habitat conservation plan for the …...the rice ranch project site includes a total of 586.31 acres...

CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS

1507 S Interstate 35 Austin, Texas 78741-2502 512.328.2430 www.horizon-esi.com An LJA Company

HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN FOR THE

CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER RICE RANCH DEVELOPMENT

ORCUTT, CALIFORNIA HJN 160160 HCP

PREPARED FOR:

JOHN SCARDINO HIGHLANDS AT DOUBLE R, LLC

PO BOX 2331 PISMO BEACH, CA 93448

PREPARED BY:

HORIZON ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.

Rev. SEPTEMBER 2017

Rice Ranch HCP Sept 2017 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE INDEX OF TABLES AND FIGURES .................................................................................. iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................... iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION ............................................................................. 1-1 1.2 PROJECT SITE ....................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 HCP HISTORY ........................................................................................ 1-4

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT .................................................................... 2-1

2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................... 2-1 2.2 PERMIT HOLDER.................................................................................... 2-3 2.3 ZONING ......................................................................................... 2-3

3.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ........................................................................... 3-1

3.1 FEDERAL REGULATIONS ...................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Endangered Species Act of 1973 ................................................. 3-1 3.1.2 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ................................... 3-2

3.2 CALIFORNIA REGULATIONS ................................................................. 3-3 3.2.1 California Endangered Species Act .............................................. 3-3 3.2.2 California Environmental Quality Act............................................. 3-4 3.2.3 Santa Barbara County .................................................................. 3-4

4.0 BIOLOGY…… ..................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 ON-SITE HABITAT TYPES ...................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Habitats Within 1 Mile ................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 2014 Rice Ranch Specific Plan Revisions .................................... 4-1 4.1.3 Movement Corridors ..................................................................... 4-2

4.2 LISTED SPECIES .................................................................................... 4-2 4.3 COVERED SPECIES ............................................................................... 4-8

4.3.1 Conservation Status ..................................................................... 4-9 4.3.2 Description ................................................................................... 4-9 4.3.3 Ecology and Habitats .................................................................... 4-9 4.3.4 Geographic Distribution .............................................................. 4-10 4.3.5 Occurrence at the Project Site .................................................... 4-11

5.0 IMPACTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE ........................................... 5-1

5.1 IMPACT ASSESSMENT .......................................................................... 5-1 5.2 DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS ........................................................ 5-1 5.3 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ......................................................................... 5-2

5.4 EFFECTS ON CRITICAL HABITAT ......................................................... 5-2 6.0 TAKE OF THE COVERED SPECIES .................................................................. 6-1 7.0 MITIGATION MEASURES .................................................................................. 7-1

7.1 USFWS CONSERVATION GUIDELINES ................................................ 7-1

Rice Ranch HCP Sept 2017 ii

7.2 ONSITE AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO CTS .................................................................................................... 7-1

7.3 MITIGATION PLAN .................................................................................. 7-1 8.0 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................. 8-1

8.1 BIOLOGICAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ............................................... 8-1 8.2 RESPONSIBILITIES ................................................................................ 8-1 8.3 SCOPE………. ......................................................................................... 8-1 8.4 PLAN DURATION .................................................................................... 8-1 8.5 MONITORING. ......................................................................................... 8-2

8.5.1 Performance and Success Criteria ............................................... 8-2 8.5.2 Reporting ...................................................................................... 8-2

8.6 FUNDING…… ......................................................................................... 8-2

9.0 CHANGED AND UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES ........................................ 9-1 10.0 PERMIT AMENDMENT/RENEWAL PROCESS ................................................ 10-1

10.1 HCP OR PERMIT AMENDMENTS ........................................................ 10-1 10.2 HCP MINOR MODIFICATIONS ............................................................. 10-1 10.3 PERMIT RENEWAL ............................................................................... 10-2 10.4 PERMIT TRANSFER ............................................................................. 10-2

11.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED....................................................................... 11-1

11.1 ALTERNATIVE #1: NO-ACTION ............................................................ 11-1 11.2 ALTERNATIVE #2: REDUCED DEVELOPMENT .................................. 11-1 11.3 ALTERNATIVE #3: PROPOSED ACTION (PERMIT ISSUANCE) .......... 11-1

REFERENCES

Rice Ranch HCP Sept 2017 iii

TABLES TABLE PAGE TABLE 1 FEDERALLY-LISTED SPECIES OF POTENTIAL OCCURRENCE IN THE

PROJECT AREA ..................................................................................... 4-3

FIGURES FIGURE PAGE FIGURE 1 SITE VICINITY MAP ................................................................................ 1-2 FIGURE 2 LAND USE PLAN ..................................................................................... 1-3 FIGURE 3 CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER BREEDING HABITAT LOCATIONS ............................................................................ 4-4

ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT A RICE RANCH CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER HABITAT ASSESSMENT

Rice Ranch HCP Sept 2017 iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The applicant is applying for a permit pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended (16 U.S.C. 153101544, 87 Stat. 884), from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) for the incidental take of the endangered California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) (CTS). The potential taking would occur incidental to land disturbance on 271.81 acres within the Rice Ranch development, including roadways, utilities, amenities, school, parks, and residential lots. Approximately 41.6 acres would be restored to natural habitats following temporary disturbances resulting in 230.21 acres of permanent disturbance. The Rice Ranch development also includes more than 300 acres of natural undisturbed open space. The project is located south of Orcutt, Santa Barbara County, California. This project may affect individual CTS, but not it’s designated Critical Habitat (USFWS 2016a). No other listed species or designated critical habitats are anticipated to be affected by the proposed development.

The overall Rice Ranch development site, including The Grove, Meadows, The

Oaks, and Valley View subdivisions along with associated amenities, streets, utilities, parks, and a school and is entirely within a 1.24-mile radius of documented or potential CTS breeding ponds.

The USFWS has identified three documented or potential CTS breeding ponds in

the vicinity of the Rice Ranch. ORCU-3 is a documented breeding pond. ORCU-1 and ORCU 2 are designated as potential breeding ponds by the USFWS based on pond characteristics. The USFWS believes that a take of CTS may occur as a result of development of the Rice Ranch.

The applicant is applying for a Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit, for a period of ten (10)

years, and proposes to implement the habitat conservation plan (HCP) described herein, which provides for measures for mitigating adverse effects on the CTS for activities associated with developing roads, utilities, and residential lots, amenities, and a school, and additionally includes areas temporarily disturbed during construction within the Rice Ranch development.

This HCP summarizes information about the project and identifies the responsibilities

of the USFWS and the applicant for implementing the actions described herein to benefit the CTS. The biological goal of the HCP is to contribute to the conservation of the CTS in Santa Barbara County with habitat preserved at a secure site in perpetuity. The applicant will satisfy the mitigation requirements by purchasing requisite habitat credits for the endangered CTS from a USFWS and CDFW-approved conservation bank within Santa Barbara County. This HCP also describes on-site measures to minimize take of individual CTS, and ensure the elements of the HCP are implemented in a timely manner. Funding sources for implementation of the HCP, actions to be taken for unforeseen events, alternatives to the proposed permit action, and other measures required by the USFWS are also discussed. The HCP permittee will avoid, minimize, and mitigate for any effects caused by the authorized activity, which will offset or reduce the significance of adverse effects to the species. As a result, the proposed project will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of the CTS.

Rice Ranch HCP Sept 2017 1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION This Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) addresses impacts proposed in the Rice Ranch development, Orcutt, California (Figure 1). The Rice Ranch project site includes a total of 586.31 acres of which 224.31 acres will be disturbed for residential development, 47.83 acres will be disturbed for amenities, parks, a school, and drainage facilities, and 314.17 acres will remain as undisturbed natural open space. Of the impacted acreage, 41.59 acres will be restored with natural vegetation. Only 46% of the development area will be impacted due to residential, institutional, and amenity development.

This HCP has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Section 10(a) of the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), and is intended to provide the basis for issuance of a Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit to the permit applicant to authorize incidental take (see Section 6.0) of the California tiger salamander (CTS) (Ambystoma californiense), a federally-listed endangered and State-listed threatened species, that could potentially result from construction activities on the project site This HCP provides an assessment of the existing habitat within the Rice Ranch development for the CTS, evaluates the effects of the proposed project on the salamander, and presents a mitigation plan to offset habitat losses and/or direct or indirect harm to CTS that could result from grading and construction activities at the project site. The project site is not located within the designated Critical Habitat for the CTS (USFWS 2016a). The biological goal of this HCP is to contribute to the conservation of the CTS in Santa Barbara County by protecting occupied CTS habitat through the purchase of acres of mitigation credits at USFWS-approved CTS conservation bank. Impacts from the proposed project to the CTS will be avoided, minimized, and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable.. 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION The project site is located southeast of State Highway 135 and west of US 101, and is accessed from Rice Ranch Road (Figure 1). The Project site is bordered to the north by dense residential housing and to the south, east and west by open rangeland and active oil production. The oilfield is currently owned and operated by Pacific Coast Energy Company LP (PCEC). The project site is within the known range of the Santa Barbara County Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the CTS. 1.2 PROJECT SITE The Rice Ranch development is a 626-acre planned residential community offering up to 793 single-family homes in six distinct neighborhood settings (Figure 2). A new

0 1,700850

Feet

IDate: 03/23/2017

Drawn: GLS

HJN NO: 160160

160160/Graphics/160160A01HCP_Vicinity.mxd

Vicinity MapRice Ranch Development

Orcutt, Santa Barbara County, CaliforniaSource: OSM, 2016

Santa Maria

Lompoc

Guadalupe

£¤101

Santa Barbara

San Luis Obispo

Project Area

Figure 1

LegendProperty Boundary

0 1,200600

Feet

IDate: 03/23/2017

Drawn: GLS

HJN NO: 160160

160160 - The Groves HCP\Graphics/160160A02HCP_SiteMap.mxd

Rice Ranch DevelopmentOrcutt, Santa Barbara County, CaliforniaSource: Client, 2016

Figure 2

Rice Ranch HCP Sept 2017 1-4

school site, the expansion of an existing school site, parks, open space and supporting infrastructure are also included in the project. Two of the Rice Ranch neighborhoods have Final Development Map Approval, and approximately 195 homes have been constructed, with projected completion of those neighborhoods in 2017-2018. In general, the revised project site footprint is consistent with the previously approved 2015 Amended Rice Ranch Specific Plan design; the majority of the changes are incremental adjustments to the development boundaries to minimize further impacts on grading and incorporation of revised Santa Barbara County Parks, Fire, and Public Works Department project conditions. 1.3 HCP HISTORY Arcadis U.S. Inc. (2014) prepared the Rice Ranch LLC California Tiger Salamander Habitat Assessment and Preliminary CEQA Impact Analysis (Attachment A) which has been utilized for this plan. This document also took into account all data from the 2003 Rice Ranch Specific Plan Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR). The CTS Habitat Assessment followed the “Interim Guidelines on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for Determining Presence or a Negative Finding of the California Tiger Salamander” (USFWS 2003). County of Santa Barbara conditions and requirements have been reviewed. The Arcadis report determined that impacts to CTS were unlikely due to the very low probability of occurrence of individual CTS on the project site. Based on the 2014 habitat assessment by Arcadis, it was determined by the project sponsor that only certain portions of the Rice Ranch development, namely the Grove Neighborhood, were within the 1.24-mile radius CTS dispersal distance of a documented CTS breeding pond (ORCU-3) and would potentially be encumbered by the Endangered Species Act. The applicant originally submitted an HCP for the Grove Neighborhood in October of 2016. Upon review by the Service, the Service determined that the remainder of the Rice Ranch development was within 1.24 miles of two other unconfirmed, but potential CTS breeding ponds (ORCU-1 and ORCU-2) and recommended that the entirety of the Rice Ranch to be addressed under an HCP. This revised HCP for the entire Rice Ranch development includes an assessment of potential effects to the CTS and provides a proposal for compensating for impacts by purchase of CTS habitat credits from an approved CTS conservation bank in Santa Barbara County. A consistency determination from the California Department of Fish and Game will be requested after a Section 10 permit has been obtained from the USFWS.

Rice Ranch HCP Sept 2017

2-1

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT 2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Rice Ranch development is located in Orcutt, Santa Barbara, California (see Figure 1). The County of Santa Barbara approved the Rice Ranch Specific Plan in 2003 and an amendment in 2015 which included:

• 725 total homes o 559 Single-Family o 166 Multi-Family

• An Elementary School expansion and new parking lot • A 26-acre Community Park and Public Trail System • 4 Neighborhood Parks • In lieu fees paid for affordable housing

To date, the following project elements have been completed:

• 336 acres of public access open space has been conveyed to SB County Parks, of which the 26-acre Orcutt Community Park has been constructed, dedicated and accepted by the County.

• Final development maps for the first two neighborhoods (Pine Creek and Oaks) have been approved and built out.

• 65 single-family homes were built by Rice Ranch Ventures LLC and are occupied. • Rice Ranch Communities LLC assumed managing partnership of new joint venture in

2012 and built 130 more homes. An amended Specific Plan was approved in 2015 that:

• Maintained the number of homes at 725; • Accommodated County Parks preconditions by building and maintaining private parks; • Accommodated County Parks by including all manufactured slopes in Open Space into

private or; HOA ownership and maintenance; and • Added a Rice Ranch Community Clubhouse site for onsite residents only.

The newly approved plan included numerous environmental benefits:

• Reduced the amount of grading; • Improved vehicular and pedestrian site circulation; • Reduced the linear footage of roadways and impervious surface; • Improved safety through efficient full secondary access while reducing EVA impacts; and • Mitigated biological restoration on site and promoted community involvement in ecological

enhancements


2-2

2.2 PERMIT HOLDER Mr. John Scardino (Highlands at Double R, LLC) will be the holder of the Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit. He may be reached at PO Box 2331, Pismo Beach, CA 93448. 2.3 ZONING The Rice Ranch development is zoned by the Santa Barbara County General Plan land use designation.


3-1

3.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

Certain animal species are designated as having special status based on their overall rarity, endangerment, restricted distribution, and/or unique habitat requirements. In general, special-status designation is a combination of these factors that leads to the designation of a species as sensitive. The Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) outlines the procedures whereby species are listed as endangered or threatened and established a program for the conservation of such species and the habitats in which they occur. The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) amends the California Fish and Wildlife Code to protect species deemed to be locally endangered and essentially expands the number of species protected under the FESA. The following section provides a discussion of the federal, state and county regulations as they pertain to the project.

3.1 FEDERAL REGULATIONS 3.1.1 Endangered Species Act of 1973 The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), 15 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 1531 et seq., provides for the protection and conservation of various species of fish, wildlife, and plants that have been federally listed as threatened or endangered. Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the "take" of any fish or wildlife species that are listed as endangered under the ESA unless such take is otherwise specifically authorized pursuant to either Section 7 or Section 10(a)(l)(B) of the ESA. Pursuant to the implementing regulations of the ESA, the take of fish or wildlife species listed as threatened is also prohibited unless otherwise authorized by the USFWS. “Take” is defined in the ESA as "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct." Federal regulation 50 CFR 17.3 further defines the term "harm" in the “take” definition to mean any act that actually kills or injures a federally listed species, including significant habitat modification or degradation. Activities otherwise prohibited under ESA Section 9 and subject to the civil and criminal enforcement provisions under ESA Section 11 may be authorized under ESA Section 7 for actions by Federal agencies and under ESA Section 10 for nonfederal entities. Section 10(a) of the ESA establishes a process for obtaining an "incidental take permit," which authorizes nonfederal entities to incidentally take federally listed wildlife or fish subject to certain conditions. “Incidental take” is defined by the ESA as take that is "incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity." Preparation of a conservation plan, generally referred to as a habitat conservation plan or HCP, is required for all Section 10(a) permit applications. The USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) have joint authority under the ESA for administering the incidental take program. NMFS has jurisdiction for anadromous fish species and the USFWS has jurisdiction for all other fish and wildlife species. The USFWS must publish a “Notice of Availability” of the draft HCP in the Federal Register; prepare a Section 7 Intra-Service Biological Opinion; prepare a Set of Findings that evaluates the Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit application in the context of permit issuance criteria (see


3-2

below); and prepare an Environmental Action Statement, a brief document that serves as the USFWS's record of compliance with NEPA for categorically excluded actions (see below). An implementing agreement is not required for a low-effect HCP. A Section 10 incidental take permit is granted upon determination by USFWS that all requirements for permit issuance have been met. Statutory criteria for issuance of the permit are as follows:

• the taking will be incidental; • the impacts of incidental take will be minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent

practicable; • adequate funding for the HCP and procedures to handle unforeseen circumstances will

be provided; • the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the species

in the wild; • the applicant will provide additional measures that USFWS requires as being necessary

or appropriate; and • USFWS has received assurances, as may be required, that the HCP will be implemented.

After receipt of a complete application, an HCP and permit application is typically processed within several months. This schedule includes the Federal Register notice and public comment. During the final phase, the post-issuance phase, the permittee and other responsible entities implement the HCP and the USFWS monitors the permittee's compliance with the HCP and the long-term progress and success of the HCP. The public is notified of permit issuance through publication in the Federal Register. 3.1.2 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), requires that Federal agencies analyze the environmental impacts of their proposed actions (i.e., issuance of an incidental take permit) and include public participation in the planning and implementation of their actions. Although Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act and NEPA requirements overlap considerably, the scope of NEPA also considers the impacts of the proposed action on non-biological resources, such as water quality, air quality, and cultural resources. Depending upon the scope and impact of the HCP, NEPA compliance is obtained through one of three actions:

1) Preparation of an environmental impact statement (generally prepared for high-effect HCPs);

2) Preparation of an Environmental Assessment (generally prepared for moderate-effect HCPs); or

3) A categorical exclusion (allowed for low-effect HCPs).

The NEPA process helps Federal agencies make informed decisions with respect to


3-3

the environmental consequences of their actions and ensures that measures to protect, restore, and enhance the environment are included, as necessary, as a component of their actions. Low-effect HCPs, as defined in the USFWS's (1996b) Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook, are categorically excluded under NEPA, as defined by the Department of Interior Manual 516DM2, Appendix 1, and Manual 516DM6, Appendix 1. 3.2 CALIFORNIA REGULATIONS 3.2.1 California Endangered Species Act The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (FGC §§ 2050–2116) is administered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The CESA prohibits the “taking” of listed species except as otherwise provided in state law. The CESA includes Fish and Game Code (FGC) Sections 2050–2116, and policy of the state to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance any endangered species or any threatened species and its habitat. The CESA requires mitigation measures or alternatives to a proposed project to address impacts to any State listed endangered, threatened or candidate species, or if a project would jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat essential to the continued existence of those species, if there are reasonable and prudent alternatives available consistent with conserving the species or its habitat which would prevent jeopardy. Section 86 of the FGC defines take as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” Unlike the ESA, CESA applies the take prohibitions to species under petition for listing (state candidates) in addition to listed species. Section 2081 of the FGC expressly allows CDFW to authorize the incidental take of endangered, threatened, and candidate species if all of the following conditions are met:

• The take is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity. • The impacts of the authorized take are minimized and fully mitigated. • Issuance of the permit will not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. • The permit is consistent with any regulations adopted in accordance with §§ 2112 and

2114 (legislature-funded recovery strategy pilot programs in the affected area). • The applicant ensures that adequate funding is provided for implementing mitigation

measures and monitoring compliance with these measures and their effectiveness. The CESA provides that if a person obtains an incidental take permit under specified provisions of the ESA for species also listed under the CESA, no further authorization is necessary under CESA if the federal permit satisfies all the requirements of CESA and the person follows specified steps (FGC § 2080.1). Section 2080.1 allows an applicant who has obtained a federal incidental take statement pursuant to a federal Section 7 consultation or a federal Section 10(a) incidental take permit to notify the Director in writing that the applicant has been issued an incidental take statement or an incidental take permit pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973. The applicant must submit the federal opinion incidental take statement or permit to the Director of Fish and Wildlife for a determination as to whether the federal document is "consistent" with


3-4

CESA. Receipt of the application by the Director starts a 30-day clock for processing the Consistency Determination. In order for the Department to issue a Consistency Determination, the Department must determine that the conditions specified in the federal incidental take statement or the federal incidental take permit are consistent with CESA. If the Department determines that the federal statement/permit is not consistent with CESA, the applicant must apply for a State Incidental Take Permit under section 2081(b) of the Fish and Game Code. The exception provided in Fish and Game Code section 2080.1 to CESA’s take prohibition can be used only for species that are listed under both federal Endangered Species Act and CESA, and cannot be applied to species that are listed by the State but not federally listed. 3.2.2 California Environmental Quality Act In many ways, the California Environmental Quality Act, commonly known as CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), is analogous at the state level as NEPA is to the federal level. CEQA applies to projects that require approval by state and local public agencies. It requires that such agencies disclose a project’s significant environmental effects and provide mitigation whenever feasible. This environmental law covers a broad range of environmental resources. With regard to wildlife and plants, those that are already listed by any state or federal governmental agency are presumed to be endangered for the purposes of CEQA and impacts to such species and their habitats may be considered significant. The applicant has met the CEQA requirements for the proposed development through a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 3.2.3 Santa Barbara County In the Santa Barbara County General Plan 2020, under the Resource Conservation Program, Policy RC-6b states that protection of rare and endangered species, wetlands, and other biotic resources shall be accomplished through compliance with applicable state and federal laws. Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Admin. Code section 15000 et seq.) defines a species as being "rare" if it may be considered threatened or endangered as defined in the federal Endangered Species Act. This HCP addresses potential impacts to individuals and habitat of CTS, as well as other federally-listed species.


4-1

4.0 BIOLOGY 4.1 ON-SITE HABITAT TYPES 4.1.1 Habitats Within 1 Mile The Rice Ranch Specific Plan development occurs on uneven, hilly terrain of the Solomon Hills at the southern edge of the Santa Maria Valley. There are two significant drainages that flow down the north side of the Orcutt Hills towards the project site. The Pine Creek drainage is generally a deep (between 15 and 30-feet high) vertical bank erosional drainage as it crosses the project site. The Pine Creek drainage essentially bisects the project site flowing from southeast to northwest. ORCU-1, a potential CTS breeding pond, is situated approximately 1000 feet south of the Rice Ranch property within an area currently used for oil and gas development. The second drainage is an unnamed tributary to Orcutt Creek that crosses the eastern edge of the Rice Ranch property. It is relevant because it occurs between the Project site and the nearest known CTS breeding pond ORCU-3 and potential CTS breeding pond ORCU-2. This drainage has less severe erosional bank cutting and largely follows the surrounding slope topography to the bottom of the canyon where water flows during storm events. Both drainages are ephemeral and are typified by high energy, short duration flow during and immediately following rain events. Land use to the south of the project site supports oil production and cattle grazing. Residential housing and urban development occurs to the north with more rural housing to the east and west. The project site itself and the surrounding land supports predominantly non-native annual grassland, oak woodland, coastal scrub, and maritime chaparral habitat as well as some existing residential housing and the large community park. Large eucalyptus tree groves are common and interspersed among the dominant native habitats in the area. The land within most of Rice Ranch is generally undeveloped and largely undisturbed except for human foot and bike traffic on the numerous trails. Soils in the survey areas consist primarily of Arnold sand and Corralitos sand layers. These soils are heavily eroded soil types originating from sandstone. There were no California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) adults or burrows observed in the Valley View neighborhood project area; however Bottae’s pocket gopher burrows are present. Ground squirrel activity does occur north of the proposed Community Clubhouse area in the adjacent flat open meadow area that abuts Stubblefield Road, extending to the Grove neighborhood (Arcadis, 2014). No cattle stock ponds, natural ponds, depressions or other aquatic features that could potentially hold surface water for more than 60 days (the minimum time required for CTS to complete metamorphosis as defined by the USFWS (2003) occur on the project site. 4.1.2 2014 Rice Ranch Specific Plan Revisions The following discussions describe where the proposed 2014 Specific Plan infrastructure and development vary from the approved 2003 Specific Plan project design.


4-2

4.1.3 Movement Corridors Wildlife movement includes migration (i.e., usually one way per season), inter-population movement (i.e., long-term genetic flow) and small travel pathways (i.e., daily movement corridors within an animal’s territory). While small travel pathways usually facilitate movement for daily home range activities such as foraging or escape from predators, they also provide connection between outlying populations and the main corridor, permitting an increase in gene flow among populations.

These linkages among habitat types can extend for miles between primary habitat areas and occur on a large scale throughout California. Habitat linkages facilitate movement among populations located in discrete areas and populations located within larger habitat areas. The mosaic of habitats found within a large-scale landscape results in wildlife populations that consist of discrete sub-populations comprising a large single population, which is often referred to as a meta-population. Even where patches of pristine habitat are fragmented, such as occurs with coastal scrub, the movement between wildlife populations is facilitated through habitat linkages, migration corridors and movement corridors. Depending on the condition of the corridor, genetic flow between populations may be high in frequency, thus allowing high genetic diversity within the population, or may be low in frequency. Potentially low frequency genetic flow may lead to complete isolation, and if pressures are strong, potential extinction (McCullough 1996; Whittaker 1998). Movement corridors for large and small mammals occur between this parcel and potentially occupied parcels to the east and south. Movement north and west is restricted by the presence of existing development. The proposed construction will not represent any new impediments to any movement corridors in this area.

4.2 LISTED SPECIES Federally-listed threatened or endangered species of potential occurrence in Santa Barbara County are shown in Table 1.

As documented in the 2003 Final Rice Ranch Specific Plan SEIR (Rice Ranch, 2003), significant effects to listed species were not expected. A number of on-site avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures were incorporated into the Rice Ranch Specific Plan to further reduce the likelihood of impacts to listed species (large green space areas, avoidance of wetland and aquatic habitats, and biological monitoring during construction). At the time of the 2003 SEIR, documented breeding habitat for the CTS was not known near the Rice Ranch property.


4-3

Table 1:

Federally-listed Threatened or Endangered Species of Potential Occurrence in Santa Barbara County

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Habitat Description Habitat

Present Effect/ Impact

California red-legged frog Rana draytonii T/CH

Aquatic breeding areas embedded within a matrix of riparian and upland dispersal habitats

N N

California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense E,T/CH Aquatic breeding areas embedded within

a matrix of upland dispersal habitats Y Y

Least Bell's vireo Vireo bellii pusillus E/CH Riparian habitats N N Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus E/CH Dense riparian habitats N N

Vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta lynchi T/CH Vernal pools N N

Unarmored threespine stickleback

Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni E/CH Clear, flowing, well-oxygenated water N N

Gambel’s watercress Rorippa gambellii E/CH Permanent wetlands, fresh or brackish N N La Graciosa thistle Cirsium loncholepis E/CH Brackish-marsh, dunes, coastal N N

Lompoc Yerba Santa Eriodictyon capitatum E/CH Sandy, coastal bluff scrub, closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral (maritime) N N

Marsh sandwort Arenaria paludicola E/CH Coastal wetlands and in freshwater marshes N N

El Segundo Blue Butterfly

Euphilotes battoides allyni E/CH Coastal sand dunes

N N

E = endangered, T = threatened, C = candidate species, CH = Designated Critical Habitat Source: USFWS 2016a

Subsequent to the certification of the 2003 Final SEIR, a CTS breeding pond (ORCU-

3) was discovered approximately 0.8 miles (1.3 km) south of the nearest Rice Ranch property line. Recently, the USFWS also identified ORCU-1 south of the Rice Ranch and ORCU-2 southeast of Rice Ranch as unconfirmed potential CTS breeding ponds (Figure 3). As noted in the discussion on CTS in Section 4.3 below, a detailed CTS habitat analysis was conducted on the project site by Arcadis in 2014 in response to the discovery of ORCU-3 and ORCU-1.

The species descriptions below are provided for each of the federally-listed species of

potential occurrence in the vicinity of the project. Amphibians

1. California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii):

Habitat Requirements The California red-legged frog requires a variety of habitat elements with aquatic breeding areas embedded within a matrix of riparian and upland dispersal habitats. Breeding sites of the California red-legged frog are in aquatic habitats including pools and backwaters within streams and creeks, ponds, marshes, springs, sag ponds, dune ponds and lagoons. Additionally, California red-legged frogs frequently breed in artificial impoundments such as stock ponds.

!A

!A!A

ORCU-2ORCU-1

ORCU-3

0 2,5001,250

Feet

IDate: 4/18/2017

Drawn: GLS

HJN NO: 160160

160160 - The Groves HCP\Graphics/160160A03HCP_CTSSites.mxd

Project in Relation to Documented and Potential CTS Breeding SitesRice Ranch Development

Orcutt, Santa Barbara County, CaliforniaSource: Google, 2017

Figure 3

Legend Outline Property Boundary

!A ORCU-1 (Potential CTS Breeding Site)

!A ORCU-2 (Potential CTS Breeding Site)

!A ORCU-3 (Documented CTS Breeding Site)

ORCU-1 (1.24 Mile CTS Dispersal Zone)ORCU-2 (1.24 Mile CTS Dispersal Zone)ORCU-3 (1.24 Mile CTS Dispersal Zone)


4-5

Potential for Occurrence on the Project SIte The California red-legged frog has been observed at several locations within 5 miles of the Rice Ranch development, including Caeraga Canyon, Orcutt Creek, and Green Canyon. The Rice Ranch site contains wetland and aquatic habitats that could support the red-legged frog. However, the potentially suitable habitats for red-legged frog (wetlands and aquatic habitats) have been avoided by the proposed development plan and other avoidance measures adopted in the updated Rice Ranch Specific Plan (Rice Ranch 2014) should preclude any negative effects to the red-legged frog.

2. California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense)

Habitat Requirements The California tiger salamander inhabits grassland, oak savanna, and edges of mixed woodland habitats, breeding in temporary ponds that form during winter and may dry out in summer, but also breeds in slower parts of streams and in some permanent waters, primarily in grassland and woodland areas. More detail is provided in Section 4.3 below. Potential for Occurrence on the Project SIte The CTS Habitat Assessment concludes that there is a low likelihood that individual CTS reach the Rice Ranch project site from ORCU-3 or ORCU-1 (Arcadis 2014). The recently discovered ORCU-2 also may provide suitable CTS breeding habitat and is within the dispersal range for CTS. The possibility of occurrence of the CTS on the site cannot be completely discounted. More detail is provided in Section 4.3 below.

Birds

1. Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus):

Habitat Requirements The Bell's vireo occurs in riparian habitats. The Least Bell's vireo typically breeds in willow riparian forest supporting a dense, shrubby understory of mulefat (Baccharis salicifolius) and other mesic species (Goldwasser, 1981; Gray and Greaves, 1984; Franzreb, 1989). Oak woodland with a willow riparian understory is also used in some areas (Gray and Greaves, 1984), and individuals sometimes enter adjacent chaparral, coastal sage scrub, or desert scrub habitats to forage (Brown 1993; L.R. Hays pers. comm.). The Least Bell's vireo and the Arizona Bell's vireo probably have different habitat requirements. Least Bell's vireos in cismontane California occur in riparian forest dominated by willows (Goldwasser, 1981; Gray and Greaves, 1984), whereas Arizona Bell's vireos tend to occur in riparian woodland dominated by mesquite (Prosopis sp.; Rosenberg et al., 1991; Brown, 1993; L.R. Hays pers. comm.; M.A. Patten pers. obs.). Similar habitats are used during the winter months. Although the Arizona Bell's vireo will use non-native salt cedar (Tamarix spp.) in parts of its range (Brown, 1993), the Least Bell's vireo avoids riparian areas dominated by these plants. Potential for Occurrence on the Project SIte Suitable habitat for this species does not occur on the project site.


4-6

2. Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus):

Habitat Requirements For nesting, requires dense riparian habitats (cottonwood/willow and tamarisk vegetation) with microclimatic conditions dictated by the local surroundings. Saturated soils, standing water, or nearby streams, pools, or cienegas are a component of nesting habitat that also influences the microclimate and density vegetation component. Habitat not suitable for nesting may be used for migration and foraging. Recurrent flooding and a natural hydrograph are important to withstand invading exotic species (tamarisk). Typically found below 8,500 feet of elevation. Critical habitat was finalized on October 19, 2005 in Apache, Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Maricopa, Mohave, Pima, Pinal, and Yavapai counties (70 FR 60886). Revised critical habitat was proposed August 15, 2011(76 FR 50542) and includes river segments in counties currently designated plus those in La Paz, Santa Cruz, and Yuma counties. The 2005 critical habitat designation remains in effect until the current proposal is finalized. Training seminar/permits required for those conducting call playback surveys.

Potential for Occurrence on the Project SIte Suitable habitat for this species does not occur on the project site.

Crustaceans

1. Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi):

Habitat Requirements Habitat is limited to vernal pools in Oregon and California. Occasionally these tiny crustaceans will be found in habitats other than vernal pools, such as artificial pools created by roadside ditches. They can be found in densities of 200 shrimp per liter of water. Potential for Occurrence on the Project SIte Suitable habitat for this species does not occur on the project site.

Fishes

1. Unarmored threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni):

Habitat Requirements They require clear, flowing, well-oxygenated water with associated pools and eddies of quiet water and areas of dense vegetation or debris to provide adequate cover and food supply. Potential for Occurrence on the Project SIte Suitable habitat for this species does not occur on the project site.


4-7

Flowering Plants

1. Gambel’s watercress (Rorippa gambellii):

Habitat Requirements Herbaceous wetland, River mouth/tidal river. Permanent wetlands, fresh or brackish, in marshes or along the borders of lakes and slow-flowing streams or ditches. Potential for Occurrence on the Project SIte Suitable habitat for this species does not occur on the project site.

2. La Graciosa thistle (Cirsium loncholepis):

Habitat Requirements Brackish-marsh, dunes, coastal. Potential for Occurrence on the Project SIte Suitable habitat for this species does not occur on the project site.

3. Lompoc Yerba Santa (Eriodictyon capitatum):

Habitat Requirements Sandy, coastal bluff scrub, closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral (maritime). Potential for Occurrence on the Project SIte Suitable habitat for this species does not occur on the project site.

4. Marsh sandwort (Arenaria paludicola):

Habitat Requirements Arenaria paludicola is a coastal species that was historically known to occur in wetlands and in freshwater marshes. Plants have been documented in areas with or without standing water and in acidic, organic bog soils and sandy substrates with high organic content. Potential for Occurrence on the Project Site Suitable habitat for this species does not occur on the project site.

Insects

1. El Segundo blue butterfly (Euphilotes battoides allyni):

Habitat Requirements Coastal sand dunes. Potential for Occurrence on the Project SIte Suitable habitat for this species does not occur on the project site.


4-8

While all species in this evaluation have designated critical habitat, no designated critical habitat for any of the species is present on or adjacent to the project site (USFWS, 2016a). 4.3 COVERED SPECIES

The species addressed in this HCP and covered by the HCP’s associated Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit includes one federally listed animal species, the federally endangered and State-listed Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tiger salamander. The project area is not within the designated Critical Habitat for CTS (USFWS 2011). The CTS is the only federally listed species that could be incidentally taken by the proposed project.

4.3.1 Conservation Status

The CTS was federally listed as Endangered in Santa Barbara County, California in

January of 2000, Endangered in Sonoma County in July of 2002, and Threatened in central California in August of 2004 (USFWS, 2016b). In May 2010 the California Department of Fish and Wildlife listed the CTS as Threatened throughout the State of California (California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2012).

4.3.2 Description

The information in this paragraph is adapted from the Federal Register 65FR57242 (Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; final rule to List the Santa Barbara County distinct Population of the California Tiger Salamander as Endangered; Final rule), and from Western Reptiles and Amphibians (Stebbins 2003). The California tiger salamander is a member of the mole salamander family, known as Ambystomatidae, and are large and stocky amphibians with broad, rounded snouts. It was formerly considered a subspecies (Ambystoma tigrinum californiense) of the A. tigrinum complex, but was recognized as a distinct species in 1991. The range of this species is limited to the Central Valley and coast of California. It is a large, stout salamander (7.5-16.2 cm) with small eyes, and a rounded snout. It lacks parotoid glands and has tubercles on the underside of both front and back feet. Color varies greatly within the species, but the California tiger salamander is basically dark with large yellow or off-white blotches. The California tiger salamander inhabits grassland, oak savanna, and edges of mixed woodland habitats, breeding in temporary ponds that form during winter and may dry out in summer, but also breeds in slower parts of streams and in some permanent waters, primarily in grassland and woodland areas. Adults spend the majority of their time in burrows of ground squirrels, pocket gophers, and other small mammals emerging during the first significant rains of the wet season and possibly traveling as far as 1.2 miles to reach breeding areas. Females lay from 400 to 1300 eggs per breeding season, which they deposit individually or in small clusters on submergent vegetation or other stationary submerged debris. Eggs hatch in 10 to 14 days. Initially, larval salamanders feed on algae, small crustaceans, and mosquito larvae. Gradually they include larger prey items such as tadpoles and smaller salamander larvae. Tiger salamander larvae are fully metamorphosed in 60 to


4-9

94 days. Known CTS breeding locations near the project site are shown in Figure 3. Adults range in length from 75 to 162 millimeters and are typically black on the dorsal area, with pale yellow spots that are often scarce or absent along the back. The aquatic CTS larvae may reach up to 70 mm before metamorphosing (Stebbins 2003). This species can live up to 10 years and does not reach sexual maturity until three or four years of age (Trenham et al. 2000). 4.3.3 Ecology and Habitats

The California tiger salamander spends most of the year underground in the burrows of California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi) and pocket gophers (Thomomys bottae), feeding on insects (Loredo et al. 1996; Van Hattem 2004). Within Sonoma County, pocket gophers provide the majority of subterranean habitat for CTS. In general, gopher burrow systems consist of a main tunnel, generally 4 to 18 inches below the soil surface, and a variable number of lateral burrows extending from the main (UC Davis 2003). A burrow system may be linear to highly branched, may contain up to 200 yards of tunnels, and may have a hundred or more mounds. There is no correlation between the number of mounds observed above ground and the length of tunnels underground. Except during the breeding season (spring), only one gopher occupies one burrow system. In Monterey County, CTS were removed from burrows at depths between 8 inches and 3 feet (Trenham et al. 2001). Upland terrestrial habitat for Ambystomids usually occurs within 300 meters of aquatic breeding sites, but movements have been reported as far away as 800 meters (Trenham et al. 2001, Madison and Farrand 1998). Following heavy winter rains (normally December-March) adults emerge briefly to lay their eggs in ponds, preferring vernal pools, alkali sinks or cattle troughs that have muddy bottoms or contain some algal growth in the water for hiding in, but are devoid of fish. Although no studies have been conducted on the water quality requirements of CTS, it has been noted that turbid water is preferred (reduces predation), and water quality can prevent the transformation into the adult stage.

During the short breeding season, salamanders can be observed moving to temporary

rain pools, ponds, and lakes nocturnally. Eggs are usually laid singly or may be in small clusters attached to vegetation in shallower water (Stebbins 2003). Larvae live in ponds until early or mid-summer, when they metamorphose into adults and emigrate from the pond during a summer storm (Dunn 1940; Loredo et al. 1996; Holland et al. 1990).

Based on the current knowledge of the life history, biology, and ecology of the species

and the relationship of its essential life history functions to its habitat, the USFWS has determined that the CTS requires the following primary constituent elements (USFWS 2003):

(1) Standing bodies of fresh water (including natural and manmade (e.g., stock) ponds,

vernal pools, and other ephemeral or permanent water bodies which typically support inundation during winter rains and hold water for a minimum of 12 weeks in a year of average rainfall.

(2) Upland habitats adjacent and accessible to and from breeding ponds that contain small mammal burrows or other underground habitat that CTS depend upon for food, shelter, and

protection from the elements and predation.


4-10

(3) Accessible upland dispersal habitat between occupied locations that allow for movement between such sites. 4.3.4 Geographic Distribution

The California tiger salamander is restricted to California and does not overlap with any other species of tiger salamander. California tiger salamanders are restricted to vernal pools and seasonal ponds, including many constructed stock ponds, in grassland and oak savannah plant communities, predominantly from sea level to 2,000 feet, in central California.

4.3.5 Occurrence at the Project Site It is generally believed that there is a low probability of occurrence of the CTS on the Rice Ranch property. However, due to the presence of a documented breeding pond (ORCU-3) and two potential, but unconfirmed breeding ponds (ORCU-1 and ORCU-2) within the 1.24 mile dispersal range of the CTS, the possibility for occurrence cannot be completely discounted.


5-1

5.0 IMPACTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE 5.1 IMPACT ASSESSMENT The nearest known CTS breeding pond is ORCU-3 located approximately 4,200 feet (0.8 miles; 1.3 km) south of the nearest Rice Ranch property line (see Figure 3). The pond is located approximately 0.95 miles (1.5 km) from the nearest proposed development disturbance area (The Grove). This pond was confirmed as a CTS breeding pond by the USFWS in 2010, subsequent to the 2003 Rice Ranch Specific Plan Final SEIR certification and is assessed in the Arcadis habitat assessment (Arcadis 2014). The project site is at the outer edge of the maximum CTS dispersal range from ORCU-3, with the nearest property line occurring 0.8 miles (1.3 km) from the nearest edge of pond ORCU-3. The nearest proposed project development activity is approximately 0.95 mile (1.53 km) from pond ORCU-3. ORCU-1 and ORCU-2 are closer to Rice Ranch. ORCU-2 is slightly closer to Rice Ranch and includes a little more of the development area with its 1.24 mile CTS dispersal zone. The entirety of Rice Ranch is within the 1.24-mile potential CTS dispersal range of ORCU-1 (Figure 3). The USFWS conducted an analysis of the entire Rice Ranch land plan to determine the quality of habitat potentially impacted by the development as valued by the method described by Searcy and Shaffer (2008). The results of the analysis determined that the total impact for the project (impact of the development footprint and the secondary effect areas) is the loss of a reproductive value of 18,354.

Measures to prevent direct mortality of the CTS are presented as part of the proposed project and are presented below in Section 7.2. 5.2 DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS For the purposes of this document, direct effects are those effects that occur at or very close to the time of the action itself. Examples could include construction noise disturbance, loss of habitat, or sedimentation that results from construction activity. Indirect effects are those that are caused by or result from the proposed action and are later in time but are still reasonably certain to occur. Examples include changes to ecological systems such as predator/prey relationships, long-term habitat changes, or anticipated changes in human activities including changes in land use. Indirect effects may occur outside of the area directly affected by the action. It is believed that direct effects to the CTS (direct mortality or injury) could occur if CTS occupy the site during post breeding dispersal from ORCU-1, ORCU-2, or ORCU-3 ponds. The potential for direct on-site effects would be reduced by implementation of the proposed CTS avoidance and minimization measures described in Section 7.2 below.


5-2

Indirect effects to CTS, and its preferred habitat may occur from the proposed development. Indirect effects may include potential for downstream sedimentation, an increase in urban predators (dogs and cats), an increase in human activity in the region, etc. during development of the Rice Ranch as this area is within the 1.24-mile dispersal range of two potential and one documented breeding ponds. 5.3 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, Tribal, local or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area (Plan Area). Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this analysis because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA or Section 10a of the ESA. Cumulative effects to the CTS include continuing and future conversion of suitable breeding, foraging, sheltering, and dispersal habitat resulting from urban development. Additional urbanization can result in road widening and increased traffic on roads that bisect breeding and aestivation sites, thereby increasing road-kill while reducing in size and further fragmenting of the remaining habitats. CTS probably are exposed to a variety of pesticides and other chemicals throughout their range. They also could die from starvation by the loss of their prey base from the use of pesticides. Hydrocarbon and other contamination from oil production and road runoff; the application of numerous chemicals for roadside maintenance; urban and suburban landscape maintenance; and rodent and vector control programs may all have negative effects on CTS populations. In addition, tiger salamanders may be harmed through collection by local residents. A commonly used method to control mosquitoes, is the application of methoprene, which increases the level of juvenile hormone in insect larvae and disrupts the molting process. Lawrenz (1984) found that methoprene (Altosid SR 10) retarded the development of selected crustaceans that had the same molting hormones (i.e., juvenile hormone) as insects, and anticipated that the same hormone may control metamorphosis in other arthropods. Because the success of many aquatic vertebrates relies on an abundance of invertebrates in temporary wetlands, any delay in insect growth could reduce the numbers and density of prey available (Lawrenz 1984). 5.4 EFFECTS ON CRITICAL HABITAT

The project site is not within any designated Critical Habitat for CTS or any other federally listed species (USFWS 2016a). Therefore, the proposed project will not cause adverse modification to designated Critical Habitat or appreciably diminish the value of designated Critical Habitat for survival or recovery of the CTS.


6-1

6.0 TAKE OF THE COVERED SPECIES The USFWS has determined through an impact analysis conducted in accordance with the method described by Searcy and Shaffer (2008) that the proposed project will result in a reproductive value total loss of 18,354 for the project (impact of the development footprint and the secondary effect areas. Additionally, while it is believed that the potential for the occurrence of the CTS on the development site is low, and significant avoidance and minimization measures will be implemented during project construction, it is predicted that up to three CTS could be injured or killed by development activities during the course of project development. These incidental take limits are subject to full implementation of all mitigation measures, as described in Section 7.0. If any of these take limits are exceeded, the applicant shall cease all grading and construction operations and contact the USFWS immediately.


7-1

7.0 MITIGATION MEASURES 7.1 USFWS CONSERVATION GUIDELINES

The USFWS (2016) has established guidelines and accepted procedures for mitigating impacts to the CTS and its habitat in the “Draft Conservation Strategy and Mitigation Guidance for the California Tiger Salamander, Santa Barbara County Distinct Population Segment.” 7.2 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES

Avoidance and minimization measures will be implemented during the development

process for Rice Ranch. Typical avoidance and minimization measures include the following, as appropriate:

1. Initial ground disturbing activities will be conducted during dry weather conditions to minimize the potential for encountering California tiger salamanders.

2. Work will be conducted during daylight hours only, when amphibians are least likely to be

moving aboveground.

3. Work should be postponed if chance of rain is greater than 70% based on the NOAA National Weather Service forecast or within 48 hours following a rain event greater than 0.1 inch. If work must occur during these conditions, a qualified biologist will conduct a clearance sweep of work areas prior to the start of work.

4. If an unpredicted rainfall event commences while construction activities are in progress,

the applicant will suspend all work activities and equipment and personnel will be demobilized. Equipment may be moved to a designated staging area until work is allowed to resume. The designated area will be a hard surface devoid of small mammal burrows.

5. Trenches will be covered or have adequate means of escape (earthen ramps not more

than 2:1 slope, wooden boards, etc.).

6. No equipment will be left on-site overnight outside of the designated areas, defined as those areas that are enclosed with silt fence or some other barrier designed to reasonably prevent wildlife from entering.

7. Work locations, access routes, and staging areas will be reviewed and clearly delineated

by the project biologist with staking or flagging prior to mobilization.

8. All equipment will be staged at the maximum distance possible from riparian habitat or water bodies.

9. Refueling or maintenance of vehicles or equipment will not occur within 100 feet of any

riparian habitat or water body.


7-2

10. Vehicles and equipment will be checked daily for leaks, and all vehicular fluid spills will be contained and cleaned up immediately.

11. All construction-related vegetative debris (e.g., larger brush, tree limbs, tree trunks) will be

hauled inside the designated area daily. Stockpiles of vegetative debris and tree mulch will be kept in a contained area inside the designated area, and intermittently hauled offsite for disposal.

12. All construction-related debris, particularly food-related debris, will be disposed of in the

crew’s vehicles and taken offsite, or in a closed receptacle that will not attract scavenger wildlife.

13. A Service-approved biological monitor will conduct daily pre-construction surveys within

the construction zone prior to work beginning each day during preliminary grading and site preparation. Thereafter, site inspections will continued on a less frequent basis as determined by the biological monitor. The biological monitor will have the authority to halt construction if necessary to limit unanticipated adverse impacts to water quality, fish and wildlife, and habitats.

14. Small mammal burrows will be identified with stakes or pin flags so that they may be

excavated prior to construction in that area. A 20-foot radius area will be fenced around each burrow or burrow complex to ensure that vehicles, equipment, and personnel avoid the area.

15. The approved biological monitor will present a Worker Environmental Awareness Program

to the crew prior to the commencement of construction and to any new crew members prior to beginning work on the jobsite. The training will include this list of avoidance and minimization measures, and will describe the identification and natural history of listed species (with emphasis on California tiger salamander), regulatory context, and required measures to minimize or avoid incidental take of listed species.

16. 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 California tiger salamanders from entering the work 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 California tiger salamanders. The fence will be inspected daily to assure that it is functioning properly to exclude California tiger salamanders from the work area. 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).

17. All boreholes will be completely backfilled by the end of each work day and not be left

open overnight.

18. Prior to the start of construction, a Service-approved California tiger salamander biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey for salamanders within the project site. If any salamander larvae are found to be remaining within any bodies of water, the pond will not be impacted until the biologist can determine their development status. If the tadpole(s)


7-3

are lacking any limb development and it is suspected that they may overwinter without metamorphosing, the Service will be consulted for further instructions on how to proceed. On-site ponds will not be impacted until the Service-approved biologist ensures there is no evidence of larvae California tiger salamanders.

19. Rodent burrows will be avoided to the extent possible. If burrows cannot be avoided,

burrow excavation may be performed using hand tools or via gentle excavation using construction equipment, under the direct supervision of a Service‐approved biologist, until it is certain that the burrows are unoccupied.

In lieu of burrow excavation, steel plates or plywood may also be utilized to protect small mammal burrows from ground disturbance. Plates and plywood will be removed nightly when a significant rain event is forecasted within 48 hours and will be removed if work is scheduled to cease for consecutive days. Any individuals encountered will be allowed to vacate the area on their own accord or relocated out of harm’s way in accordance with Measure 20, below.

20. The Service-approved biologist will search all potential hiding spots for California tiger salamanders. If any life stage of the California tiger salamander is found and these individuals are likely to be killed or injured by work activities, the Service-approved biologist will be allowed sufficient time to move them from the site before work begins.

21. Any California tiger salamanders (or other wildlife) will be allowed to vacate the worksite

on its own accord under the observation of a Service‐approved biologist. If California tiger salamanders (or other wildlife) do not relocate on their own, or if they are in harm’s way, they will be relocated out of harm’s way to nearby suitable habitat, similar to that in which it was found, and outside the project area. California tiger salamanders will not be relocated, except by a Service‐approved biologist. The Declining Amphibian Task Force Fieldwork Code of Practice will be implemented for all amphibian relocation activities.

The Service‐approved biologist will relocate any California tiger salamanders found within the project footprint to an active rodent burrow system located no more than 300 feet outside of the project area unless otherwise approved by California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Service. The individual(s) will be handled with clean and moistened hands. During relocation they will be placed in a clean, covered plastic container with a non‐cellulose moistened sponge. Relocations will take place immediately; individuals will not be stored for lengthy periods or in heated areas. The relocation container will be kept out of direct sunlight. The relocated California tiger salamander will be monitored until it enters a burrow and is concealed underground. Relocation areas will be identified by the Service‐approved biologist based upon best suitable habitat available. The Service‐approved biologist will document both locations by photographs and GPS positions. The California tiger salamander will be photographed and measured (snout‐vent) for identification purposes prior to relocation. All documentation will be provided to the Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife within 24 hours of relocation.


7-4

7.3 MITIGATION PLAN

The USFWS has developed measures in the Draft Conservation Strategy and Mitigation Guidance for the California Tiger Salamander, Santa Barbara County Distinct Population Segment (USFWS 2016c) that are proposed to be used for determining the mitigation for loss of habitat for this project:

• To mitigate for loss of a reproductive value of 18,354 and up to three individual CTS over the course of project development, the applicant proposes to purchase credits at the La Purisima Conservation Bank. A credit at the La Purisima Conservation Bank has a reproductive value of 839. There is a correction factor of 20% for the West Los Alamos Metapopulation for mitigating outside the metapopulation that the impacts occur in. Therefore, the applicant proposes to purchase 26.1 credits from the bank (21.8 + 4.3 correction factor = 26.1 credits). • The USFWS will conduct an intra-Service Consultation. The USFWS will consider issuance of a permit on the HCP to allow for consideration of loss of habitat and mitigate for that loss. Upon receipt of the mitigation bank purchase agreement, the USFWS will send a technical letter of acceptance acknowledging the purchase of mitigation acreage. The applicant will adhere to the HCP and permit.

• Evidence that the Proponents/Applicant have complied with the requirements of the USFWS shall be submitted to the Santa Barbara County Planning Department prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.

By making this purchase, the applicant will have satisfied his mitigation requirements by purchasing CTS credits from a USFWS-approved CTS conservation bank located in Santa Barbara County. A map illustrating the location and its service territory will be displayed on the USFWS web site.


8-1

8.0 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 8.1 BIOLOGICAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The first biological goal of this HCP is to contribute to the conservation of the CTS in Santa Barbara County by protecting occupied CTS habitat in Santa Barbara County through the purchase of mitigation credits at a USFWS-approved CTS conservation bank. The objectives of this HCP will be achieved through the purchase of 26.1 credits at a USFWS approved conservation bank, such as La Purisima Conservation Bank, to compensate for the loss of a reproductive value of 18,354 and up to three individual CTS over the course of project development. 8.2 RESPONSIBILITIES As specified in the USFWS Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook (USFWS 1996), an Implementing Agreement (IA) is not required for low-effect HCPs unless requested by the permit applicant. The applicant understands that he is responsible for implementing this HCP in accordance with the specifications for mitigation and funding. The applicant will purchase CTS habitat credits from a USFWS-approved conservation bank, such as the La Purisima Conservation Bank, a USFWS-approved conservation bank for CTS mitigation. 8.3 SCOPE The proposed project is a residential subdivision with lots, associated streets and utilities, parks, amenities, and a school resulting in disturbance to 272.14 acres within the 1.24 mile radius of documented or potentially suitable CTS breeding ponds, as described in Section 2.0 of this HCP. The mitigation site will be at a USFWS-approved conservation bank, such as the La Purisima Conservation Bank. This HCP covers activities only within the project site and addresses direct and indirect effects. 8.4 PLAN DURATION The applicant seeks a fifteen (15) year permit from the USFWS to cover those activities associated with development of the Rice Ranch development. The fifteen-year permit term is requested to accommodate any unforeseen delays in planning and construction. Since 26.1 CTS habitat credits will be purchased from the La Purisima Conservation Bank, the operator of the conservation bank will assume all responsibilities for implementation of the required mitigation. The permit will expire once the applicant has fulfilled all of his responsibilities as described in Section 8.2 and the Rice Ranch development is fully built out.


8-2

8.5 MONITORING No on-site habitat will be created for CTS, therefore no monitoring will occur other than those measures identified in Sections 2.1 and 7.2 to avoid and minimize mortality and injury of individuals. Once construction has been completed no further on-site monitoring is required. 8.5.1 Performance and Success Criteria The applicant’s mitigation requirements will be satisfied by the purchase of CTS credits from a USFWS-approved conservation bank. It will be the responsibility of the conservation bank operator to insure that the performance criteria of the conservation bank are successfully achieved. If necessary, the conservation bank operator will employ appropriate adaptive management strategies to meet the biological goals and objectives of this HCP. 8.5.2 Reporting Based on the scope of the project and conservation strategy, the applicant will adhere to the requirements of this HCP and proceed with the purchase of the mitigation credits once approved by the USFWS. Documentation that the project was implemented as proposed within 120 days of completion will also be provided to the USFWS. Acceptable documentation shall include a description of the implemented project, as built drawings of the proposed project, and before and after photographs. Reporting will only occur during the term in which land-disturbing activities (clearing, grading, filling, excavation) take place. Once land-disturbing construction activities (other than home construction on finished lots) are completed, reporting will be terminated. 8.6 FUNDING The applicant is responsible for the purchase of 26.1 acres of CTS mitigation credits. A copy of the sales agreement for the purchase of the mitigation credits will be provided to the USFWS prior to any land-disturbing development activities within the development site. The USFWS-approved conservation bank will assume all responsibilities for funding of annual maintenance of the Conservation Bank, and the fulfillment of all monitoring and reporting activities. If the applicant requests that the Director of the CDFW find the federal documents (federal incidental take permit, this Habitat Conservation Plan and any 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.


9-1

9.0 CHANGED AND UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES Section 10 regulations [50 CFR 17.22 (b)(2)(iii)] require that an HCP specify the procedures to be used for dealing with unforeseen circumstances that may arise during the implementation of the HCP. In addition, the Habitat Conservation Plan Assurances ("No Surprises") Rule [50 CFR 17.21 (b)(5)-(6) and 17.22(b)(5)-(6); 63 F.R. 8859] defines "unforeseen circumstances" and "changed circumstances" and describes the obligations of the permittee and the USFWS. The purpose of the Assurances Rule is to provide assurances to nonfederal landowners participating in habitat conservation planning under the ESA 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 permittee. “Changed circumstances” means changes in circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by the conservation plan that can reasonably be anticipated by plan developers and the USFWS and that can be planned for (e.g., the listing of a new species, or fire or other natural catastrophic events in areas prone to such events). The policy defines "unforeseen circumstances" 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 USFWS at the time of the plan's negotiation and development and that result in a substantial and adverse change in status of the covered species. In determining whether any event constitutes an unforeseen circumstance, the USFWS shall consider, but not be limited to, the following factors: size of the current range of the affected species; percentage of range adversely 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 additional conservation measures would appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the affected species in the wild. If the USFWS determines that the unforeseen circumstance will affect the outcome of the HCP, additional conservation and mitigation measures may be necessary. Where the HCP is being properly implemented and an unforeseen circumstance has occurred, the additional measures required of the permittee must be as close as possible to the terms of the original HCP and must be limited to modifications within any conserved habitat area or to adjustments within lands or waters that are already set aside in the HCP's operating conservation program. Additional conservation and mitigation measures shall not involve the commitment of additional land or financial compensation or restrictions on the use of land or other natural resources otherwise available for development or use under the original terms of the HCP without the consent of the permittee. Resolution of the situation shall be documented by letters between the USFWS, the permittee, and the conservation bank operator. Thus, in the event that unforeseen circumstances adversely affecting the CTS occur during the term of the permit, the permittee would not be required to provide additional financial


9-2

mitigation or implement additional land use restrictions above those measures specified in the HCP, provided that the HCP is being properly implemented. This HCP expressly incorporates by reference the permit assurances set forth in the Habitat Conservation Plan Assurances ("No Surprises") Rule adopted by the USFWS and published in the Federal Register on February 23,1998 (50 CFR Part 17). Except as otherwise required by law or provided for under the HCP, including those provisions regarding changed circumstances, no further mitigation for the effects of the proposed project on the CTS may be required from a permittee who is properly implementing the terms of the HCP and the permit. The HCP will be properly implemented if the commitments and provisions of the HCP and the permit have been or are being fully implemented by the permittee and the conservation bank operator. If a new species that is not covered by the HCP but that may be affected by activities covered by the HCP is listed under the ESA during the term of the Section 10 permit, the USFWS may consider this to be a changed circumstance. In such case, the Section 10 permit will be reevaluated by USFWS. In coordination with the applicant, the HCP-Covered Activities may need to be modified, to ensure that the Covered Activities do not result in take of the newly species not covered under the HCP. The USFWS would also need to ensure continued implementation of the HCP (including its Covered Activities) are not likely to jeopardize or result in adverse modification of any designated critical habitat of the newly listed species. The permittee shall implement the modifications to the HCP Covered Activities identified by the USFWS as necessary to avoid the likelihood of jeopardy to or take of the species or adverse modification of the designated critical habitat of the newly listed species. The permittee shall continue to implement such modifications until such time as he has applied for and USFWS has approved an amendment of the Section 10 permit, in accordance with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, to cover the newly listed species, or until the USFWS notifies the permittee in writing that the modifications to the HCP Covered Activities are no longer required to avoid take, the likelihood of jeopardy, or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of the newly listed species. As to other potential changed circumstances (e.g., fire, flood, insect infestation, plant diseases, earthquake or other natural disaster), the short duration of the permit (i.e., five years) makes the occurrence of any such circumstance within the permit period unlikely. Furthermore, it would not be possible to address the problem on site because this HCP does not contemplate the continued on-site management of the species.


10-1

10.0 PERMIT AMENDMENT/RENEWAL PROCESS 10.1 HCP OR PERMIT AMENDMENTS At this time there is no reason to expect that an amendment to the Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit will be needed to complete the development at the Rice Ranch development. However, during the specified permit period an amendment of the Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit for the project would be required for any change in the following:

a) significant revision of the permit area boundary; b) the listing under the ESA of a new species not currently addressed in the HCP that may be taken by project activities; c) modification of any important project action or mitigation component under the HCP, including funding, that may significantly affect authorized take levels, effects of the project, or the nature or scope of the mitigation programs; and d) any other modification of the project likely to result in significant adverse effects to CTS not addressed in the original HCP and permit application.

Amendment of the Section 10(a) permit would be treated in the same manner as an original permit application. Permit amendments typically require a revised HCP, a permit application form and application fee, an Implementing Agreement, a NEPA document, and a 30-day public comment period. However, the specific documentation needed in support of a permit amendment may vary, depending on the nature of the amendment. If the permit amendment qualifies as a low-effect HCP, an Implementing Agreement and NEPA document would not be needed. 10.2 HCP MINOR MODIFICATIONS This HCP may, under certain circumstances, be modified without amending the associated permit, provided that such amendments are of a minor or technical nature and that the effect on the species involved and the levels of take resulting from the amendment are not significantly different than those described in the original HCP. Examples of minor amendments to the HCP that would not require permit amendment include, but are not limited to:

• minor revisions to the HCP’s plan area or boundaries; • minor changes to survey, monitoring, or reporting protocols.

To make a minor modification to the HCP without amending the permit, the permittee must submit to the USFWS, in writing, a description of:

• the proposed minor modification; • an explanation of why the minor modification is necessary or desirable; and • an explanation of why the permittee believes the effects of the proposed minor modification would not be significantly different than those described in the original HCP.


10-2

If the USFWS concurs with the permittee’s proposal, it shall authorize the HCP minor modification in writing and the minor modification shall be considered effective upon the date of the USFWS's written authorization. 10.3 PERMIT RENEWAL Upon expiration, the Section 10(a)(l)(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 CTS are not significantly different than those described in the original HCP. To renew the permit, the permittee shall submit to the USFWS, in writing:

• a request and application to renew the permit; • reference to the original permit number; • 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; • a description of any take that has occurred under the existing permit; and • 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 USFWS concurs with the information provided in the request, it shall renew the permit consistent with permit renewal procedures required by Federal regulation (50 CFR 13.22). If the permittee files a renewal request and the request is on file with the issuing USFWS office at least 30 days prior to the permit's expiration, the permit shall remain valid while the renewal is being processed, provided the existing permit is renewable. However, the permittee may not take listed species beyond the quantity authorized by the original permit. If the permittee fails to file a renewal request within 30 days prior to permit expiration, the permit shall become invalid upon expiration. The permittee and the conservation bank operator must have complied with all annual reporting requirements to qualify for a permit renewal. 10.4 PERMIT TRANSFER Although the sale or transfer of ownership of the property prior to construction of the proposed project is not expected to occur during the life of the permit, should it occur, a new permit application, and permit fee, will be submitted to the USFWS by the new owner(s). The new owner(s) will commit to all requirements regarding the take authorization and mitigation obligations of this HCP.


11-1

11.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 11.1 ALTERNATIVE #1: NO-ACTION

Under the No-Action Alternative, development of the Rice Ranch development would not occur and the applicant would not implement a HCP or receive a Section 10(a) incidental take permit from the USFWS. The project site would remain undeveloped and the existing upland habitat would not be disturbed.

Due to generally unsuitable habitat factors of lands in between the development site and the three documented or potential breeding ponds, there is a low likelihood of CTS actually utilizing the development site. Complete avoidance of the 272.14 acres within the Rice Ranch development would represent a significant economic burden on the applicant with little or no benefit for the CTS. For this reason, the No-Action Alternative has been rejected. 11.2 ALTERNATIVE #2: REDUCED DEVELOPMENT The Reduced Take Alternative would reduce the size of the proposed development, thereby allowing some additional upland habitat to remain undisturbed. The proposed developed area is already reduced to only 45% of the site. Considering the costs of necessary infrastructure (roads, utilities, etc.), a significantly smaller development that would materially reduce the impacts to potential CTS upland habitat would not be economically viable. This alternative would result in unnecessary economic burdens to the applicant with little or no benefits for the CTS. For these reasons, the Reduced Take Alternative was rejected. 11.3 ALTERNATIVE #3: PROPOSED ACTION (PERMIT ISSUANCE) Under the Proposed Action Alternative, the applicant would develop the Rice Ranch development as described in Section 2.0. The Proposed Action Alternative would require the issuance of a Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit to allow development of residential lots and associated streets and utilities which would result in the net loss of 272.14 acres of potential CTS upland dispersal habitat that is determined to have a very low likelihood of supporting CTS. Therefore, the Proposed Action is the preferred alternative.


REFERENCES

Arcadis US, Inc. 2014. California Tiger Salamander Habitat Assessment and Preliminary CEQA Impact Analysis. October 2014

California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). 2012. Cotati, Two Rock and Petaluma 7.5-

Minute Topographic Quadrangles. February. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2001. Survey Protocol for California Tiger

Salamander (Ambystoma Californiense). Inland Fisheries – Informational Leaflet No.44. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2012. State and Federally Listed Endangered

and Threatened Animals of California. January 2011. Dunn, E. M. 1940. The Races Of Ambystoma Tigrinum. Copeia 1940, No. 3, 154-162. Hayes,

M.P., and M. Miyamoto. (1984). Biochemical, Behavioral and Body Size Differences Between the Red-Legged Frogs, Rana Aurora Aurora and Rana Aurora Draytonii. Copeia, 1984, 1018–1022.

Holland, D. C., M. P. Hayes and E. McMillan. 1990. Late Summer Movement and Mass Mortality

in the California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma Californiense). Southwestern Naturalist 35:217-220.

Lawrenz, R. W. 1984. The Response of Invertebrates in Temporary Vernal Wetlands to Altosid

Sr-10 as Used in Mosquito Abatement Programs. Journal of the Minnesota Academy of Science 50:31-34.

Loredo, I., D. Van Vuren and M. Morrison. 1996. Habitat Use and Migration Behavior of the

California Tiger Salamander. Journal of Herpetology Vol. 30 (2): 282-285. Madison, D. and L. Farrand. 1998. Habitat Use During Breeding and Emigration in Radio-

Implanted Tiger Salamanders, Ambystoma Tigrinum. Copeia 2: 402-410. Mccullough, D. 1996. Metapopulations and Wildlife Conservation. Island Press. 429pp. Rice Ranch Specific Plan Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR). 2003. Santa

Barbara County Planning and Development, Long Range Planning Division. Rice Ranch Specific Plan Updated Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR).

2014. Santa Barbara County Planning and Development, Long Range Planning Division.

Searcy, C. A. and H. B. Shaffer. 2008 Calculating biologically accurate mitigation credits: insights

from the California tiger salamander. Conservation Biology 22: 997-1005. Stebbins. 2003. Western Reptiles and Amphibians (3rd Ed., Rev.). Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston.

XIV+533 Pp.


Trenham, P., H. B. Shaffer, W. D. Koenig, and M.R. Stromberg. 2000. Life History and Demographic Variation in the California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma Californiense). Copeia (2): 365-377.

Trenham, P.C., W.D. Koenig, and H.B. Shaffer. 2001. Spatially Autocorrelated Demography and

Interpond Dispersal in the California Tiger Salamander, Ambystoma Californiense. Ecology 82: 3519-3530.

University of California Davis. 2003. Pocket Gophers: Biology Damage and Control. Website at

wfcb.ucdavis.edu/www/faculty/desley.gopher.htm. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. 1996. Habitat Conservation

Planning Handbook. Washington, Dc. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2003. Interim Guidance on Site Assessment and Field

Surveys for Determining Presence or a Negative Finding of the California Tiger Salamander. Sacramento Field Office. October 30.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy.

Sacramento Field Office. December. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016a. IPAC Trust Resources Report for the Grove,

Santa Barbara County, California. Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016b. ECOS Species Profile for the California Tiger

Salamander (Ambystoma Californiense). Http://Ecos.Fws.Gov/Ecp0/Profile/ Speciesprofile?Spcode=D01t

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016c. Draft Conservation Strategy and Mitigation

Guidance for the California Tiger Salamander, Santa Barbara County Distinct Population Segment. October 3, 2016.

Van Hattem, M. 2004. Underground Ecology and Natural History of the California Tiger

Salamander. Master of Science Thesis. San Jose State University. San Jose, California.

Whittaker, R. 1998. Island Biogeography: Ecology, Evolution and Conservation. Oxford University

Press. 285pp.

http://ecos.fws.gov/Ecp0/Profile/


ATTACHMENT A

RICE RANCH CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER HABITAT ASSESSMENT

Imagine the result

Rice Ranch Community LLC

California Tiger Salamander Habitat Assessment and Preliminary CEQA Impact Analysis

October 2014

California Tiger Salamander Habitat Assessment and Preliminary CEQA Impact Analysis

Mitch Siemens Wildlife Biologist (CTS Permit #: TE190302-0) Greg McGowan Principal Ecologist

Prepared for:

Rice Ranch Community LLC

Prepared by:

ARCADIS U.S., Inc. 735 Tank Farm Road, Suite 150 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

Date:

October 2014

x:\client files\p-r\rice ranch ventures\2013 cts hab assess\2014 cts report\rice ranch 2014 spa cts assess report (oct clean text).docx i

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

1. Introduction 2

2. Project Background 5

3. California Tiger Salamander Species Account 6

4. Methodology 7

5. Habitat Descriptions 8

6. Conclusions 11

6.1 Initial CEQA Impact Assessment 13

6.2 Initial CEQA Mitigation Measures and Best Management Practices 17

6.3 Initial CEQA Determinations 20

7. Summary 20

8. References 21

Figures

Figure 1 Site Vicinity

Figure 2 Site Map

Figure 3 Habitat Map

Figure 4 CTS Breeding Habitat Locations

Appendices

A Photographs

x:\client files\p-r\rice ranch ventures\2013 cts hab assess\2014 cts report\rice ranch 2014 spa cts assess report (oct clean text).docx 1

Rice Ranch California Tiger Salamander Habitat Assessment

and Preliminary CEQA Impact Analysis

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides an assessment of the likelihood of California tiger salamander (CTS) presence/absence on the Rice Ranch Project site, including information that has become available since the area was evaluated in the 2003 Rice Ranch Specific Plan Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR). This assessment evaluates the Project site’s CTS habitat suitability (characterized as low, medium, or high) given the presence of CTS breeding pond ORCU-3 approximately 0.8 miles (1.3 km) away, and analyzes the potential impact on CTS resulting from revisions to the Rice Ranch Specific Plan relative to the County of Santa Barbara Biological Resources Thresholds of Significance, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This report also identifies best management practices in the revised Rice Ranch Specific Plan project description and the Open Space Habitat Management and Restoration Implementation Plan (OSHMRIP), as well as mitigation measures identified in the 2003 SEIR and the associated Conditions of Approval. The conclusions of the 2014 Rice Ranch Specific Plan CTS impact analysis are then compared to the findings certified in the 2003 Rice Ranch Specific Plan Final SEIR.

The following data have become available since certification of the 2003 Final SEIR:

CTS Breeding Pond – The Southern Area Habitat Map published in 2010 by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) identified a CTS breeding pond (ORCU-3) approximately 4,200 feet (0.8 miles; 1.3 km) south of the Project site and 0.95 miles (1.5 km) from the nearest proposed development area.

USFWS guidance incorporating previously unpublished CTS study data indicated that the maximum CTS dispersal distance from a breeding pond is 1.24 miles (2 km) and 95% of CTS populations migrate no farther than 2,200 feet (0.4 miles or 0.67 km) from a breeding pond.

The area extending 0.4 miles from pond ORCU-3 (where 95% of dispersing individuals are expected to estivate) is characterized by high quality upland habitat conducive to CTS estivation.

A CTS-protocol level survey conducted between October 2007 and February 2008 at OCP Key Site 3, located approximately 0.5 miles east of Rice Ranch and 1,560 feet (0.48 km) closer to ORCU-3 than the Rice Ranch site, did not identify any individual CTS and a finding of absence was determined. Hilly terrain supporting oak woodland, chaparral, and coastal scrub vegetation communities, which are not considered high quality habitat for CTS, occurs between Key Site 3 and ORCU-3.

Similar hilly terrain supporting oak woodland, chaparral, and coastal scrub vegetation communities exists between pond ORCU-3 and the Rice Ranch Project site.

This CTS Habitat Assessment concludes that there is a low likelihood that individual CTS reach the Rice Ranch Project Site from ORCU-3 and that the project will not have a significant impact on CTS as defined by the County and by CEQA. These conclusions are based on the following findings more fully detailed in the text.




No CTS breeding ponds are located within the Rice Ranch Specific Plan area; Rice Ranch occurs near the maximum known dispersal distance for CTS (the nearest point between

the ORCU-3 and proposed development on the Rice Ranch Project site is approximately 0.95 miles [1.5 km] from the nearest bank of ORCU-3).

Rice Ranch is more than 2000 feet outside the 2,200-foot (0.42-mile) “CTS dispersal zone” surrounding ORCU-3 in which 95% of CTS population are expected to disperse and estivate.

The 2,200-foot CTS dispersal zone around ORCU-3 supports high quality CTS estivation habitat that substantially reduces the potential for CTS to disperse beyond this area.

Physical impediments including steep terrain, dense shrub and woodland vegetation, and an episodic high flow drainage occur between Rice Ranch and ORCU-3.

Potential breeding pool ORCU-1, located south of the Rice Ranch property along the main oilfield access road, is separated from the majority of the development area by the vertical bank Pine Creek drainage (as identified in the 2003 SEIR), appears to be regularly maintained for oilfield operations, and may not have sufficient input to maintain water long enough to support CTS breeding and metamorphosis. ORCU-1 has not been identified as a CTS breeding pond.

The Rice Ranch project is not expected to conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located, is not expected to substantially affect CTS or its habitat, is not expected to interfere substantially with the movement of CTS, or substantially diminish CTS habitat.

1. Introduction

ARCADIS US Inc. (ARCADIS) has prepared this California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense,

CTS) habitat assessment report conducted for the revised Rice Ranch Specific Plan Project (the Project) in Orcutt, California (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The CTS habitat assessment was conducted by a permitted biologist following the Interim Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for Determining Presence or a Negative Finding of the California Tiger Salamander (USFWS 2003). The 2014 Rice Ranch Specific Plan refines the Rice Ranch Specific Plan approved by the County of Santa Barbara in December of 2003. Two of the Rice Ranch neighborhoods have Final Development Map Approval, and approximately 100 homes have been constructed, with projected completion of 91 additional residences anticipated in 2014. In general, the revised Project site footprint is consistent with the previously approved 2003 Rice Ranch Specific Plan design; the majority of the changes are incremental adjustments to the development boundaries to minimize further impacts on grading and incorporation of revised Santa Barbara County Parks, Fire, and Public Works Department project conditions.

Project Components

As shown on the attached figures, the 2014 Project design closely mirrors the previously approved development design. There are three notable changes to the project, though this assessment addresses all of the project elements as they relate to CTS and the nearest known breeding pond ORCU-3:




Valley View Neighborhood Emergency Access (EVA)/Secondary Access Road – The previously approved EVA route for Valley View neighborhood has been replaced with a shorter route that requires less impact area, is confined to the Rice Ranch property, and reduces grading and creation of steep slopes. This road is required by County Fire.

The Groves Neighborhood EVA/Secondary Access Roads – In response to a request by the County Fire Department, two EVA/secondary access roads have been added to The Groves neighborhood. One of the roads is a modification of the prior EVA plan that is shorter than the original route, and that follows an existing paved road. A second route required by County Fire has been added after consideration of several alternatives.

Rice Ranch Community Clubhouse – A new community clubhouse is proposed within the Project area at the intersection of Bradley Road and Sage Crest Drive.

In addition to the features described above, adjustments to the perimeter of the limits of disturbance are proposed. In some areas, the limits of disturbance have increased; in other areas, the limits of disturbance have decreased. These incremental adjustments are not individually described in this report; however, all impacts resulting from these Project revisions have been fully assessed.

Project Location and Relationship to Known CTS Habitat

The Project site is located east of State Highway 135 and west of US 101, and is accessed from Rice Ranch Road (Figure 1). The Project site is bordered to the north by dense residential housing and to the south, east and west by open rangeland and active oil production. The oilfield is currently owned and operated by Pacific Coast Energy Company LP (PCEC). The Project site is within the known range of the Santa Barbara County Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the CTS. The CTS (Santa Barbara County DPS) is a federally-listed endangered species and a state-listed threatened species.

The nearest known CTS breeding pond is ORCU-3 located approximately 4,200 feet (0.8 miles; 1.3 km) south of from the nearest Rice Ranch property line on the Orcutt Hill oilfield (see figures). The pond is located approximately 0.95 miles (1.5 km) from the nearest proposed development (disturbance) area. This pond was confirmed as a CTS breeding pond by the USFWS in 2010, subsequent to the Rice Ranch Specific Plan Final SEIR certification and is assessed through this report.

This habitat assessment considers two factors that have been established by the Interim Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for Determining Presence or a Negative Finding of the California Tiger Salamander (USFWS 2003):

1) The maximum CTS dispersal distance from a breeding pond is 1.24 miles (2 km); and 2) 95% of CTS populations estivate within 2,200 feet (0.416 miles or 0.67 km) of a breeding pond.




Maximum CTS Dispersal Distance: The Project site is at the outer edge of the maximum CTS dispersal range, with the nearest property line occurring 0.8 miles (1.3 km) from the nearest edge of the pond. The nearest proposed Project development activity is approximately 0.95 mile (1.53 km) from pond ORCU-3. Approximately 57.3 acres at the far eastern end of the 580-acre Project site occurs within the 1.24-mile (2 km) maximum CTS dispersal radius from ORCU-3.Of the 57.3 acres within this area, approximately 38.7 acres (68%) is proposed to remain as natural open space, protected and managed in perpetuity pursuant to the Open Space Habitat Management and Restoration Implementation Plan (OSHMRIP). Approximately 18.6 acres (32%) will support residential development (a portion of the Grove neighborhood). In addition to long-term protection of the open space areas, the OSHMRIP and the Conditions of Approval also require resource protection measures during construction including exclusionary fencing around all grading areas, pre-construction sensitive biological species reconnaissance surveys, and biological monitoring during construction.

95% CTS Populations Estivation Area: The entire 580-acre Project site is located more than 2,000 feet outside the 2,200-foot dispersal distance within which 95% of CTS populations are expected to estivate.

Conclusions: The distance of the proposed Project site from the CTS breeding pond ORCU-3 is 2,000 feet beyond the 2,200 foot distance within which 95% percent of CTS dispersal is reported to occur. Approximately 38.7 acres of the approximately 560-acre Rice Ranch Specific Plan area are within the maximum CTS dispersal distance of 1.24 miles from pond ORCU-3. Of that, 68% (38.7 acres) will be undisturbed and will remain as protected natural open space. Based on these factors, impacts to CTS are not expected due to the unlikely occurrence of individual CTS on the Project site. Other factors provide additional qualitative substantial evidence to support this conclusion, and are discussed below.

1) High quality upland estivation habitat surrounds ORCU-3 and occurs throughout the 2,200-foot buffer that is expected to support 95% of the dispersing CTS, substantially reducing the potential for CTS to disperse an additional 2,000 feet to the Project site through chaparral, scrub, and woodland habitat and across a significant drainage that supports short duration high intensity flows during and immediately following rain events.

2) A finding of absence was made following a protocol CTS drift fence survey conducted on the Orcutt Community Plan (OCP) Key Site 3 parcel between October 2007 and February 2008, by County-qualified and federally permitted biologists Vince Semonsen (Permit # TE030384-2), assisted by Mitch Siemens (Permit # TE190302-0). Key Site 3 is approximately 3,850 feet (0.73 miles) north of ORCU-3 and approximately 2,640 feet [0.5 miles or 0.8 km] east of the Project site. Key Site 3 is 1,560 feet closer to pond ORCU-3. The absence of CTS at Key Site 3 during the 2007-2008 protocol survey supports the conclusion that CTS are not dispersing to the limits of their range from ORCU-3, and that Rice Ranch, due to its similar separation from ORCU-3 in terms of both distance (farther) and habitat and topography challenges, has a low potential for supporting CTS estivation.




The small pond ORCU-1 located off-site to the south of the Rice Ranch Project site along the main oilfield access road serving the PCEC oilfield was addressed in the 2003 Final SEIR (page 4.3-30) and found to not be reasonably capable of supporting CTS due to its isolation from all of the other known breeding ponds for the species; and substantial physical barriers existing between the pond and the Project site including the Pine Canyon drainage (with vertical cut banks of up to approximately 20 feet deep and subject to high storm flows during rain events when salamanders are most likely to be on the move) and decades of consistent agricultural activity in the fields between Pine Canyon and ORCU-1 (note that a portion of these fields now supports the Community Park and a habitat restoration area.

Since the 2003 SEIR certification, additional information regarding ORCU-1 has been obtained. The 2004 USFWS CTS Pond Habitat Map identifies ORCU-1 as an unconfirmed, potential CTS breeding pool (the pool would also be considered potential habitat by CDFW (photograph in Appendix A). The pond is small and shallow, and has never been reported to support CTS. Observations in March 2013 for this assessment found that the small, oval-shaped, shallow bermed pond has a low gradient drainage, surrounded by steep coastal scrub habitat across the oilfield road to the west and relatively flat non-native grassland immediately to the east. The basin’s ability to store surface water appears to be limited due to the small size and infrequent flow of the drainage that feeds it. The former oilfield operator in this area explained that this feature was originally created and continues to be mechanically maintained as a short-term emergency catch basin in the event of an oil spill into the ephemeral drainage from the up-gradient oilfield. It is not intended to hold water for an extended period.

ORCU-1 was dry at the time of the habitat assessment (March 2013) and the average duration of surface water in ORCU-1 is not known. There were no other potentially suitable aquatic habitats identified within CTS dispersal range to the Project site during the habitat assessment.

Large areas of suitable CTS upland habitat with extensive ground squirrel activity occur immediately east of ORCU-1; this reduces the likelihood that CTS, if present, would disperse away from this area over steep, densely vegetated hills to the west or across the Pine Creek drainage to reach the proposed Project site residential development area addressed in this assessment. ORCU-1 is approximately 1.75 miles (2.8 km) from pond ORCU-3, so dispersal by CTS between these two ponds is not considered feasible.

2. Project Background

The County of Santa Barbara approved the Rice Ranch Specific Plan in 2003 which included:

725 total homes o 466 Single-Family o 259 Multi-Family

An Elementary School expansion and new parking lot




A large Community Park and Public Trail System 4 Neighborhood Parks Provisions for providing affordable housing onsite

To date, the following project elements have been completed:

336 acres of public access open space has been conveyed to SB County Parks, of which the 26-acre Orcutt Community Park has been constructed, dedicated and accepted by the County.

Final development maps for the first two neighborhoods (Pine Creek and Oaks) have been approved.

65 single family homes were built by Rice Ranch Ventures LLC and are occupied. Rice Ranch Communities LLC assumed managing partnership of new joint venture in 2012 and built

40 more homes and permits are approved for an additional 90 homes in 2014.

Rice Ranch Community LLC seeks an updated, more efficient Specific Plan which will:

Maintain the number of homes at 725; Accommodate County Parks preconditions by building and maintaining private parks; Accommodate County Parks by including all manufactured slopes in Open Space into private or;

HOA ownership and maintenance; and Add a Rice Ranch Community Clubhouse site for onsite residents only.

The new plan includes numerous environmental benefits:

Reduces the amount of grading; Improves vehicular and pedestrian site circulation; Reduces the linear footage of roadways and impervious surface; Improves safety through efficient full secondary access while reducing EVA impacts; and Mitigates biological restoration on site and promotes community involvement in ecological

enhancements

3. California Tiger Salamander Species Account

The information in this paragraph is adapted from the Federal Register 65FR57242 (Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; final rule to List the Santa Barbara County distinct Population of the California Tiger Salamander as Endangered; Final rule), and from Western Reptiles and Amphibians (Stebbins 2003).

The California tiger salamander is a member of the family Ambystomatidae. It was formerly considered a subspecies (Ambystoma tigrinum californiense) of the A. tigrinum complex, but was recognized as a distinct species in 1991. The range of this species is limited to the Central Valley and coast of California. It is a




large, stout salamander (7.5-16.2 cm) with small eyes, and a rounded snout. It lacks parotoid glands and has tubercles on the underside of both front and back feet. Color varies greatly within the species, but the California tiger salamander is basically dark with large yellow or off-white blotches.

The California tiger salamander inhabits grassland, oak savanna, and edges of mixed woodland habitats, breeding in temporary ponds that form during winter and may dry out in summer, but also breeds in slower parts of streams and in some permanent waters, primarily in grassland and woodland areas. Adults spend the majority of their time in burrows of ground squirrels, pocket gophers, and other small mammals emerging during the first significant rains of the wet season and possibly traveling as far as 1.2 miles to reach breeding areas. Females lay from 400 to 1300 eggs per breeding season, which they deposit individually or in small clusters on submergent vegetation or other stationary submerged debris. Eggs hatch in 10 to 14 days. Initially, larval salamanders feed on algae, small crustaceans, and mosquito larvae. Gradually they include larger prey items such as tadpoles and smaller salamander larvae. Tiger salamander larvae are fully metamorphosed in 60 to 94 days. Known CTS breeding locations near the Site are shown in Figure 3.

4. Methodology

The habitat assessment for CTS on the Project site was conducted by ARCADIS Wildlife Biologist, Mitch Siemens (CTS Permit #: TE190302-0). Mr. Siemens has worked extensively at the Rice Ranch Project site and on the adjacent oilfield property to the south for more than 10 years. He has visited the site on numerous occasions throughout 2013 and in 2014, and is familiar with the landscape between ORCU-3 and Rice Ranch.

The individual Project area within 1.24 miles of ORCU-3 and areas where revisions to the previously approved Project are proposed were investigated to assess each location’s potential to provide breeding or upland refuge for CTS. Digital photographs of the Project site were taken, and field notes documenting observations made during the site visit were recorded.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) reports occurrences of known sensitive natural communities, plants, and animals in California. A CNDDB search for the project site included the Santa Maria, Guadalupe, Casmalia, and Orcutt Quadrangles, using the RareFind 4 program (CDFW 2013). Consideration was also given to the results of previous CTS habitat assessments and USFWS protocol level presence/absence surveys conducted in the area by Mr. Siemens and fellow qualified wildlife biologists.

The California Tiger Salamander Pond Habitats – Southern Area Habitat Map (United States Fish and Wildlife Service 2010) depicts potential and known breeding locations of the Santa Barbara County DPS of CTS. This map was reviewed to locate potential and known CTS breeding ponds in closest proximity to the Site.




A review of aerial photographs of the Project site and surrounding environs was conducted. The photographs were reviewed to locate potential CTS breeding locations or other habitat that might require investigation, and to identify potential land use barriers between the Project site and known or potential CTS breeding locations. Screenshots of several oblique aerial images from GoogleEarth are provided at the end of this report to facilitate an understanding of the area between ORCU-3 and the Project site.

5. Habitat Descriptions

The Rice Ranch Specific Plan development occurs on uneven, hilly terrain of the Solomon Hills at the southern edge of the Santa Maria Valley. There are two significant drainages that flow down the north side of the Orcutt Hills towards the Project site. The Pine Creek drainage is generally a deep (between 15 and 30-feet high) vertical bank erosional drainage as it crosses the Project site. The Pine Creek drainage essentially bisects the Project site flowing from southeast to northwest. The second drainage is an un-named tributary to Orcutt Creek that crosses the eastern edge of the Rice Ranch property. It is relevant because it occurs between the Project site and the nearest known CTS breeding pond ORCU-3. This drainage has less severe erosional bank cutting and largely follows the surrounding slope topography to the bottom of the canyon where water flows during storm events. Both drainages are ephemeral and are typified by high energy, short duration flow during and immediately following rain events.

Land use to the south of the Project site supports oil production and cattle grazing. Residential housing and urban development occurs to the north with more rural housing to the east and west. The Project site itself and the surrounding land supports predominantly non-native annual grassland, oak woodland, coastal scrub, and maritime chaparral habitat as well as the existing residential housing and the large community park. Large eucalyptus tree groves are common and interspersed among the dominant native habitats in the area. The land in the vicinity of the focused survey is generally undeveloped and largely undisturbed except for human foot and bike traffic on the numerous trails.

Soils in the survey areas consist primarily of Arnold sand and Corralitos sand layers. These soils are heavily eroded soil types originating from sandstone. There were no California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) adults or burrows observed in the Valley View neighborhood project area; however Bottae’s pocket gopher burrows are present. Ground squirrel activity does occur north of the proposed Community Clubhouse area in the adjacent flat open meadow area that abuts Stubblefield Road, extending to The Groves neighborhood.

No cattle stockponds, natural ponds, depressions or other aquatic features that could potentially hold surface water for more than 60 days (the minimum time required for CTS to complete metamorphosis as defined by the USFWS [2003]) occur on the Project site.




2014 Rice Ranch Specific Plan Revisions

The following discussions describe where the proposed 2014 Specific Plan infrastructure and development vary from the approved 2003 Specific Plan Project design.

The Grove Neighborhood and Emergency Vehicle / Secondary Access Road (south)

This revised Project component is an existing paved road that will be widened and improved to support emergency vehicle access (EVA). The habitat in the location of The Groves neighborhood access road supports dense coastal scrub and scattered oak trees along the existing road, as well as a stand of introduced Monterey pines (Pinus radiata). There are no suitable aquatic features for CTS breeding, however; upland habitat within the previously approved Groves neighborhood area includes habitat potentially suitable for CTS and supports a mixture of maritime chaparral, annual grassland, and oak woodland communities. A portion of the Grove neighborhood occurs within the 1.24-mile (2-km) maximum CTS dispersal area from ORCU-3 (see Figure 4).

The Grove Neighborhood Emergency Vehicle / Secondary Access Road (north)

The revised Project Grove access road (north) is required by the Santa Barbara County Fire Department to provide emergency and secondary vehicle access between sub-developments within The Groves neighborhood. This access road will pass through primarily dense coastal scrub and oak woodland habitats. There are no suitable aquatic features for CTS breeding in this location. The road will cross an un-named ephemeral drainage to Orcutt Creek described earlier in this report. The drainage does not hold surface water long enough to support CTS breeding. Upland habitat in this location consisting primarily of dense coastal scrub is considered to be of potentially marginal to poor suitability for CTS. This location is at the perimeter of the 1.24-mile (2-km) potential CTS dispersal area from pond ORCU-3 to the southeast (see Figure 4).

Community Clubhouse

The proposed Project Clubhouse is located in The Meadows neighborhood and occurs in a transitional area along the spine of a ridgeline with a mixture of exposed rock, maritime chaparral, oak woodland, and annual grassland near the main entrance to the Rice Ranch Community Park from South Bradley Road. There are no suitable aquatic features for CTS breeding in this location. Upland habitat is potentially suitable for CTS, but is located beyond the 1.24-mile (2-km) potential CTS dispersal area from pond ORCU-3.




Valley View Neighborhood Emergency Vehicle / Secondary Access Road

This proposed access road replaces a longer road previously proposed farther south, and satisfies Santa Barbara County Fire Department Project conditions. The road will branch off of the existing paved PCEC entry road and connect to the Valley View neighborhood to the west. Habitat in this area consists of non-native grassland, coastal scrub, remnant maritime chaparral and eucalyptus tree woodland. Approximately half of the road length will be located within the eucalyptus tree woodland / remnant maritime chaparral habitat, and approximately half will be located within annual grassland / coastal scrub habitat. There are no suitable aquatic features for CTS breeding in this location. Upland habitat is potentially suitable for CTS, but is entirely outside the 1.24-mile (2-km) potential CTS dispersal area from pond ORCU-3. This area is on the other side of the ridge from ORCU-1.

Relevant CTS Protocol Survey (OCP Key Site 3)

A USFWS protocol survey to determine presence / absence for CTS was conducted over a two-year period between 2007 and 2009 at a nearby property (OCP Key Site 3) located approximately 0.5 miles (0.8 km) east of the eastern Rice Ranch development boundary. OCP Key Site 3 is separated from ORCU-3 by very similar topography and habitat conditions as is the Rice Ranch Project site. The two-year upland drift fence study design for OPC Key Site 3 was approved by the USFWS and the survey was conducted by permitted wildlife biologist Mr. Vince Semonsen (permit # TE030384-2) with support by Mitch Siemens (permit # TE190302-0). OCP Key Site 3 is located approximately 0.73 miles (1.18 km) north of ORCU-3, slightly closer than the Rice Ranch Project site. It supports a mix of habitats including annual grassland with prevalent California ground squirrel burrows present. As is the case with Rice Ranch, OCP Key Site 3 is separated from ORCU-3 by hilly terrain supporting oak woodland, chaparral, and coastal scrub vegetation communities.

No CTS were captured or observed on OCP Key Site 3 during the two-year study, and the species was considered absent in accordance with the protocol survey findings. The 2007/08 and 2008/09 trapping seasons produced rain events of sufficient intensity and duration to induce dispersal activity by CTS in the Santa Maria Valley. The winter of 2007/08 brought substantial rain events and 21 CTS trap nights were run between October 29, 2007 and February 24, 2008. The winter of 2008/09 had a lower rainfall total with 23 trap nights being run between November 1, 2008 and February 16, 2009. During this time, CTS were captured during protocol drift fence studies being conducted at other locations in northern Santa Barbara County using the same methods as those used for the OCP Key Site 3 study (Vince Semonsen and Dr. Larry Hunt personal communications).




6. Conclusions

As shown on Figure 4, a review of the USFWS California Tiger Salamander Pond Habitat Map (USFWS CTS Pond Habitat Map [2004]) indicates that the majority of the Rice Ranch property is beyond 1.24 miles (2 km) from a known CTS breeding pond (1.24 miles is the USFWS recognized maximum distance CTS are believed capable of dispersing away from breeding pools to utilize upland habitat). The entire Rice Ranch Project site is 2,000 feet or more beyond the 2,200-foot dispersal range from ORCU-3 in which 95% of CTS are reported to remain for estivation.

Known CTS breeding locations within 3.1 miles (5.0 km) of the Project site include SAMA-6, SAMA-7 and SAMA-10 and ORCU-3, ORCU-12 and ORCU-13. All of the SAMA ponds are located approximately 3 miles (4.8 km) northwest of the Project site, on the south side of the Santa Maria Airport, and are separated from the Project site by substantial urban development. No connectivity between the Project site and these ponds is feasible.

The closest of the known CTS breeding ponds, ORCU-3, is southeast of the Project site. The pond is separated from the Project site by Newlove Hill, topography characterized by often steep terrain supporting primarily dense coastal scrub and oak woodland plant communities, as well as an un-named drainage to Orcutt Creek and the Pine Creek drainage that bisects the Project site (see images below). Unlike other ambystomatid salamanders, California tiger salamanders are grassland animals, and do not favor forested areas as corridors for movement or long-term residence (USFWS 2004). Upland habitat of equal or better quality than exists at the Project site can be found adjacent to the breeding ponds mentioned above including ORCU-3. Far ranging dispersal by CTS to the Project site from known breeding ponds would subject them to increased risk of predators, road kill, desiccation and other potentially fatal encounters. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that long distance dispersal to the Project site is highly unlikely when considering the physical obstacles and the large areas of high quality suitable upland habitat that would be encountered by CTS much closer to their breeding ponds. In addition, there are no historic aquatic features on the Project site that would attract or have previously supported CTS.

While 1.24 miles (2 km) is recognized to be the furthest distance CTS have been found to disperse from breeding ponds, dispersal over this long distance is considered rare; most salamanders (95 percent) are thought to remain within 0.4 miles (2,200 feet; 670m) of breeding ponds (Trenham et al. unpublished data, as cited in USFWS 2004). The USFWS uses 2,200 feet (670m) as a guide when determining the amount of upland habitat around known breeding locations to be mapped as critical habitat for the purposes of preserving CTS within small mammal burrows. As indicated on Figure 4, the entire Project site is located 2,000 feet beyond the 2,200 foot ORCU-3 pond CTS dispersal buffer.

Movements made by CTS can be grouped into two main categories: 1) breeding migration, including juvenile dispersal from the breeding pond; and 2) inter-pond dispersal. Breeding migration is the movement




of salamanders to and from a pond from the surrounding upland habitat. As mentioned previously, CTS are reportedly capable of travelling as far as 1.24 miles (2 km) from a breeding pond into upland habitats (S. Sweet, in litt. 1998). However, a study conducted by Trenham and Shaffer (2005) at Olcott Lake within the Jepson Prairie Preserve in Solano County demonstrated that an estimated 95 percent of adult CTS remained within 2,034 feet (620m) of the breeding pond, while 95 percent of sub-adults remained within 2,067 feet (630m) of the pond. Approximately 85 percent of the sub-adults concentrated between 656 and 1,969 feet (200-600 m) of the pond. Upon reaching sexual maturity, most individuals returned to their natal / birth pond to breed, while 20 to 25 percent dispersed to other ponds approximately 1,900 and 2,200 feet (580 – 670 m) away (Trenham et al. 2001). This same study is the only known study that specifically investigated movement of CTS between breeding ponds; the study projected that 99 percent of CTS interpond dispersal occurred within 0.70 mi (1.1 km). Note that the entire Rice Ranch Project site is beyond this distance.

The Grove neighborhood development area is slightly within the maximum 1.24-mile (2-km) CTS dispersal distance from pond ORCU-3 (approximately 0.95 mile [1.5 km]). The revised Specific Plan impacts associated with The Grove neighborhood and EVA roads are relatively minor changes to the previously approved project, and given the distance, topography, and drainage crossing between the project area and ORCU-3, it is considered unlikely that individual CTS disperse to reach the Project site or the disturbance area.

A search of the CDFW CNDDB for the Santa Maria, Casmalia, Guadalupe, and Orcutt quadrangles resulted in ten recorded CTS sightings. The closest record in relation to the Project site was from ORCU-3 described earlier in this report.

Potential upland habitat for CTS on the Project site was determined to be of suitable quality if CTS were present in the area. The Project site’s interior non-native annual grasslands are suitable for upland estivation habitat; however, the focus areas of this study support minimal ground squirrel activity. California ground squirrel activity was observed in nearby areas (i.e., in the Meadows neighborhood) and in offsite areas, but outside 1.24 miles from ORCU-3. Other small mammal burrows that were observed on the Project site (typically Bottae’s pocket gopher) could also be used by CTS should they disperse to the Site.

Reviews of historic aerial photographs dating back to 1994 reveal little change in the general site vicinity with the exception of the build out of the Rice Ranch housing development. The images did not reveal any previously unknown aquatic features that may have previously supported CTS near the Project site.

Overall, habitat in the proposed revised Project development areas exhibited marginal to fair suitability to support CTS if the species were to occur in the area. Aquatic features that could potentially hold surface water for more than 60 days (the minimum time required for CTS to complete metamorphosis) are absent on the Project site. The Valley View neighborhood access road, the Community Clubhouse location, and the




majority of the Project site are greater than 1.24 miles (2.0 km) from the nearest known CTS breeding pond, while a portion of The Grove neighborhood is just inside the 1.24 miles (2.0 km) CTS maximum dispersal range from ORCU-3. In relation to upland habitat suitability for CTS, all of the revised Project development areas with the possible exception of The Groves access road (north) have at least some habitat that could be considered suitable for estivation by CTS.

The area being proposed for the Clubhouse occurs on a ridge on the north side of the Pine Creek drainage in a location supporting coast live oak woodland, remnant maritime chaparral, and annual grassland habitat. This location is beyond 1.24 miles (2 km) from pond ORCU-3 and is considered isolated from the potential ORCU-1 breeding pond due to the dispersal obstacles presented by the steep banks and dense vegetation within and adjacent to the Pine Creek drainage that occurs between the proposed development area and ORCU-1.

A portion of the Grove neighborhood development envelope would occur within 1.24 miles from ORCU-3, though only slightly (0.95 miles at the closest point). Given the distance and complex topography between the work area and ORCU-3, the negative findings of the nearby Key Site 3 protocol survey previously described, the high quality upland estivation habitat between ORCU-3 and Project site (particularly within 2,200-feet of ORCU-3), the likelihood that individual CTS utilize this area or occur farther north (away from the pond) is low.

6.1 Initial CEQA Impact Assessment

2003 Rice Ranch Specific Plan Final SEIR

The 2003 Rice Ranch Specific Plan SEIR addressed the potential for impacts to CTS associated with the Rice Ranch project. At that time, there was no known breeding pond within 1.24 miles of the Project site. The discussion from the SEIR is provided below:

“There are no state or federally-listed animal species known to occur in or use the habitats within the project boundary at present. However, the Rice Ranch project site does provide suitable habitat for a variety of species that are state and federally-listed species or are California Species of Special Concern (CSC)… In addition, the federally-listed endangered California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) and federally-listed threatened California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) are known from the Orcutt and neighboring quadrangles and were specifically searched for on the site using USFWS survey protocols (LFR 2002). A total of four surveys were conducted through consecutive years for these two amphibian species; neither species has been observed on the site; however, additional surveys in nearby potential habitat may be required to determine the presence of the California tiger salamander” (page 4.3-28). The California tiger salamander is known from several disjunct locations in the Santa Maria Valley, and from vernal pools northwest of the site (Site 22 in the Orcutt Plan Area) (LFR 2002). The




California tiger salamander has not been found during general wildlife surveys, or other focused amphibian surveys conducted at the project site, including multiple visits by the three 10A-1A permitted CTS experts and County-qualified biologists, including the SEIR wildlife biologist, Ted Mullen, and two biologists retained by the County during preparation of the OCP, Vince Semonsen and John Storrer. These biologists have expertise with California tiger salamander evaluation and have federal permits (10A-1A) from the Fish and Wildlife Service to carry out protocol surveys, collect, sample, and analyze this species. None of these biologists who have reviewed the Specific Plan site area believe it is likely that California tiger salamanders use the site for over-summering activity (pages 4.3-29).

“Habitat assessments for this species [CTS] indicate that the project site does not support suitable aquatic breeding habitat. The nearest known breeding pond for this species is approximately two miles to the north of the site and south of the Santa Maria Airport. The closest potentially suitable pond habitat is located approximately a ½ mile to the south and southeast (ORCU-1). Although this pond has not been surveyed using DFG protocol methods, ORCU-1 is isolated from the other entire known breeding habitat for the species, making the species’ presence less likely at this location. Additionally, there are significant barriers precluding the species possible movement from pond ORCU-1 across the project site. The barriers between the pond and the project site include: (1) Pine Canyon Creek, which is approximately 20 feet deep with vertical cut banks in places and supports high flows during the season when salamanders are most likely to migrate; and (2) agricultural development that is regularly tilled south of Pine Canyon Creek and the area along the east side of the oilfield road north of Pine Canyon Creek. These barriers would make any movement of salamanders living in ORCU-1 extremely problematic such that they would not reasonably be expected to survive a migration across the project site for over-summering. Therefore, the potential for this species’ presence onsite is extremely unlikely” (pages 4.3-30).

“Impact BIO-3.2a: Site development would result in the loss of sensitive wildlife species and habitat. There are currently no state or federally-listed animal species (i.e., California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander) known to occur in, or use the habitats within, the project area. Due to substantial obstacles between the nearest possible habitat pond ORCU-1 and the project site, including Pine Creek and continuing agricultural activity, it is not reasonable to assume that the species would be capable of migrating to the project site for over-summering. The proposed project is not reasonably expected to impact any other listed wildlife species. Therefore, no impacts on state or federally-listed animal species would result from project buildout (pg. 4.3-63).

2014 Rice Ranch Specific Plan Project Impact Assessment

CEQA Appendix G states that a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will:

(a) Conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located;

(c) Substantially affect a rare or endangered species of animal, plant or the habitat of the species;

(d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species; and




(e) Substantially diminish habitat for fish, wildlife or plants.

As detailed in the preceding sections, the Rice Ranch Project does not meet any of the significance criteria above.

The County of Santa Barbara Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual (Santa Barbara County, October 2008) describes the County’s approach to evaluation of impacts:

3. Evaluation of Project Impacts. Assessment of impacts must account for both short-term and long-term impacts. Thus the assessment must account for items such as immediate tree removal and longer-term, more subtle impacts such as interruption of the natural fire regime or interference with plant or animal propagation.

a) Types of Impacts to Biological Resources. Disturbance to habitats or species may be significant, based on substantial evidence in the record (not public controversy or speculation), if they substantially impact significant resources in the following ways:

1. Substantially reduce or eliminate species diversity or abundance 2. Substantially reduce or eliminate quantity or quality of nesting areas 3. Substantially limit reproductive capacity through losses of individuals or habitat 4. Substantially fragment, eliminate, or otherwise disrupt foraging areas and/or access to

food sources 5. Substantially limit or fragment range and movement (geographic distribution or animals

and/or seed dispersal routes)

b) Less Than Significant Impacts. There are many areas in the County where there is little or no importance to a given habitat and it is presumed that disruption would not create a significant impact. Examples of areas where impacts to habitat are presumed to be insignificant include:

1. Small acreages of non-native grassland if wildlife values are low. 2. Individuals or stands of non-native trees if not used by important animal species such

as raptors or monarch butterflies. 3. Areas of historical disturbance such as intensive agriculture. 4. Small pockets of habitats already significantly fragmented or isolated, and degraded or

disturbed. 5. Areas of primarily ruderal species resulting from pre-existing man-made disturbance.

c) Impact Assessment Factors. In addition to the criteria listed in a. "Types of Impacts to

Biological Resources" above, the following questions and factors are used in assessing the significance of project impacts on biological resources.




(1) Size.

How much of the resource in question both on and off the project site would be impacted? (percentage of the whole area and square footage and/or acreage are both useful to know)

How does the area or species that would be impacted relate to the remaining populations off the project site? (percentage of total area or species population, either quantitatively or qualitatively.)

(2) Type of Impact.

Would it adversely indirectly affect wildlife (light, noise, barriers to movement, etc.)?

Would it remove the resource or cause an animal to abandon the area or a critical activity (e.g., nesting) in that area?

Would it fragment the area's resource?

(3) Timing.

Would the impact occur at a critical time in the life cycle of an important plant or animal (e.g., breeding, nesting, or flowering periods)?

Is the impact temporary or permanent? If it is temporary, how long would the resource take to recover?

Would the impact be periodic, of short duration, but recur again and again?

In assessing the potential impact, the County employs a variety of criteria as described above. The following discussions address these criteria as applicable to CTS for the revised Rice Ranch Specific Plan Project.

Size of Impact – The 1.24-mile maximum potential CTS dispersal distance extending from pond ORCU-3 covers an area of 3,091 acres. The Rice Ranch Project site overlaps 57.3 acres (1.9%) of that area, and is located at the outer margin of the maximum dispersal distance. The project would permanently protect 38.7 acres (1.2 %) of the potential habitat for CTS from ORCU-3. The development area includes 18.6 acres (0.6%) of the potential habitat for CTS extending 1.24 miles from ORCU-3. The project would provide an approximately 2:1 ratio of protected to impacted land in this area.




As noted above in this report the Project site has a low likelihood of supporting CTS and more than 95% of the population dispersing from ORCU-3 would be expected to estivate within 2,200-feet of the pond, or 2,000 feet before reaching the Rice Ranch Project site. As such, even if individual CTS were to reach the Rice Ranch Project site, the potential impact would be less than significant based on the size criteria.

Type of Impact – Indirect impacts to CTS if dispersing and estivating at the Rice Ranch site would be minimal. The species disperses primarily at night during rain events and spends the majority of its time underground in burrows. Common indirect impacts such as light, noise, etc. would not significantly affect CTS in nearby areas if present.

Development of a portion of the Groves neighborhood would remove that area as suitable estivation habitat for CTS, though as noted above, the likelihood of individual CTS reaching the Rice Ranch site is considered low as more 95% of the individuals dispersing from ORCU-3 would be expected to estivate within 2200 feet of the pond, well before reaching Rice Ranch.

Timing of Impact – The proposed Project construction would not occur at a critical time in the life cycle of CTS. Construction activities would not occur at night or during rain events when CTS are most likely to be dispersing. Proposed construction would not occur within or adjacent to any known CTS breeding ponds. Occupancy of the proposed residences would not pose special threats to CTS associated within critical lifecycle periods.

The development of the portion of the Groves neighborhood within 1.24 miles would result in a permanent impact to approximately 18.6 acres of potentially suitable CTS upland habitat. This would occur with the permanent protection of 38.7 acres this area. The likelihood of CTS dispersal within the Rice Ranch Specific Plan Project area is considered low given the distance and physical features between the pond and the Project site, the fact that high quality habitat exists much closer to the pond throughout the area where 95% of dispersing CTS are expected to estivate, and that the protocol survey results from the nearby OCP Key Site 3 were negative.

6.2 Initial CEQA Mitigation Measures and Best Management Practices

The County of Santa Barbara Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual (Santa Barbara County, October 2008) describes the County’s approach to mitigation of impacts:

E. General Mitigation Guidelines for Biological Impacts.

1. Mitigation Hierarchy. The following general approaches to reducing biological impacts are presented in the order of their effectiveness.




a. Avoidance.

Avoid direct or indirect impacts to significant biological resources through project design.

Focus on maintaining large, contiguous habitat areas and animal movement corridors. A project design which clusters development on a relatively limited portion of the project site may reduce the habitat area disturbed by the project.

b. Onsite Mitigation.

Minimize or reduce impacts through on-site design and resource protection measures.

Measures may include vegetative spatial buffer between project and habitat areas; revegetation; habitat enhancement; erosion and water quality protection; on-site replacement/compensation; maintenance and management measures such as fencing, weed control, use of building envelopes, and dedication of areas through open space or conservation easements or grant deed of development rights; short-term measures to protect against construction impacts (e.g., fencing, timing of construction to avoid nesting season).

c. Off-Site Mitigation.

Compensate for on-site impacts through off-site measures.

When avoidance or on-site mitigation is infeasible or inadequate to reduce impacts, measures such as those listed under on-site mitigation can be considered in off-site locations, or may be accomplished through in-lieu fees. Off-site approaches may be appropriate at times if a greater ecological value may be clearly gained than with on-site mitigation. (i.e., where on-site habitat is of low quality or highly fragmented).

In mitigating potential impacts, the County recommends a variety of potentially feasible approaches. The following discussions describe the approach to avoid and minimize the potential for impacts to CTS if they disperse to the project site.

Avoidance of Impacts – The majority of the Rice Ranch Project site is outside the maximum recognized dispersal distance for CTS (1.24 miles) from a known breeding pond, ORCU-3. A total of approximately 57.3 acres at the far eastern end of the Rice Ranch property occur within the 1.24 mile (2 km) maximum dispersal radius of ORCU-3. None of the property occurs within the 2,200-foot zone where 95% of the dispersing CTS would be expected to estivate. The nearest property line for Rice Ranch occurs 0.8 miles (1.3 km) from ORCU-3, and the nearest development activity is proposed approximately 0.95 mile (1.53 km) from the




pond. Of the 57.3 acres, approximately 38.7 acres (68%) will remain as natural open space, protected and managed in perpetuity pursuant to the Open Space Habitat Management and Restoration Implementation Plan (OSHMRIP). Approximately 18.6 acres (32%) will support residential development (a portion of the Groves neighborhood).

In addition to long-term protection of the open space areas, the OSHMRIP also requires resource protection measures during construction including exclusionary fencing around all grading areas, pre-construction reconnaissance surveys, and biological monitoring during construction:

OS5.24: The Environmental Quality Assurance Program (EQAP) biologist shall be present on the site during initial site preparation and ground disturbance activities, such as vegetation removal and grading, for each phase of the project to ensure that sensitive species are not present in the project area.

OS5.25: The EQAP biologist shall conduct pre-construction reconnaissance level surveys of the disturbance area during each phase of the construction project to determine the presence of common species, the potential capture and relocation of individual animals, and to determine a likely escape route for these species.

OS5.26: Appropriate barriers (i.e., silt fencing) shall be established to minimize the movement of wildlife into the construction zone. The EQAP biologist shall make regular scheduled site visits during the construction phase and any animals shall be removed by a qualified biologist depending on the species.

OS5.27: The presence of any state or federally-listed species would require consultation with the CDFW or the USFWS, respectively, before capture and relocation would potentially occur. Biologist handling or surveying for listed species shall have all necessary permits or authorizations.

Onsite Mitigation of Impacts – The development design is primarily outside the maximum dispersal distance from ORCU-3 (the nearest known breeding pond). For the area within the maximum dispersal distance, 68% (38.7 acres) will be protected in perpetuity. For the Rice Ranch project in total, 305 acres (54%) of the total 560 acres will be permanently protected as natural open space. An additional 30 acres will be protected as recreational park areas.

Offsite Mitigation of Impacts – No offsite mitigation is currently considered necessary; however, offsite mitigation is feasible if required through a recently approved CTS mitigation bank with a service area that includes the Rice Ranch site. Other offsite mitigation could include protective easements over known CTS breeding habitat or of upland estivation areas within 1.24 miles of a known CTS breeding pond.




6.3 Initial CEQA Determinations

Based on the CTS habitat assessment data, the CEQA and County impact analysis criteria, and the County’s mitigation practices, the proposed revised Rice Ranch Specific Plan Project is not reasonably expected to result in a significant impact to CTS. No impacts on state or federally-listed animal species are anticipated to result from project buildout.

The basis for this statement stems from the fact that individual CTS are not expected to occur on Rice Ranch as the site is primarily outside the 1.24 mile maximum dispersal distance from the nearest known breeding pond ORCU-3; and entirely outside (2,000 feet away from) the 2,200-foot dispersal distance that is expected to contain 95% of the CTS dispersing from the pond. The Project design would permanently protect the majority (68%) of the area within 1.24 miles of ORCU-3. Additional required mitigation measures include exclusionary fencing during construction, preconstruction surveys, and full-time biological monitoring during construction. If necessary, additional mitigation could include off-site mitigation through the approved mitigation bank or other habitat protection approved by the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

The proposed revised Rice Ranch Specific Plan Project is not reasonably expected to result in a significant impact to CTS. This impact finding relative to CTS is equivalent to that identified in the 2003 Final Ranch Specific Plan SEIR. No new potentially significant Project impacts on CTS (or other state or federally listed species) are associated with the 2014 revised Rice Ranch Specific Plan.

7. Summary

There have been no previous records of breeding activity or observations of CTS on the Rice Ranch Project site. The Rice Ranch Project site does not support ponds or other aquatic breeding habitat suitable for the CTS. The nearest confirmed CTS breeding pond (ORCU-3) is located approximately 0.8 miles southeast of the Project site property line, and approximately 0.95 miles from the nearest proposed development activity. The likelihood that CTS disperse from ORCU-3 to the Project site is considered low. High quality estivation habitat occurs in close proximity to ORCU-3 (and ORCU-1). An estimated 95% of dispersing CTS from ORCU-3 would be expected to estivate within 2,200-feet of the pond, 2,000 feet outside of the Rice Ranch property. A protocol CTS survey was conducted on a parcel located approximately 0.5 miles east of Rice Ranch (on OCP Key site 3) and no CTS were captured or observed. Key Site 3 is separated from ORCU-3 by approximately the same distance and similar habitat and topography as the Rice Ranch Project site.

Definitive presence/absence determinations are not appropriate for this habitat assessment. The information and findings provided herein are qualitative and are based on the author’s knowledge and experience with CTS and with the specific project area. Dispersion of individual CTS to the Rice Ranch Project site from pond ORCU-3, identified subsequent to the 2003 Final SEIR certification, is not likely. No impacts to state or federally-listed species are expected from project buildout. It is unknown whether ORCU-1 provides suitable




breeding conditions for CTS. As addressed in the 2003 Final SEIR, the capacity of the pool to hold water long enough to support CTS is questionable and the feature is completely isolated from any known breeding pond. The artificial feature is not intended to hold water for extended periods but instead is designed as a temporary emergency catch basin should there be an oil spill in the ephemeral drainage that feeds it. To the east of ORCU-1, large areas of suitable upland habitat occur, and this may reduce the likelihood that CTS would disperse (if present) over steep, densely vegetated hills and across significant drainages to the proposed Project site.

8. References

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2001. Survey Protocol For California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma Californiense). Inland Fisheries – Informational Leaflet No.44.

County of Santa Barbara. 2001. Draft California Tiger Salamander Habitat Map. Planning and Development Dept. Santa Maria, CA.

County of Santa Barbara. 2008. Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual. Planning and Development Dept. Santa Maria, CA.

Department of Fish and Game, 2003. State of California, The Resources Agency California Natural Diversity Database. Regional Map of California State Listed Threatened and Endangered Animals and Plants (April 2003 Data).

Stebbins. 2003. Western Reptiles and Amphibians (3rd ed., rev.). Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. Xiv+533 pp.

Trenham, P.C., and H.B. Shaffer. 2005. Amphibian upland habitat use and its consequences for population viability. Ecological Applications 15(4):1158-1168

Trenham, P.C., W.D. Koenig, and H.B. Shaffer. 2001. Spatially autocorrelated demography and interpond dispersal in the California tiger salamander, Ambystoma californiense. Ecology 82: 3519-3530.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. California Tiger Salamander Pond Habitats – Northern Area Map. Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office GIS

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Interim Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for Determining Presence or a Negative Finding of the California Tiger Salamander. October 2003.




U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2004. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Santa Barbara County Distinct Population Segment of the California Tiger Salamander, Proposed Rule. Federal Register 69(14): 3064-3094.




Overview of area showing ORCU-3 and the eastern end of the Groves neighborhood of Rice Ranch

Eastern End of The Grove Neighborhood




2200-ft from ORCU-3

FIGURE

1

ENV

: San

Lui

s O

bisp

o C

:\Clie

nt F

iles\

P-R

\Ric

e R

anch

Ven

ture

s\Fi

gure

s\G

IS\2

013\

Figu

re 1

Site

Vic

inity

8-1

6-13

.mxd

8/

16/2

013

DFi

sche

rC

oord

inat

e S

yste

m: N

AD

198

3 H

AR

N S

tate

Pla

ne C

alifo

rnia

V F

IPS

0405

Fee

t

RICE RANCHORCUTT, CALIFORNIA

SITE VICINITY

Notes:Base map from ESRI and Microsoft Bing Maps

LegendProject Boundary

0 5,000 10,0002,500Feet

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

FIGURE

2

ENV

: San

Lui

s O

bisp

o Z:

\GIS

PR

OJE

CTS

\_EN

V\R

iceR

anch

\201

4\fro

m B

rian\

mxd

\CTS

\figu

re2

site

_ove

rvie

w.m

xd

10/6

/201

4 D

Fisc

her

Coo

rdin

ate

Sys

tem

: NA

D 1

983

Sta

teP

lane

Cal

iforn

ia V

FIP

S 0

405

Feet

SITE MAP

0 600 1,200300Feet


2014 Limits of Disturbance

2003 Limts of Disturbance

Notes:- Aerial photographs from Penfield and Smith, dated 24 Dec. 2013, 5 Feb. 2014.- Background aerial photograph fromMicrosoft through ArcGIS, dated 8 May 2010.- Limits of Disturbance dated 29 September2014 from Penfield & Smith.

RICE RANCH CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER

ORCUTT, CALIFORNIA

Valley View

The Meadow

The Grove

Pine CreekThe Oaks

Community Park

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

FIGURE

3

ENV

: San

Lui

s O

bisp

o Z:

\GIS

PR

OJE

CTS

\_EN

V\R

iceR

anch

\201

4\fro

m B

rian\

mxd

\CTS

\figu

re3

site

hab

itat.m

xd

10/6

/201

4 D

Fisc

her

Coo

rdin

ate

Sys

tem

: NA

D 1

983

HA

RN

Sta

teP

lane

Cal

iforn

ia V

FIP

S 04

05 F

eet

RICE RANCH HABITAT


Oct. 2014 Limits of Disturbance

Central Coast Riparian Scrub

Freshwater Marsh

Coast Live Oak Woodland

Non-Native Trees

Non-Native Trees* (NNT*)

Central Maritime Chaparral

Central Coastal Scrub

Non-Native Grassland

Native Grassland (NGL)

Road

RICE RANCH CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER

ORCUTT, CALIFORNIA

Notes:- Aerial photographs from Penfield and Smith, dated 24 Dec. 2013, 5 Feb. 2014.- Background aerial photograph fromMicrosoft through ArcGIS, dated 8 May 2010.- Limits of Disturbance dated 29 September2014 from Penfield & Smith.

0 600 1,200300Feet

NNT* - Eucalyptus with La Purisima manzanita understory.

P i ne Can yon Creek

O rcu t t C reek

N ea rest con firm ed CTS b reedin g pon d

ORCU-3

Poten tia l CTS b reedin g pon dORCU-1

Sourc e: Esri, Digita lGlob e, GeoEye, i-c ub ed, USDA, USGS, AEX , Getm a ppin g, Aerogrid, IGN , IGP, swisstopo, a n d the GIS User Com m un ity

0 1,000

SCALE IN FEET

FIGURE

4

Z:\GISPROJECTS\_ENV\RiceRanch\2014\from Brian\mxd\CTS\Figure 4 CTS Breeding_btw.mxd 10/6/2014 DFischer

Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN StatePlane California V FIPS 0405 Feet

Legen dDra in a gesIn c rea sed Gra din gDec rea sed Gra din gProjec t Boun da ry

Poten tia l CTS Breedin g Pon dCon firm ed CTS Breedin g Pon dBreedin g Pon d Ra dius, 2200 feet (671 m )Breedin g Pon d Ra dius, 1.24 m iles (2 km )

RICE RAN CHCALIFORN IA TIGER SALMAN DER

ORCUTT, CALIFORN IA

CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER BREEDING HABITAT LOCATIONS

N otes:Pla n upda te b oun da ries from W a lla c e Group files (12 Aug 2013)Strea m da ta from USGS 7.5' topogra phic m a ps.Ca liforn ia tiger sa la m a n der (Ambystoma californiense) distrib utionin form a tion from USFW S 2010. Ca liforn ia Tiger Sa la m a n der Pon dHa b itats – N orthern Area. V en tura Fish a n d W ildlife Offic e GIS. Aeria l photogra phy from ESRI, da ted 8 Ma y 2010.

Rice Ranch Specific Plan Modifications

Rice Ranch – The Valley

View Neighborhood: View

from ridge toward proposed

residential neighborhood

and proximity of site where

emergency access road will

connect from the east to

the neighborhood.

View west

Photograph #1

Rice Ranch ‐ The Valley View

Neighborhood: View from

ridge toward proposed

southern extend of the

neighborhood in annual

grassland habitat; south of

Photograph # 001.

View south

Photograph #002


Rice Ranch ‐ Path of

proposed emergency access

road from Pine Canyon,

through annual grassland and

Tasmanian Blue Gum on

ridge (background) to The

Valley View Neighborhood.

View south

Photograph # 003

Rice Ranch ‐ View east to gate

for existing trail and proposed

eastern terminus of

emergency access road that

extends west to The Valley

View Neighborhood.

View east to Pine Canyon

Creek and Rice Ranch.

Photograph # 004


Rice Ranch – Clubhouse Site:

View of a portion of the

proposed community

clubhouse site with coast live

oaks, central maritime

chaparral, and grassland.

View east

Photograph #005

Rice Ranch – The Meadows

Neighborhood: View along

interface of the upper and

lower residential portion of

the Meadows neighborhood

looking toward the location of

the proposed clubhouse

(center background).

View west

Photograph # 006


The red arrow points to the

currently dry but potentially

suitable CTS breeding pond

(ORCU‐1) on adjacent private

property. The project site is

separated from this

ephemeral pool by dense oak

woodland and chaparral

(foreground). Grassland

habitat immediately adjacent

to the pond supports

California ground squirrels and

is ideally suited for CTS. CTS

have not been documented

breeding in ORCU‐1.

View looking east

Photograph # 1048

The Pine Creek drainage

shown here is a steep sided

ephemeral drainage on the

Site supporting dense

coastal scrub habitat and

steep banks. The creek is

considered an impassable

barrier for potentially

occurring CTS to the south.

The proposed Clubhouse

location is indicated here by

the red arrow.

View looking east

Photograph # 1059


This photograph depicts

typical conditions in the

vicinity of the proposed

clubhouse. The location is

beyond CTS dispersal

range from ORCU‐3 and is

isolated from ORCU‐1 by

the Pine Creek drainage.

View looking northeast

Photograph # 1056

habitat conservation plan for the …...the rice ranch project site includes a total of 586.31 acres...

Documents