possible to the terms of the original HCP. If the Service determines that additional conservation and mitigation measures are necessary to respond to Unforeseen Circumstances, then the Applicant will work with the Service to develop mutually agreeable conservation and mitigation measures, each of which must be approved by the Service and the Applicant before implementation. Additional conservation and mitigation measures will not involve the commitment of additional land, additional financial commitment or funding by the Applicant, additional restrictions on the use of Project Area or Covered Activities, or the commitment of other natural resources otherwise available for development or use under original terms of the HCP without the consent of the Applicant.

C. Amendments

1. Minor Amendments

Minor amendments are changes that do not affect the scope of the HCP’s impact and conservation strategy, change amount of take, add new species, and change significantly the boundaries of the HCP. Examples of minor amendments include correction of spelling errors or minor corrections in boundary descriptions. The minor amendment process is accomplished through an exchange of letters between the permittee and the Service’s Ventura Field Office.

2. Major Amendments

Major amendments to the HCP and ITP are changes that do affect the scope of the HCP and conservation strategy, increase the amount of take, add new species, and change significantly the boundaries of the HCP. Major amendments often require amendments to the Service’s decision documents, including the NEPA document, the biological opinion, and findings and recommendations document. Major amendments will often require additional public review and comment.

29 | P a g e

D. Permit Suspension or Revocation

The Service may suspend or revoke their respective permits if the applicant fails to implement the HCP in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permits or if suspension or revocation is otherwise required by law. Suspension or revocation of the Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit, in whole or in part, by the Service will be in accordance with 50 CFR 13.27-29, 17.32 (b)(8).

E. Permit Renewal

Upon expiration, the Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit may be renewed without the issuance of a new permit, provided that the permit is renewable, and that biological circumstances and other pertinent factors affecting covered species are not significantly different than those described in the original HCP. To renew the permit, the applicant will submit to the Service, in writing: (1) a request to renew the permit with reference to the original permit number; (2) certification that all statements and information provided in the original HCP and permit application, together with any approved HCP amendments, are still true and correct, and inclusion of a list of changes; (3) a description of any take that has occurred under the existing permit; and (4) a description of any portions of the project still to be completed, if applicable, or what activities under the original permit the renewal is intended to cover.

If the Service concurs with the information provided in the request, it will renew the permit consistent with permit renewal procedures required by Federal regulation (50 CFR 13.22). If the applicant files a renewal request and the request is on file with the issuing Service office at least 30 days prior to the permit expiration date, the permit will remain valid while the renewal is being processed. However, the applicant may not take listed species beyond the quantity authorized by the original permit. If the applicant fails to file a renewal request within 30 days prior to the permit expiration date, the permit will become invalid upon expiration. The applicant must have complied with all annual reporting requirements to qualify for a permit renewal.

The need for permit renewal could result from any of the following: (1) prevailing economic climate reduces the motivation for project initiation or transfer of parcel through sale; (2) delays in approval of project design or inspections; (3) timing of County and other agency permits; and/or (4) construction has not yet been completed.

F. Permit Transfer

In the event of a sale or transfer of ownership of the property during the life of the permit, the following will be submitted to the Service by the new owner(s): (1) a new permit application; (2) permit fee; and (3) written documentation providing assurances pursuant to 50 CFR 13.25 (b)(2) that the new owner will provide sufficient funding for the HCP and will implement the relevant terms and conditions of the permit, including any outstanding minimization and mitigation. The new owner(s) will commit to all requirements regarding the take authorization

30 | P a g e

and mitigation obligations of this HCP unless otherwise specified in writing and agreed to in advance by the Service.

The most likely scenario that would require transfer of the permit would be if, after obtaining the ITP, The applicant sells the property to another party who must then agree to implement the terms and conditions of the HCP and ITP for it to remain in effect.

31 | P a g e

VII. Funding A. HCP Implementation Costs

B. Funding Source

The applicant, as permittees, will be responsible for the full cost of implementing the minimization and mitigation measures as described in section V, and those changed circumstances described in section VI. The permittees understand that failure to provide adequate funding and/or failure to implement the terms of this HCP in full could result in temporary permit suspension or permit revocation.

If the applicant requests that the Director of the CDFW find the federal documents (federal incidental take permit, this Habitat Conservation Plan and other relevant documents) consistent with CESA, the applicant will provide funding assurances in the one of the following forms: (1) an irrevocable letter of credit, (2) another form of Security approved in advance in writing by CDFW’s Office of the General Counsel, (3) proof of endowment, (4) demonstration that mitigation credits have been purchased, or (5) other sufficient documentation approved in advance by CDFW.

Minimization Measures Rate ($) Number of Events

Total ($)

Pre-construction Survey $1,000.00 1 $ 1,000.00

Biological Monitoring $1,000.00 5 $ 5,000.00

Listed species relocation $ 100.00 5 $ 500.00

Trash Pickup $ 100.00 5 $ 500.00

Subtotal $ 7,000.00

Changed Circumstances $2,000.00 n/a $ 2,000.00

Post-Construction Monitoring Reports

$2,000.00 1 $ 2,000.00

Subtotal $4,000.00

TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $11,000.00

32 | P a g e

VIII. Alternatives Section 10(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the FESA [and 50 CFR 17.22(b)(1)(iii) and 17.32(b)(1)(iii)] requires that alternatives to the taking of species be considered and reasons why such alternatives are not implemented be discussed.

Two alternatives to the proposed Project were considered: (1) the No Action Alternative; and (2) the Project Redesign Alternative. The effects of the proposed Project were previously discussed; however, a discussion of the no action and Project redesign alternatives is provided below.

A. No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, an ITP for the proposed Project would not be issued. As such, the applicant would not implement any of the proposed covered activities. The no-build alternative would not meet the needs of the applicant. Due to the needs by the applicant and the fact that the proposed Project would result in preservation of CTS habitat in perpetuity, the No Action Alternative has been rejected.

B. Project Redesign Alternative

This alternative would involve design of a Project that would reduce take of the CTS. This alternative was not selected due to the small size proposed Project and the location of the area proposed for impact. The proposed impact area is contiguous with areas currently used for agriculture by the applicant. A reduction or redesign of the Project footprint would not meet the applicants’ needs and would not significantly reduce impacts to the covered species. Redesigning the Project within the proposed impact area would not reduce or avoid take compared to the proposed Project. For these reasons, the Project redesign alternative has been rejected.

33 | P a g e

IX. Literature Cited California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2017. California Natural Diversity Database, via

Rarefind 5. Dibblee, T.W., 1966, Geology of the central Santa Ynez Mountains, Santa Barbara County,

California: California Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin 186, scale 1:62,500. Loredo, I., D. Van Vuren, and M.L. Morrison. 1996. Habitat Use and Migration Behavior of the

California Tiger Salamander. Journal of Herpetology 30: 282-285. Rathbun, G.B., M.R. Jennings, T.G. Murphey, and N.R. Siepel. 1993. Status and ecology of

sensitive aquatic vertebrates in lower San Simeon and Pico Creek, San Luis Obispo County, California. Final Report under Cooperative Agreement 14-16-0009-91-1909 between U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Parks and Recreation. Publication Number PB93-230779, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia.

Searcy, Christopher A. and H. Bradley Shaffer. 2008. Calculating Biologically Accurate Mitigation

Credits: Insights from the California tiger Salamander. Conservation Biology 22(4): 997-1005.

Stebbins, R.C. 1985. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians, third edition. Houghton

Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. xiii + 533 pp. Trenham, P.C. 2001. Terrestrial Habitat Use by Adult Ambystoma californiense. Journal of

Herpetology 35: 343-346. Trenham, P.C. and H.B. Shaffer. 2005. Amphibian upland habitat use and its consequences for

population viability. Ecological Applications 15(4): 1158-1168. [Service] United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) in Santa Barbara County; Final Rule. 69 FR 68568 68609.

[Service] United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010a. California Tiger Salamander Habitat

Map. [Service] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants;

Revised designation of critical habitat for the California red-legged frog; final rule. Federal Register 75:12816-12959.

34 | P a g e

[Service] United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Final recovery plan for the Santa Barbara County Distinct Population Segment of the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Ventura, California.