Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project

Final Draft Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the California Tiger Salamander

June 2017 Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project Final Draft Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the California Tiger Salamander

Table of Contents Executive Summary ...... 1 Section 1 Introduction and Background ...... 2 Overview and Background ...... 2 Permit Holder and Duration ...... 2 Covered Lands ...... 2 Covered Species ...... 5 Regulatory Framework ...... 5 Section 2 Project Description and Covered Activities ...... 9 Project Description ...... 9 Covered Activities ...... 10 Section 3 Environmental Setting and Covered Species ...... 12 Environmental Setting ...... 12 Covered Species ...... 13 Distribution of the California Tiger Salamander on the Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project Site ...... 15 Section 4 Biological Impacts and Take Assessment...... 18 Direct and Indirect Biological Impacts to California Tiger Salamander ...... 18 Anticipated Take of California Tiger Salamander ...... 18 Impacts to California Tiger Salamander Critical Habitat ...... 18 Cumulative Impacts to California Tiger Salamander ...... 19 Anticipated Effects of the Taking of California Tiger Salamander ...... 19 Section 5 Conservation Strategy ...... 20 Biological Goals and Objectives ...... 20 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures ...... 20 Monitoring ...... 24 Reporting...... 24 Section 6 Plan Implementation ...... 25 Changed Circumstances ...... 25 Unforeseen Circumstances ...... 26 Amendments ...... 27 Permit Suspension or Revocation ...... 27

Betteravia Farms, LLC i Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project Final Draft Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the California Tiger Salamander

Permit Renewal ...... 27 Permit Transfer ...... 28 Section 7 Funding ...... 29 HCP Implementation Costs ...... 29 Funding Source ...... 29 Section 8 Alternatives ...... 30 No Action Alternative...... 30 Project Redesign Alternative ...... 30 Section 9 Literature Cited ...... 31 APPENDICES ...... 32

Figures Figure 1: Regional Location Figure 2: Project Location

Tables Table 1: Implementation Costs

Appendices Appendix A – California Tiger Salamander Habitat Assessment

Betteravia Farms, LLC ii Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project Final Draft Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the California Tiger Salamander

Executive Summary

The Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is a 10-year plan to construct a farm labor camp in northern Santa Barbara County. The HCP constitutes an application for a federal incidental take permit under Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act. The primary focus of the HCP is protection for the Federally Endangered California tiger salamander (CTS) (Ambystoma californiense) Distinct Population Segment in Santa Barbara County under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

No CTS occurrences have been documented on the proposed project site; however, the site is located within the potential range of CTS in Santa Barbara County based upon the USFWS map of CTS range and breeding ponds (2010). The project site is also located within federally designated Critical Habitat for the CTS (Critical Habitat Unit 1). Seven (7) CTS occurrences documented by the California Natural Diversity Database have been recorded within 3.1 miles. Seven (7) known CTS breeding pools have been recorded within 1.24 miles of the project area (USFWS, 2010 and USFWS, 2015) and include the following: GUAD-3, SAMA-2, SAMA-3, GUAD- 6, GUAD-4, GUAD-1 and GUAD-2. Four (4) potential CTS breeding pools are also identified by the USFWS have also been recorded within 1.24 miles of the project area (USFWS, 2010 and USFWS, 2015). Considering the project site contains a potential CTS breeding pond (GUAD-5) and is within about 90 feet of a known breeding pond (GUAD-6) (USFWS, 2010; USFWS, 2015) there is a moderate to high probability of CTS occurring within the BSA.

The proposed project footprint is comprised of already disturbed/developed land that is generally low quality and only contains one small, isolated patch of small mammal burrows. Due to the close proximity of the project footprint to known and potential breeding ponds, CTS could occur transiently within project site as they make upland movements utilizing the project site as largely dispersal habitat. The CTS could also utilize the small mammal burrow complex or the small mammal burrows adjacent to the project footprint (i.e., along the existing fence line).

The proposed covered activities that are likely to result in take of CTS include activities that may result in short-term and long-term impacts as well as direct and indirect impacts associated with construction of the proposed project as well as operations and maintenance. Construction of the proposed project would also result in impacts to approximately 6.5 acres of previously disturbed habitat for the species and thereby the loss of 14,920 reproductive units (per the methodology of Searcy and Shaffer [2008]). Measures are included in this HCP to avoid and minimize impacts to individual CTS as well as effectively mitigates for the loss of reproductive units through establishment of a conservation easement on applicant-owned land prior to commencing any ground-disturbing activities or any other activity that could result in take of CTS. If unable to come to an agreement with the USFWS on the aforementioned easement, the applicant commits to purchase CTS mitigation credits from the La Purisima mitigation bank sufficient to mitigate for the loss of 14,920 reproductive units prior to commencing any ground- disturbing activities or any other activity that could result in take of CTS.

Betteravia Farms, LLC 1

Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project Final Draft Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the California Tiger Salamander

Section 1 Introduction and Background

Overview and Background

The proposed project includes the construction of a farm labor camp. The camp would consist of 30 bunk houses (each 1,443 sq. ft. in size and functioning as sleeping quarters and bathing facilities for 20 laborers), 3 common area structures (each 2,052 sq. ft. in size and functioning as common cooking and laundry areas for 200 laborers) , and parking, hardscaping, landscaping, and utilities. The purpose and need of this habitat conservation plan (HCP) is to receive an incidental take permit (ITP) to authorize take of the federally endangered California tiger salamander (CTS) (Ambystoma californiense) Distinct Population Segment (DPS) in Santa Barbara County for an otherwise lawful activity (i.e., construction and occupation of the farm labor camp) due to the potential for this species to occur on-site.

Permit Holder and Duration

Betteravia Farms, LLC, as the legal owners and applicant, request an ITP to authorize the incidental take of the CTS, for a period of 10 years commencing upon the date of approval by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). A 10-year permit period is requested to capture the time necessary to complete the proposed project, to carry out the proposed measures to conserve the species, and to incorporate flexibility into the schedule for these activities in the event unforeseen circumstances arise (e.g., economic factors). Betteravia Farms, LLC is requesting this permit pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). As the applicants; they would become the permittees of the ITP, if issued.

Covered Lands

The land to be covered in this HCP comprises approximately 6.5 acres of a parcel located at 3650 State Route (SR) 1 (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 113-240-009]) in the Santa Maria area within unincorporated Santa Barbara County. The proposed action and biological study area (BSA) analyzed is located in an unincorporated area of Santa Barbara County adjacent to SR 1 at Latitude 34°53'14.94"N, Longitude 120°30'41.89"W (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The site is depicted on the Guadalupe, California United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle, and is located within Sections 9N-35W-1 and 9N-34W-6, Township 11 North, and Range 34 West (San Bernardino Base Meridian). Covered lands also include areas associated with the extension of a new sewer line from the development area, primarily within existing agricultural roads, and under Orcutt Creek to the Laguna County Sanitation District (LCSD) facilities. The sewer line extension would run from the housing area, down (and within) the existing access drive and would include a lift station within the existing paved access drive, just

Betteravia Farms, LLC 2

Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project Final Draft Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the California Tiger Salamander

Betteravia Farms, LLC 3

Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project Final Draft Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the California Tiger Salamander

Betteravia Farms, LLC 4

Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project Final Draft Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the California Tiger Salamander south of the Highway 1 right-of-way. After crossing Highway 1, the private force main sewer line would run eastward, parallel to Highway 1 within an existing dirt farm road, then turn north within the agricultural field, to run along an existing agricultural drainage ditch to Dutard Road. At Dutard Road, the sewer line would continue east toward LCSD. The sewer line would then cross under Orcutt Creek to the LCSD facility for treatment.

In addition, covered lands also include lands that will be utilized for mitigation for loss of CTS habitat. For this project, mitigation will occur in an easement that incorporates land on APN 113-240-009 and APN 113-230-005. APN 113-240-009 is located at 3650 SR1 and APN 113-230- 005 is located at 4140 Black Road which are both in the Santa Maria area within unincorporated Santa Barbara County. The mitigation lands are depicted on the Guadalupe and Santa Maria, California USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles.

Covered Species

The species proposed to be covered in this HCP is the federally endangered California tiger salamander – Santa Barbara County DPS.

Regulatory Framework

Federal Endangered Species Act

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

In order to comply with Federal law, private individuals and State and local or other entities who propose an action that is likely to result in the take of federally listed animal species and for which there is no Federal nexus, may comply with the Act by applying for, and receiving, an incidental take permit pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Such permits are issued by the USFWS when take is not the intention of, and is incidental to, otherwise legal activities. The application for an incidental take permit must be accompanied by a habitat conservation plan.

Betteravia Farms, LLC 5

Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project Final Draft Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the California Tiger Salamander

The regulatory standard under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act requires that the effects of authorized incidental take be minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. Under section 10(a)(1)(B), a proposed action also must not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the species in the wild. Adequate funding of identified actions to minimize and mitigate impacts must also be ensured.

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

Incidental Take Permit Process

The process for obtaining an ITP has three primary phases: (1) development of the HCP; (2) processing of the permit; and (3) post-issuance compliance. During development of the HCP, the project applicant prepares a plan that integrates the proposed project or action with protection of listed species. Every HCP submitted in support of an incidental take permit application must include the following information: (1) those impacts likely to result from the proposed taking of the species for which permit coverage is requested; (2) measures that will be implemented to monitor, minimize, and mitigate impacts; funding that will be made available to undertake such measures; and procedures to deal with unforeseen circumstances; (3) alternatives to the proposed action that would not result in take; and (4) any additional measures USFWS may require as necessary or appropriate for purposes of the plan.

The HCP development phase concludes and the permit processing phase begins when a complete application package is submitted to the appropriate permit-issuing office. A complete application package for a private citizen consists of: (1) an HCP; (2) a permit application; and (3) a $100 fee from the applicant. The USFWS publishes a Notice of Availability of the HCP package in the Federal Register (FR) to allow for public comment. The USFWS also prepares an Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Opinion and a Set of Findings, which evaluates the Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit application as in the context of permit issuance criteria (see below). Given that this project is being evaluated for processing as a low-effect HCP, compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) consists of a Categorical Exclusion, thereby requiring the USFWS to prepare an Environmental Action Statement. A Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit is issued upon a determination by the USFWS that all requirements for permit issuance have been met. Statutory criteria for issuance of the permit specify that: (1) the taking will be incidental; (2) the impacts of incidental take will be minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable; (3) the taking will not Betteravia Farms, LLC 6

Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project Final Draft Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the California Tiger Salamander appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the species in the wild; (4) the applicant will provide additional measures that the USFWS requires as being necessary or appropriate; and (5) the USFWS has received assurances, as may be required, that the HCP will be implemented. Notification to the public regarding permit issuance is through the publication of a notice in the FR.

During the post-issuance phase, the permittee(s) and any other responsible entities are responsible for implementing the HCP in accordance with the terms and conditions of the ITP. The USFWS monitors permittee(s) compliance with the HCP as well as its long-term progress and success.

National Environmental Policy Act

The purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is two-fold: (1) to ensure that Federal agencies examine environmental impacts of their actions (in this case deciding whether to issue an ITP); and (2) to ensure public participation. The NEPA serves as an analytical tool to address direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed project alternatives to help the USFWS decide whether to issue an ITP. Compliance with the NEPA is required of the USFWS for each HCP as part of the ITP application process. For this project, given that it is being evaluated for a low-effect HCP, NEPA compliance consists of a Categorical Exclusion.

National Historic Preservation Act

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

Other Relevant Laws and Regulations

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

 California Environmental Quality Act: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is a state statute that is generally analogous to NEPA on the Federal level in requiring the completion of an environmental review for projects that may impact environmental Betteravia Farms, LLC 7

Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project Final Draft Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the California Tiger Salamander

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

Betteravia Farms, LLC 8

Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project Final Draft Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the California Tiger Salamander

Section 2 Project Description and Covered Activities

Project Description

The proposed action includes construction of a farm labor camp (site plans are included as Appendix A). The farm labor camp would consist of 30 bunk houses (each 1,443 sq. ft. in size and functioning as sleeping quarters and bathing facilities for 20 laborers) and 3 common area structures (each 2,052 sq. ft. in size and functioning as common cooking and laundry areas for 200 laborers). The total square footage of the proposed structures would be 49,446 sq. ft. The farm labor camp structures would be constructed in 3 phases, with each phase providing housing for 200 farmworkers in 10 bunk houses and 1 common area cooking/laundry structure. While the project could accommodate a maximum of 600 workers upon buildout of all three project phases, the average occupancy would vary throughout the year, depending on seasonal farm labor needs. On an annual basis, the reasonable average daily occupancy would be approximately 450 workers (D Swenk phone call and email, 2/10/16).

Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for each phase of construction, the applicant will demonstrate to Planning & Development staff that the further build-out of the project is justified by a commensurate labor shortage.

The applicant would provide all necessary transportation, via buses and vans, for residents of the labor camp, including transportation to and from the work sites and for private and recreational purposes; residents of the labor camp would not have private vehicles, although there could be vehicles associated with visitors. There will be two full-time employees (manager and maintenance worker) and approximately six cleaning employees. The full-time maintenance worker will be responsible for routine maintenance and repairs.

The zoning ordinance requires 154 parking spaces:

 Proposed Farm Worker Housing: 154 spaces (Sec. 35.36.050 Dormitories, etc.: 1 space/4 beds, 1 space/2 employees – 600 beds, 8 employees)  Existing Greenhouse Project: 1 space (Sec. 35.36.040 Greenhouses: 2 spaces per acre of land in this use)

The applicant is requesting a modification under the Conditional Use Permit to reduce the Land Use and Development Code (LUDC) parking requirement for the development to 50 parking spaces (2 are handicap accessible), as transportation will be provided for the workers (mandatory requirement of the H-2A guest worker program) and the workers will not have their own vehicles.

A perimeter wall and an unenclosed water station equipment area are proposed as part of the hardscaping and landscaping improvements associated with the project. The project would

Betteravia Farms, LLC 9

Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project Final Draft Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the California Tiger Salamander require 3,119 cubic yards of cut and 3,853 cubic yards of fill, balanced onsite. No trees would be removed.

Annexation to LCSD is proposed for treatment of project wastewater. This involves extension of a new sewer line from the proposed development area, primarily within existing agricultural roads, and under Orcutt Creek to the LCSD facilities. The sewer line extension would run from the housing area, down (and within) the existing access drive and would include a lift station within the existing paved access drive, just south of the Highway 1 right-of-way. After crossing Highway 1, the private force main sewer line would run eastward, parallel to Highway 1 within an existing dirt farm road, then turn north within the agricultural field, to run along an existing agricultural drainage ditch to Dutard Road. At Dutard Road, the sewer line would continue east toward LCSD. The sewer line would be jack and bore under Orcutt Creek to the LCSD facility for treatment.

A domestic water system is proposed under a companion CUP to serve the farm labor camp using an existing, private, onsite water well. Environmental Health Services has determined that the existing onsite well is expected to meet minimum water quality or quantity requirements. However, the applicant proposes to drill a new water well onsite, subject to project approval, which would have the capacity to meet more than minimum water quality/quantity requirements. Access would continue to be provided by a driveway on the south side of Highway 1.The property is enrolled in the County’s Agricultural Preserve program, under contract #81-AP-013A.

Covered Activities

The proposed covered activities that are likely to result in take of California tiger salamander include activities that may result in short-term and long-term impacts as well as direct and indirect impacts as follows.

Construction Related Activities

Temporary Impacts

 Trenching for the installation of the sewer line  Jack and bore for the installation of sewer line under Orcutt Creek  Equipment staging and active construction  Exclusionary fencing during the construction phase

Permanent Impacts

 Vegetation clearing and site preparation (e.g., grading)  Installation of the foundations for the proposed structures and other hardscape features such as a driveways, parking, perimeter wall, etc.

Betteravia Farms, LLC 10

Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project Final Draft Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the California Tiger Salamander

 Landscaping  Installation of a new water well

Operations and Maintenance Related Activities

 Maintenance of structures and facilities  Vehicular traffic  Increased human activity

Betteravia Farms, LLC 11

Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project Final Draft Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the California Tiger Salamander

Section 3 Environmental Setting and Covered Species

Environmental Setting

Climate

The regional climate is mild and typifies a Mediterranean coastal climate throughout the year that is characterized by long, dry summers and short, wet winters. Fog is common during the late spring and summer months and moderate summer temperatures. Temperatures range from 50 degrees Fahrenheit to 74 degrees Fahrenheit during the summer, with an average of 62 degrees Fahrenheit, and from 40 degrees Fahrenheit to 64 degrees Fahrenheit during the winter months, with an average temperature of 52 degrees Fahrenheit. On average the warmest month is September and the coolest month is January. The average annual precipitation in Santa Maria is 13 inches with most of the precipitation occurring from November to April and highest rainfall occurring in February (Western Regional Climate Center [WRCC], 2016).

Topography/Geology

The largely disturbed site consists of pasture for cattle and row crop agriculture. Anthropogenic manipulated and maintained ruderal and developed habitat types in the vicinity of the site include gravel/paved roadways, unpaved roadside shoulders, drainage ditches, a wastewater treatment plant, and an agricultural storage area. The northern end of the site is bisected by Orcutt Creek which runs above the proposed sewage alignment. Underlying soils consist of Betteravia loamy sand, dark variant (5 to 15 percent slopes, eroded), Chamise shaly loam (9-15 percent slopes), Corralitos sand (2-15 percent slopes), Corralitos loamy sand (0-2 percent slopes), and Tierra loam (15-30 percent slopes, eroded), (United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1984). The topography is generally flat with onsite elevations ranging from 140 to 165 feet above mean sea level (msl).

Hydrology/Streams, Rivers, Drainages

The majority of the watershed in which the project site occurs has been heavily altered through past ranchland operations and agricultural activities. Two unnamed ephemeral drainages run along the southern and eastern boundary of the site. Another third drainage occurs in a maintained agricultural ditch that is routed along the edge of an agricultural field and road. Natural surface waters in their native state are limited to Orcutt Creek, which bisects the northern end of the site. These features in addition to Orcutt Creek are the only aquatic features within the proposed project site.

The project site does not contain ponds or basins; however, they do occur within 1.24 miles (relevant to CTS per the site assessment protocol [USFWS, 2003]) of the site as indicated by aerial imagery. In general, these aquatic features consist of man-made ponds associated with

Betteravia Farms, LLC 12

Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project Final Draft Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the California Tiger Salamander the Laguna County Sanitation District wastewater treatment plant, agricultural ponds, man- made storm-water basins or natural ponds and other impoundments. These features vary in size and depth but are typically up to three feet or more in depth. No emergent vegetation was observed in any of the ponds associated with the wastewater treatment plant. Due to private land access restrictions, no other ponds in the general vicinity were evaluated for emergent vegetation.

One depressional feature occurs adjacent to the project driveway that intersects State Route (SR) 1. This pond corresponds to GUAD-5, a potential CTS breeding pond.

An unnamed ephemeral drainage begins on the southern end of site and flows east. Within the project site, the drainage begins as a swale and develops an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) as it flows downstream in an easterly direction prior to its confluence with a northerly flowing drainage. At the time of the site visit, the drainages were dry and had a defined OHWM. The substrate consisted of loamy sand and the banks were steep and highly eroded. The average distance between the top of each bank is approximately eight feet.

An agricultural ditch is located north of SR 1 and runs in a northerly direction parallel to existing agricultural access roads prior to its confluence with Orcutt Creek, north of the site. At the time of the site visit, the ditch was dry and had a defined OHWM. The substrate consisted of loamy sand and the banks were steep and eroded. The average distance between the top of each bank is approximately five feet.

Orcutt Creek runs in a northerly direction through the proposed sewer line route within the northern portion of the site. At the time of the site visit, the creek contained water and had a defined OHWM. The substrate consisted of loamy sand and the banks contained riparian vegetation. The average distance between the top of each bank is approximately three feet.

Existing and Surrounding Land Uses

The disturbed site is approximately 6.3 acres in size which includes a gravel road extending southwest to the ranch grounds from SR 1 to a gravel yard area which includes several ranch buildings including housing, storage and maintenance facilities. Adjacent to and southwest of the project site, the land use is consistent with open rangelands used for livestock grazing. The land use changes on the northeast side of SR 1 to intensified agriculture in the form of row crops. Further to the northeast is the LCSD wastewater reclamation plant.

Covered Species

The subject of this LEHCP is the federally Endangered (and state Threatened) CTS (Santa Barbara County DPS). This section summarizes their status, ecology, range, and distribution in the vicinity of the proposed project site.

Betteravia Farms, LLC 13

Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project Final Draft Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the California Tiger Salamander

Status and Distribution of the California Tiger Salamander

The CTS is endemic to California and consists of three Distinct Population Segments (DPSs): the Santa Barbara County DPS, the Sonoma County DPS, and the Central DPS. It occurs in the Coast Ranges from Sonoma to Santa Barbara counties and in the Central Valley from Sacramento to Tulare counties. The CTS is a is a federally -listed lowland species found primarily in grasslands and low foothill and oak woodland habitats located within approximately 1.24 miles of breeding pools.

The final rule on federally designated critical habitat for the CTS lists the following Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) for CTS as defined in Designation of Critical Habitat for the California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense) In Santa Barbara County; Final Rule published on November 24, 2004:

1. Standing bodies of fresh water, including natural and man-made (e.g., stock) ponds, vernal pools, and dune ponds, and other ephemeral or permanent water bodies that typically become inundated during winter rains and hold water for a sufficient length of time (i.e., 12 weeks) necessary for the species to complete the aquatic portion of its life cycle.

2. Barrier-free uplands adjacent to breeding ponds that contain small mammal burrows. Small mammals are essential in creating the underground habitat that adult California tiger salamanders depend upon for food, shelter, and protection from the elements and predation.

3. Upland areas between breeding locations (PCE 1) and areas with small mammal burrows (PCE 2) that allow for dispersal among such sites.

California Tiger Salamander Species Taxonomy and Description

The CTS belongs to the phylum Chordata, class Amphibia, order Caudata, family Ambystomatidae, genus Ambystoma, and species californiense. There are six genetically and geographically coherent sets of CTS populations. Four of the six sets show limited genetic intermixing where they share boundaries. The Sonoma County and Santa Barbara County populations are genetically distinct and have been geographically isolated from other populations for about a million years. Each may constitute a unique species (Shaffer, 2004). Adult CTS range from 3 to 5 inches long from snout-to-vent, with a total length of 5.9 to 8.5 inches. CTS is a large stout salamander with a short rounded head, blunt snout, small protuberant eyes, and a tail flattened from side to side to facilitate swimming. They are black with large yellow spots and bars, which may or may not be present along the middle of the back. South coast individuals may have few spots and a cream band on the lower sides. Young Larvae are yellowish gray with broad caudal fins that extend well onto the back, broad flat heads, and bushy gills.

Betteravia Farms, LLC 14

Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project Final Draft Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the California Tiger Salamander

California Tiger Salamander Natural History

CTS breed in long-lasting rain pools (e.g., seasonal ponds, vernal pools, slow-moving streams) that are often turbid, and occasionally in permanent ponds lacking fish predators. During the non-breeding season, adults occur in upland habitats and occupy California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) or pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) burrows. They migrate nocturnally to aquatic sites to breed during relatively warm winter or spring rains. Females lay eggs and attach them to underwater vegetation including grass stems, leaves, and twigs, and sometimes to objects such as metal wire. Eggs are typically laid singly or in groups of 2 to 4. Eggs hatch in 2 to 4 weeks and the larval stage last 4 to 5 months. Larvae undergo metamorphosis during the summer, peaking from mid-June to mid-July. Juveniles emigrate at night from the drying pools to upland refuge sites, such as rodent burrows and cracks in the soil. Following breeding, adults move 9 to 518 ft (3 to 158 m) away from breeding ponds within the first night (Loredo et al., 1996; Trenham, 2001). Most salamanders continue to move to different burrow systems further from the pond over the next one to four months, with an average distance of 374 ft (114 m) from the pond (Trenham, 2001). Trenham and Shaffer (2005) estimated that conserving upland habitats within 2,200 ft (671 m) of breeding ponds would protect 95 percent of CTS at their study location in Solano County.

Distribution of the California Tiger Salamander on the Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project Site

The CTS that occur in the regional vicinity of the project site belong to the Santa Barbara DPS. No CTS occurrences have been documented on the proposed project site; however, the site is located within the potential range of CTS in Santa Barbara County based upon the USFWS map of CTS range and breeding ponds (2010). The project site is also located within federally designated Critical Habitat for the CTS (Critical Habitat Unit 1) (Figure 4).

Seven (7) CTS occurrences documented by the CNDDB have been recorded within 3.1 miles (relevant to CTS per the habitat assessment protocol [USFWS, 2003]) of the BSA (CDFW, 2016) (Refer to Figure 5 of Appendix A). The following are descriptions of the locations of these occurrences:

1. Occurrence #333: This occurrence is located approximately 0.5 mile northwest of the intersection of Airox Road and Lompoc-Casmalia Road, four miles northeast of Casmalia. The occurrence consists of observations of larvae in a pool located approximately 1,900 feet east of the Pacific Railroad tracks. The habitat consists of a farm pond surrounded by open grassland. The pool had a muddy bottom, was approximately 3.5 feet deep, and contained small amounts of aquatic vegetation.

2. Occurrence #334: This occurrence is located approximately 0.3 mile northwest of the intersection of Lompoc-Casmalia Road and Pacific Railroad tracks, 3.5 miles north of Casmalia. The occurrence consists of observations of larvae in a farm pond surrounded

Betteravia Farms, LLC 15

Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project Final Draft Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the California Tiger Salamander

by open grassland. The pool had a muddy bottom, was approximately 3.5 feet deep, with sparse aquatic vegetation.

3. Occurrence #335: This occurrence is located approximately 0.3 mile east of the intersection of Dutard Road and Black Road, west of the Santa Maria Airport. The occurrence consists of observations of larvae within a vernal pool surrounded by relatively undisturbed, open grassland.

4. Occurrence #527: This occurrence is located on the south side of the Santa Maria Airport. The occurrence consists of observations of larvae within two vernal pools; surrounded by non-native grassland, coastal sage/scrub chaparral, & scattered oaks.

5. Occurrence #528: This occurrence is located in the southwest corner of Santa Maria Airport. The occurrence consists of detection of a juvenile CTS at a marshy pool; surrounded by non-native grassland. The pool area contained willows at the west end and a broad, marshy area to the east with spikerush.

6. Occurrence #977: This occurrence is located at the Rancho Maria Golf Club approximately one mile east of the State Route 1 from the Black Road intersection. The occurrence consists of detection of an adult CTS at the golf course.

7. Occurrence #1169: This occurrence is located in the vicinity of Orcutt Creek at the Laguna County Sanitation District wastewater treatment facility approximately 1 mile north northwest of Black Road at State Route 1. The occurrence consists of detection of an adult CTS on the west side of wastewater treatment facility within ruderal vegetation adjacent to cultivated agriculture.

Seven (7) known CTS breeding pools have been recorded within 1.24 miles of the project area (USFWS, 2010 and USFWS, 2015; Figure 5 Appendix A) and include the following: GUAD-3, SAMA-2, SAMA-3, GUAD-6, GUAD-4, GUAD-1 and GUAD-2. GUAD-6 is the closest known breeding pool and is located approximately 90 feet south of the portion of the project site which contains the proposed sewer line.

Four (4) potential CTS breeding pools identified by the USFWS have also been recorded within 1.24 miles of the project area (USFWS, 2010 and USFWS, 2015; Figure 5 Appendix A) and include the following: GUAD-9, GUAD-11, GUAD-5 and GUAD-7. GUAD-5 is located in the northwest portion of the project site parallel to SR 1.

Considering the project site contains a potential CTS breeding pond (GUAD-5) and is within about 90 feet of a known breeding pond (GUAD-6) (USFWS, 2010; USFWS, 2015) there is a moderate to high probability of CTS occurring within the BSA. The proposed project footprint is comprised of already disturbed/developed land that is generally low quality and only contains one small, isolated patch of small mammal burrows (Refer to Figure 3 Appendix A). Due to the close proximity of the project footprint to known and potential breeding ponds, CTS could Betteravia Farms, LLC 16

Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project Final Draft Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the California Tiger Salamander occur transiently within project site as they make upland movements utilizing the project site as largely dispersal habitat. The CTS could also utilize the small mammal burrow complex or the small mammal burrows adjacent to the project footprint (i.e., along the existing fence line). Observations of the CTS within the project footprint would likely be limited to when conditions are suitable for above ground movements (e.g., during rain events) during the breeding season and when CTS are moving from aquatic habitat to upland habitat upon completion of metamorphosis. That said, the CTS could utilize the small mammal burrows within and adjacent to the project footprint during the non-breeding season.

Betteravia Farms, LLC 17

Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project Final Draft Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the California Tiger Salamander

Section 4 Biological Impacts and Take Assessment

Direct and Indirect Biological Impacts to California Tiger Salamander

Potential direct impacts to CTS individuals could occur if they are present within the project area during implementation as they are moving from surrounding suitable upland habitat to breeding ponds. The greatest potential for injury would occur when the species is migrating to or from a breeding pond during specific climatic conditions (e.g., at night during rain events). If CTS are migrating through the site, impacts could occur through collisions with equipment or vehicle traffic during both the construction and operational phases of the project. The implementation of exclusionary fencing, included as a conservation measure, which would be utilized as part of the project to prevent direct mortality during construction, may result in harassment if the fence hinders the ability of the CTS to utilize straight line routes if they attempt to disperse or migrate through the project site during these movement events. In addition, direct impacts from construction to CTS could occur if the CTS were to occupy burrows found on-site and these burrows were destroyed. Careful excavation of the burrows and relocation of CTS encountered by a qualified biologist, prior to destruction of the burrow complex would minimize impacts to the CTS, but would entail minor harassment to the CTS if found.

Indirect impacts (i.e., those impacts that may occur at a different time than the direct impacts but still as a result of project implementation) to CTS may include increased potential for foot and vehicular traffic. Impacts associated with the jack and bore will occur outside Orcutt Creek and its riparian corridor, indirect impacts to water quality may occur are not anticipated as no drilling muds are utilized.

Anticipated Take of California Tiger Salamander

The anticipated take of CTS resulting from implementation of the covered activities described in Section 2.2 is expected to be low as the number of animals subject to incidental take is expected to be low compared to the population of the DPS. Take would be in the form of capture and relocation of individual animals out of harm’s way prior to construction within the project site, if present. Take in the form of harassment could also occur if individuals occupying adjacent suitable habitat come into contact with the exclusionary fencing while attempting to disperse onto the project during construction of the project and the fence hinders the CTS ability to traverse upland habitat.

Impacts to California Tiger Salamander Critical Habitat

Impacts to aquatic features within CTS critical habitat Unit 1: Western Santa Maria/Orcutt are not expected (PCE-1). No aquatic habitat occurs within the proposed project areas that would be impacted and no impacts are expected.

Betteravia Farms, LLC 18

Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project Final Draft Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the California Tiger Salamander

Direct impacts would result in the loss of upland refuge (namely the burrow complex on-site) and dispersal habitat corresponding to PCEs 2 and 3, respectively, from construction of the employee housing. In addition, temporary impacts to PCE 2 from construction of the proposed sewer line would occur as no small mammal burrows occur along the sewer line alignment.

Cumulative Impacts to California Tiger Salamander

In contrast with the analysis of cumulative impacts under section 7, section 10 of the FESA and HCPs analyze cumulative impacts as incremental impacts of the proposed project or action on the environment when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects/actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. The geographic area for the analysis should be defined by the manifestation of direct or indirect impacts as a result of covered activities. Cumulative impacts under section 10 of the FESA can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. For the proposed project, cumulative impacts includes analysis of the development of the farm labor housing units and sewer line that alone have minor impacts; however, collectively considered with all known projects or activities within the metapopulation such as those proposed at the LCSD and Santa Maria airport could adversely affect CTS in a cumulative manner.

The effects of project implementation cumulatively on the persistence of CTS are considered to be low given the small number of small mammal burrows within the project area, and the low quality of the project site due to existing disturbance and development within the project site. Construction and occupation of thirty residential manufactured home units and the boring of the sewer line in an already disturbed and developed area will result in minor cumulative impacts to CTS compared to new development that would occur within the metapopulation within higher quality aquatic and upland habitat. That said the proposed project would contribute to the cumulative loss of dispersal habitat available to the CTS. Take of CTS will be minimized during construction activities through implementation of avoidance and minimization measures and therefore the cumulative impact to individuals is not expected to be significant.

Anticipated Effects of the Taking of California Tiger Salamander

The incidental take of CTS that is anticipated to result from implementation of those actions necessary for the proposed project is considered to be insignificant in terms of the species’ overall survival. The actual number of animals subject to incidental take is expected to be low (up to 5 individuals) (and predominantly in the form of harassment) and the impacts associated with the proposed project are largely associated with dispersing individuals. Approximately 6.5 acres of previously disturbed habitat for the species will be impacted.

Betteravia Farms, LLC 19

Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project Final Draft Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the California Tiger Salamander

Section 5 Conservation Strategy

Biological Goals and Objectives

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

As part of the “Five Point” Policy adopted by the USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service in 2000, HCPs must establish biological goals and objectives (65 FR 35242; June 1, 2000). The purpose of the biological goals is to ensure that the operating conservation program in the HCP is consistent with the conservation and recovery goals established for the species. The goals are also intended to provide to the applicant an understanding of why these actions are necessary. These goals are developed based upon the species’ biology, threats to the species, the potential effects of the covered activities, and the scope of the HCP.

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures

Avoidance Measures

Avoidance measures have been developed to aid in the avoidance of take of CTS that could enter the project site during dispersal events and focuses on the conditions when the CTS are most likely to enter the site as well as focuses on avoidance of indirect effects that could occur.

 The areas of disturbance shall be limited to existing developed areas. All areas adjacent to the disturbance area shall be considered environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs). No project activities including access shall occur within these areas. In addition highly visible orange construction fencing shall be installed at aquatic areas (GUAD-5 and Orcutt Creek) to identify these areas to construction personnel as highly sensitive. The fencing shall be installed such that the bottom edge of the fencing is at least 6-inches above the ground to ensure the fencing does not impede movement of CTS. The fencing shall be removed upon completion of construction.

 Initial ground disturbing activities shall be conducted during dry weather conditions to minimize the potential for encountering CTS.

 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 shall conduct a clearance sweep of work areas prior to the start of work.

 All work shall occur during daylight hours.

Betteravia Farms, LLC 20

Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project Final Draft Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the California Tiger Salamander

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

 Pets shall be prohibited at the construction site.

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

 All vehicle maintenance/fueling/staging shall occur not less than 100 feet from any riparian habitat or water body. Suitable containment procedures shall be implemented to prevent spills. A minimum of one spill kit shall be available at each work location near riparian habitats or water bodies.

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

 Trenches shall be covered or have adequate means of escape (earthen ramps not more than 2:1 slope, wooden boards, etc.).

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

Minimization Measures

These minimization measures have been developed with the intent of reducing the potential of take for CTS that could enter the project site during dispersal events and focuses on the conditions when the CTS are most likely to enter the site.

 Translocation Plan and USFWS-Approved Relocation Site: Prior to initiation of pre- construction surveys, a Translocation Plan shall be submitted to the USFWS for review and approval. The plan will include the methods of translocation of CTS that may be necessary during project implementation and will propose appropriate relocation site(s) for CTS, if found, for USFWS approval. Translocations will be conducted by a USFWS- approved biologist with appropriate necessary permits.

 Pre-construction Survey: As a condition of ITP issuance, Betteravia Farms, or their legal successor in ownership, will retain USFWS-approved biologists (i.e., persons in possession of valid recovery permits for and/or persons with demonstrated experience with CTS) to conduct surveys prior to the initiation of construction or, if phased, prior to the initiation of each phase as a measure to minimize take of the CTS. The objective of pre-construction surveys is to locate as many CTS and other native species as possible and move them out of harm’s way. These surveys will be conducted within two weeks

Betteravia Farms, LLC 21

Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project Final Draft Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the California Tiger Salamander

prior to the start of construction, including exclusion fencing installation, and upon approval of the Translocation Plan described above, and will include full coverage visual surveys of the project site as well as burrow scoping and excavation within work areas. The USFWS-approved biologist(s) will utilize a fiber optic scope or similar device to determine if CTS are present in small mammal burrows. The USFWS-approved biologist(s) will be allowed sufficient time to hand-excavate burrows and relocate CTS to a USFWS-approved relocation site. To ensure that diseases are not conveyed between work sites by the USFWS-approved biologist, the fieldwork code of practice developed by the Declining Amphibian Populations Task Force should be followed at all times. The results of the pre-construction surveys shall be presented as part of HCP reporting requirements.

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

 Worker Environmental Awareness Program: A USFWS-approved biologist knowledgeable about CTS as well as their ecological requirements shall conduct worker environmental awareness program (WEAP) training(s) for all personnel who will work onsite during construction. The WEAP training(s) are intended to inform construction crews, field supervisors, equipment operators, and others working onsite about the status and presence of the species, grading and construction activity restrictions, and the avoidance and minimization measures specified in the HCP.

 Exclusion Fencing: The work area shall be surrounded by a solid temporary exclusion fence (such as silt fence) that shall be buried into the ground and extend at least three feet above the ground and buried to a depth of at least six (6) inches to exclude CTS from entering the work area. The location of the fencing shall be determined by a USFWS-approved biologist. The fencing shall be installed during the dry conditions prior to rain events that may stimulate movement of CTS. The fence shall be inspected daily by any project personnel to assure that it is functioning properly to exclude CTS from the work area. The fence shall remain in place throughout construction and operation or until it is no longer deemed necessary by the USFWS and CDFW. Ingress/egress shall 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). Installation of the exclusion fencing shall be monitored by a USFWS-approved biologist to ensure that it is installed correctly.

 Construction Monitoring: A USFWS-approved biological monitor shall be present during the installation of construction fencing, initial vegetation clearing and grubbing, and earthwork in the form of initial grading and excavation. Any live CTS found during Betteravia Farms, LLC 22

Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project Final Draft Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the California Tiger Salamander

these monitoring events will be captured and relocated to the approved relocation site(s) by an authorized biological monitor. This monitor shall have the authority to order any reasonable measure necessary to avoid the take of CTS and to immediately stop any work or activity that is not in compliance with the conditions set forth in the ITP. The USFWS Ventura Field Office shall be notified of any “stop work” order and the order shall remain in effect until the issue has been resolved. No construction work will be initiated until the biological monitor determines that the work area is clear of CTS.

Mitigation Measures

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

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

 Distance from each known or potential breeding pond within dispersal distance of the site, and  Land-use in the surrounding areas.

For this HCP, the USFWS conducted a model run (utilizing Searcy and Shaffer [2008]). In order to determine the number of reproductive units lost through construction of the project, the model was initially run on the existing structures (there are eight existing structures) found within the project footprint, then ran a second time to include the entire project (which included the eight existing structures). The reproductive value of the first model run for the eight existing structures was subtracted from the second model run of the entire project to calculate the number of reproductive units that would be lost. The project would consequently result in a loss of 14,920 reproductive units as calculated in accordance with Searcy and Shaffer (2008) and therefore, compensatory mitigation is based on the loss of these reproductive units for the CTS.

To compensate for the loss of 14,920 reproductive units, the Applicant is in the process of developing a plan in coordination with the USFWS to establish a conservation easement on applicant-owned land prior to commencing any ground-disturbing activities or any other Betteravia Farms, LLC 23

Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project Final Draft Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the California Tiger Salamander activity that could result in take of CTS. This easement will include the acreage necessary to compensate for the loss of the 14,920 reproductive units. The conservation lands will be protected in perpetuity through the easement. If unable to come to an agreement with the USFWS on the aforementioned easement, the applicant commits to purchase CTS mitigation credits from an approved mitigation bank or provide alternative means of mitigation sufficient to mitigate for the loss of 14,920 reproductive units prior to commencing any ground-disturbing activities or any other activity that could result in take of CTS. This effectively mitigates for the project’s impacts to CTS and its habitat.

Monitoring

Monitoring tracks compliance with the terms and conditions of the HCP and ITP. There are three types of monitoring: (1) compliance monitoring tracks permittee compliance with the requirements specified in the HCP and ITP; (2) effects monitoring tracks the impacts of the covered activities on the covered species; and (3) effectiveness monitoring tracks the progress of the conservation strategy in meeting the HCP’s biological goals and objectives (pre- construction surveys, capture and relocation, etc.).

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

Reporting

Annual reports and a final report will be submitted to the USFWS by December 31 of each year for the duration of the 10-year ITP and will include: (1) a brief summary or list of project activities accomplished during the reporting year (e.g., this includes development/construction activities, and other covered activities); (2) project impacts (e.g., number of acres graded, number of buildings constructed, etc.); (3) a description of any take that occurred for the covered species (includes cause of take, form of take, take amount, location of take and time of day, and deposition of dead or injured individuals); (4) a brief description of conservation strategy implemented; (5) results of monitoring (compliance, effects and effectiveness monitoring) and survey information (if applicable); (6) a description of any changed or unforeseen circumstances that occurred and how they were addressed; (7) all funding expenditures, balance, and accrual; and (8) a description of any minor or major amendments. Preparation and submittal of all reports will be the responsibility of the permittee and will include supporting information in the form of field notes compiled and signed by the USFWS- approved biological monitor(s).

Betteravia Farms, LLC 24

Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project Final Draft Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the California Tiger Salamander

Section 6 Plan Implementation

Changed Circumstances

Section 10 regulations [(69 FR 71723; December 10, 2004; as codified in 50 CFR 17.22(b)(2) and 17.32(b)(2)] require that a HCP specifies the procedures to be used for dealing with changed and unforeseen circumstances that may arise during implementation of the HCP. In addition, the HCP No Surprises Rule [50 CFR 17.22 (b)(5) and 17.32 (b)(5)] describes the obligations of the permittee and the USFWS. The purpose of the No Surprises Rule is to provide assurance to the non-Federal landowners participating in habitat conservation planning under the FESA 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 are defined in 50 CFR 17.3 as changes in circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by a HCP that can reasonably be anticipated by plan developers and the USFWS and for which contingency plans can be prepared (e.g., the new listing of species, a fire, or other natural catastrophic event in areas prone to such event). If additional conservation and mitigation measures are deemed necessary to respond to changed circumstances and these additional measures were already provided for in the plan’s operating conservation program (e.g., the conservation management activities or mitigation measures expressly agreed to in the HCP), then the permittee will implement those measures as specified in the plan. However, if additional conservation management and mitigation measures are deemed necessary to respond to changed circumstances and such measures were not provided for in the plan’s operating conservation program, the USFWS will not require these additional measures absent the consent of the permittee, provided that the HCP is being “properly implemented” (properly implemented means the commitments and the provisions of the HCP and the ITP have been or are fully implemented).

Two changed circumstances have been identified for the Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project HCP: (1) presence of a newly listed species; and (2) presence of a newly discovered listed species.

Newly Listed Species

If a species that is not covered by the HCP, but may be affected by activities covered by the HCP is discovered onsite or listed under the FESA during the term of the ITP, the permit will be re- evaluated by the USFWS. Based upon the results of this review, covered activities may be modified to ensure that they are not likely to jeopardize or result in take of this species or to adversely modify its critical habitat. The permittee will implement those modifications to covered activities identified by the USFWS as necessary to avoid the likelihood of jeopardy to or take of the newly listed species and/or of adverse modification to designated critical habitat. Betteravia Farms, or their legal successor(s) in ownership, will continue to implement such modifications until such time as the permittee has applied for and the USFWS has approved an Betteravia Farms, LLC 25

Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project Final Draft Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the California Tiger Salamander amendment of the Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit, in accordance with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, to cover the newly listed species or until the USFWS notifies the permittee in writing that the modifications to the HCP covered activities are no longer required to avoid the likelihood of jeopardy of the newly listed species and/or the adverse modification of newly designated critical habitat.

Newly Discovered Listed Species

In the event that one or more other already federally listed species is discovered on the project site during the term of the ITP, the permittee will cease covered activities that are likely to result in take and work with the USFWS to develop a permit amendment to address said species. For this particular project, it is extremely unlikely that any other federally listed species will be discovered at the project site due to the small size and information on federally listed species in the surrounding area and on-site.

Unforeseen Circumstances

Unforeseen circumstances are defined in 50 CFR 17.3 as changes in circumstances that affect a species or geographic area covered by the HCP that could not reasonably be anticipated by plan developers and the USFWS at the time of the HCP’s negotiation and development and that result in a substantial and adverse change in status of the covered species. The purpose of the No Surprises Rule is to provide assurances to non-Federal landowners participating in habitat conservation planning under the FESA 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.

In case of an unforeseen event, the permittee shall immediately notify the USFWS personnel that have functioned as the principal contacts for the proposed project. In determining whether such an event constitutes an unforeseen circumstance, the USFWS shall consider, but not be limited to, the following factors: (1) size of the current range of the affected species; (2) percentage of range adversely affected by the HCP; (3) percentage of range conserved by the HCP; (4) ecological significance of that portion of the range affected by the HCP; (5) level of knowledge about the affected species and the degree of specificity of the species’ conservation program under the HCP; and (6) 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 additional conservation and mitigation measures are necessary to respond to the unforeseen circumstances where the HCP is being properly implemented, 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 already set-aside in the HCP’s operating conservation program. Additional conservation and mitigation measures shall involve the commitment of additional land or financial compensation or restrictions on the use of land or other natural Betteravia Farms, LLC 26

Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project Final Draft Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the California Tiger Salamander resources otherwise available for development or use under original terms of the HCP only with the consent of the permittee.

Amendments

Minor Amendments

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

Major Amendments

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

Permit Suspension or Revocation

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

Permit Renewal

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

Betteravia Farms, LLC 27

Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project Final Draft Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the California Tiger Salamander

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 Betteravia Farms files a renewal request and the request is on file with the issuing USFWS office at least 30 days prior to the permit expiration date, the permit shall remain valid while the renewal is being processed. However, Betteravia Farms may not take listed species beyond the quantity authorized by the original permit. If Betteravia Farms fails to file a renewal request within 30 days prior to the permit expiration date, the permit shall become invalid upon expiration. Betteravia Farms must have complied with all annual reporting requirements to qualify for a permit renewal.

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

Permit Transfer

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

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

Betteravia Farms, LLC 28

Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project Final Draft Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the California Tiger Salamander

Section 7 Funding

HCP Implementation Costs

Table 1 below identifies all costs associated with implementing this HCP, including the avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures (includes construction monitoring), reporting, and changed circumstances. These costs are represented in the form of one-time, re-occurring (e.g., annual), and total costs.

Table 1. Implementation Costs Item/Activity Unit Cost One-Time Re-occurring Total Cost Costs Avoidance and Minimization Measures Translocation Plan $1000 -- -- $1000 Pre-construction Survey $2000 $2000 -- $2000 Capture and Relocation $600 -- up to 3 events $1800 Worker Environmental Awareness up to 2 events $600 $300 -- Program (materials and presentation) Environmentally Sensitive Area $1000 $1000 $1000 Fencing Exclusion Fencing $5000 $5000 -- $5000 Weather Related Pre-activity Surveys $300/day up to 20 $6000 events Construction Monitoring $1000/day -- up to 30 $30000 events Subtotal $47,400

Mitigation Conservation Easement $150,000 $150,000 -- $150000 Subtotal $150,000

Changed Circumstances To Be Determined $5000 $5000 -- $5000 Subtotal $5000

Reporting Annual Report $1000 -- 9 events $9000 Final Report $2500 $2500 -- $2500 Subtotal $11,500 GRAND TOTAL $213,900

Funding Source

Betteravia Farms, as permittees, will be responsible for the full cost of implementing the minimization and mitigation measures as described in section 5, and those changed circumstances described in section 6, of this section. The permittees understand that failure to provide adequate funding and/or failure to implement the terms of this HCP in full could result in temporary permit suspension or permit revocation.

Betteravia Farms, LLC 29

Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project Final Draft Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the California Tiger Salamander

Section 8 Alternatives

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

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

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, an ITP for the Farm Employee Housing project would not be issued. As such, the facility could not be built and the preservation of suitable upland habitat would not be made to positively affect recovery actions for the CTS. The site is currently being utilized as an agricultural staging area; the no build alternative would not meet the expected labor needs of the permittee’s agricultural operations. Due to facility needs by the permittee and the fact that the proposed project would result in preservation of CTS habitat in perpetuity, the No Action Alternative has been rejected.

Project Redesign Alternative

This alternative would involve design of a project that would reduce take of the CTS. This alternative was not selected due to the small size proposed project and the condition of the project site. A reduction or redesign of the project footprint would not meet the applicants’ needs and would not significantly reduce impacts to the CTS such that there would be a greater benefit to the species. Redesigning the project within the already disturbed footprint would not reduce or avoid take compared to the proposed project. For these reasons, the project redesign alternative has been rejected.

Betteravia Farms, LLC 30

Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project Final Draft Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the California Tiger Salamander

Section 9 Literature Cited

Alvarez, J., M. Shea, J. Wilcox, M. Allaback, S Foster, G. Padgett-Flohr and J. Haire. 2013. Sympatry in California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog breeding habitat within their overlapping range. California Fish and Game. 99(1):42-48.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016. California Natural Diversity Database, via Rarefind 5.

Loredo, I., D. Van Vuren, and M.L. Morrison. 1996. Habitat Use and Migration Behavior of the California Tiger Salamander. Journal of Herpetology 30: 282-285.

Searcy, Christopher A. and H. Bradley Shaffer. 2008. Calculating Biologically Accurate Mitigation Credits: Insights from the California tiger Salamander. Conservation Biology 22(4): 997- 1005.

Trenham, P.C. 2001. Terrestrial Habitat Use by Adult Ambystoma californiense. Journal of Herpetology 35: 343-346.

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

United States Department of Agricultural, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2016. Web Soil Survey. Available at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/

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.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) in Santa Barbara County; Final Rule. 69 FR 68568 68609.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. California Tiger Salamander Habitat Map.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Draft recovery plan for the Santa Barbara County Distinct Population Segment of the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Ventura, California. vi + 76 pp.

Western Regional Climate Center. 2016. Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary: New Cuyama Fire Station Cooperative Weather Station #046154-6, California. At: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu

Betteravia Farms, LLC 31

Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project Final Draft Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the California Tiger Salamander

APPENDICES

Appendix A – California Tiger Salamander Habitat Assessment

Betteravia Farms, LLC 32

Betteravia Farms Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project

California Tiger Salamander and California Red- legged Frog Habitat Assessment

This page intentionally left blank.

CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER AND CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG HABITAT ASSESSMENT

CURLETTI FARM EMPLOYEE HOUSING PROJECT SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

Prepared for: Betteravia Farms 1850 W. Stowell Road Santa Maria, California 93456

Prepared by: Rincon Consultants, Inc. 1530 Monterey Street, Suite D San Luis Obispo, California 93401

August 2016

Rincon Consultants, Inc. August 2016. California Tiger Salamander and California Red-legged Frog Habitat Assessment, Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project. Santa Barbara County, California. Prepared for Betteravia Farms. 30+ pgs.

Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project California Tiger Salamander and California Red-legged Frog Habitat Assessment

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1 SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION ...... 2 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND AREA DESCRIPTION ...... 2 1.2 LIFE HISTORY AND STATUS ...... 2 1.2.1 CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER ...... 2 1.2.2 CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG ...... 7 SECTION 2 – METHODOLOGY ...... 9 2.1 CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER ...... 9 2.1.1 DATABASE AND LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 9 2.1.2 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY METHODOLOGY ...... 9 2.2 CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG ...... 10 2.2.1 DATABASE AND LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 10 2.2.2 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY METHODOLOGY ...... 11 SECTION 3 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...... 12 3.1 HABITAT TYPES ...... 12 3.1.1 TERRESTRIAL HABITATS ...... 12 3.1.2 AQUATIC HABITATS ...... 14 SECTION 4 – RESULTS ...... 16 4.1 CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER ...... 16 4.1.1 CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER RANGE AND CRITICAL HABITAT ...... 16 4.1.2 KNOWN CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER OCCURRENCES ...... 16 4.1.3 HABITAT QUALITY ...... 19 4.2 CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG ...... 21 4.2.1 CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG RANGE AND CRITICAL HABITAT ...... 21 4.2.2 KNOWN CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG OCCURRENCES ...... 21 4.2.3 HABITAT QUALITY ...... 21 SECTION 5 – CONCLUSIONS ...... 27 5.1 CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER ...... 27 5.2 CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG ...... 27 SECTION 6 – REFERENCES ...... 28 SECTION 7 – LIST OF PREPARERS ...... 30

FIGURES

Figure 1. Project Location ...... 3

Betteravia Farms

i Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project California Tiger Salamander and California Red-legged Frog Habitat Assessment

Figure 2. Biological Study Area ...... 4 Figure 3. Natural Communities ...... 13 Figure 4. California Tiger Salamander and California Red-legged Frog Critical Habitat ...... 17 Figure 5. Known California Salamander Localities Within 3.1 miles As Well As Known and Potential Breeding Pools and Other Aquatic Habitats within 1.24 miles ...... 18 Figure 6. California Tiger Salamander Regional Upland Habitat Quality ...... 20 Figure 7. California Tiger Salamander Upland Habitat Quality within the BSA ...... 22 Figure 8. Known California Red-legged Frog Localities and Aquatic Habitats within 1 Mile ..... 23 Figure 9. California Red-legged Frog Regional Upland Habitat Quality ...... 25 Figure 10. California Red-legged Frog Upland Habitat Quality within the BSA ...... 26

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Site Photographs Appendix B: California Red-legged Frog Habitat Site Assessment Data Sheet

Betteravia Farms

ii Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project California Tiger Salamander and California Red-legged Frog Habitat Assessment

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this assessment is to use available information about the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) and California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) and their habitats in the vicinity of the project area to determine the likelihood of California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog occurring within the site for the proposed farm labor housing and associated sewer utilities.

The Biological Study Area analyzed by this assessment contains a potential California tiger salamander breeding pond (GUAD-5) (USFWS, 2010; USFWS, 2015). A known breeding pond, GUAD-6, is in close proximity to the study area (approximately 90 feet to the south of a portion of the proposed sewer line). The majority of the Biological Study Area is comprised of low quality upland habitat as the proposed project footprint is within an existing graded pad and the sewer line traverses existing dirt roads, agricultural fields and State Route 1. That said, there are small mammal burrows adjacent to the graded pad (near the fence line) and a small, isolated burrow complex occurs within the site. As such, the California tiger salamander has a moderate potential to occur within the project site. The California tiger salamander would likely occur transiently and only utilize the site for dispersal; however, the small mammal burrows adjacent to and small mammal burrow complex within the graded pad could be utilized as upland refuge considering the distance to known and potential breeding ponds.

Based on the presence of potentially suitable breeding habitat (namely, GUAD-5, GUAD-6, and Orcutt Creek) within or in close proximity to the Biological Study Area as well as this pond being in the vicinity of other California red-legged frog occurrences at ponds within dispersal distance, the California red-legged frog also has potential to occur. The California red-legged frog within the Biological Study Area would likely be encountered within upland areas in close proximity to the aquatic features listed above as the majority of the upland habitat within the study area is comprised of low quality disturbed habitat or generally xeric upland habitat types (annual grassland). The California red-legged frog could be encountered within these upland areas of the project site, if present, but its potential to occur in these areas is likely low and limited to times during suitable climatic conditions (e.g., during rain event, dense fog, high humidity, etc.).

Betteravia Farms

1 Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project California Tiger Salamander and California Red-legged Frog Habitat Assessment

SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this assessment is to use available information about the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense; CTS) and California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii; CRLF) and their habitats in the vicinity of the project area to determine the likelihood of CTS and CRLF occurring within the project site.

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND AREA DESCRIPTION

The proposed project is located in an unincorporated area of Santa Barbara County adjacent to State Route (SR) 1 at Latitude 34°53'14.94"N, Longitude 120°30'41.89"W. (Figure 1). The site is depicted on the Guadalupe, California United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle, and is located within Sections 9N-35W-1 and 9N-34W-6, Township 11 North, and Range 34 West (San Bernardino Base Meridian).

The Biological Study Area (BSA) analyzed in this habitat assessment contains all of the project components as outlined in the project description, to thoroughly ascertain the potential impacts to these species on the site and in the vicinity of the proposed project as well as area outside of the proposed project components to ascertain potential indirect impacts, if applicable. These project components are collectively referred to as the project area throughout the remaining document. Direct impacts, if any, contributed by the proposed project were determined based on the project area.

The BSA, which this habitat assessment analyzes, was determined based upon all of the project components outlined in the project description and a variable buffer around the project components (Figure 2). The BSA is larger than the proposed disturbance footprint. The BSA for the proposed project is approximately 15 acres. The area of disturbance within the BSA is comprised of an existing graded pad where farm labor housing would be located as well as areas of driveway improvements and alignment of the proposed sewer line (Figure 2).

1.2 LIFE HISTORY AND STATUS

1.2.1 CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER

Life History

The CTS consists of three distinct population segments (DPSs): the Santa Barbara County DPS, the Sonoma County DPS, and the Central DPS. It occurs in the Coast Ranges from Sonoma to Santa Barbara counties and in the Central Valley from Sacramento to Tulare counties. The CTS is a lowland species found primarily in grasslands and low foothill and oak woodland habitats located within approximately 2,200 ft (671 meters [m]) of breeding pools (Trenham and

Betteravia Farms

2 Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project California Tiger Salamander and California Red-legged Frog Habitat Assessment

^_

0 2.5 5 Miles

Imagery provided by ESRI and its licensors © 2015. ±

^_ Project Location ^_

Project Location Figure 1 Betteravia Farms Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project California Tiger Salamander and California Red-legged Frog Habitat Assessment

ST1

Biological Study Area Project Area Sewer Line

0 250 500 Feet ± Imagery provided by Google and its licensors © 2015.

Biological Study Area Figure 2 Betteravia Farms Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project California Tiger Salamander and California Red-legged Frog Habitat Assessment

Shaffer, 2005). CTS breed in long-lasting rain pools (e.g., seasonal ponds, vernal pools, slow- moving streams) that are often turbid, and occasionally in permanent ponds lacking fish predators. During the non-breeding season, adults occur in upland habitats and occupy California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) or pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) burrows. They migrate nocturnally to aquatic sites to breed during relatively warm winter or spring rains. Juveniles emigrate at night from the drying pools to upland refuge sites, such as rodent burrows and cracks in the soil. Following breeding, adults move 9 to 518 ft (3 to 158 m) away from breeding ponds within the first night (Loredo et al., 1996; Trenham, 2001). Most salamanders continue to move to different burrow systems further from the pond over the next one to four months, with an average distance of 374 ft (114 m) from the pond (Trenham, 2001). Trenham and Shaffer (2005) estimated that conserving upland habitats within 2,200 ft (671 m) of breeding ponds would protect 95 percent of CTS at their study location in Solano County.

Regulatory Overview

The Santa Barbara County DPS and Sonoma County DPS are both federally listed as endangered while the Central DPS is federally listed as threatened. The CTS is state listed as threatened throughout its range.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is one of the agencies responsible for implementing the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) (16 USC § 153 et seq.). Projects that would result in “take” of any federally listed threatened or endangered species are required to obtain permits from the USFWS through either Section 7 (interagency consultation with a federal nexus) or Section 10 (Habitat Conservation Plan) of the FESA, depending on the involvement by the federal government in permitting and/or funding of the project. The permitting process is used to determine if a project would jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and what measures would be required to avoid jeopardizing the species. “Take” under federal definition means to harass, harm (which includes habitat modification), pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Proposed or candidate species do not have the full protection of the FESA; however, the USFWS advise project applicants that they could be elevated to listed status at any time.

The final rule on federally designated critical habitat for the CTS lists the following Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) for CTS as defined in Designation of Critical Habitat for the California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense) In Santa Barbara County; Final Rule published on November 24, 2004:

1. Standing bodies of fresh water, including natural and man-made (e.g., stock) ponds, vernal pools, and dune ponds, and other ephemeral or permanent water bodies that typically become inundated during winter rains and hold water for a sufficient length of time (i.e., 12 weeks) necessary for the species to complete the aquatic portion of its life cycle.

2. Barrier-free uplands adjacent to breeding ponds that contain small mammal burrows. Small mammals are essential in creating the underground habitat that adult California tiger salamanders depend upon for food, shelter, and protection from the elements and predation.

Betteravia Farms

5 Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project California Tiger Salamander and California Red-legged Frog Habitat Assessment

3. Upland areas between breeding locations (PCE 1) and areas with small mammal burrows (PCE 2) that allow for dispersal among such sites.

The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish and Game Code Section 2050 et seq.) regulates take of State listed as threatened and endangered species. Take authorized under the CESA is restricted to direct mortality of a listed species and does not prohibit indirect harm by way of habitat modification. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) prohibits take for species designated as Fully Protected.

The following are the typical steps involved with complying with the FESA and CESA as it relates to the CTS:

1. If a habitat/site assessment indicates there is potential for the CTS to occur within the BSA, the USFWS may request protocol-level surveys to determine presence or absence of CTS. According to the CTS survey protocol (USFWS, 2003), a drift fence study conducted during each of two fall/winter rainy seasons with aquatic sampling in spring between the two fall/winter drift fence studies is the primary method used to study CTS in upland habitats.

2. If CTS are found to be present, a federal permit for incidental take would be required from the USFWS under either Section 7 or Section 10 of the FESA. Take can be authorized under Section 7 if a federal agency is involved in the project (e.g., permitting or funding) and agrees to be the lead agency requesting Section 7 consultation. This consultation process takes 135 days from the official request that includes the preparation of a Biological Assessment (BA) of the predicted impacts of the project on the species with measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for such impacts. The result is a Biological Opinion (BO) issued by the USFWS that includes specified life stage(s) and allowable number of individuals for each life stage to which take can occur in addition to terms and conditions to minimize and offset such take. Take may or may not be issued for operation of the project. Section 10 is used to authorize incidental take when no federal permit or funding is involved. This process can take years to complete and involves preparation of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) typically including protection of the covered species at a specific location in perpetuity. If no federal nexus can be invoked, the only option is to obtain a Section 10 permit through preparation and approval of a HCP.

3. The CDFW may also require an incidental take permit (ITP) pursuant to Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code if CTS presence is assumed or CTS are found to be onsite. The issuance of an ITP is dependent upon the following: 1) the authorized take is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity; 2) the impacts of the authorized take are minimized and fully mitigated; 3) the measures required to minimize and fully mitigate the impacts of the authorized take are roughly proportional in extent to the impact of the taking on the species, maintain the applicant’s objectives to the greatest extent possible, and are capable of successful implementation; 4) adequate funding is provided to implement the required minimization and mitigation measures and to monitor compliance with and the effectiveness of the measures; and 5) issuance of the permit will not jeopardize the continued existence of a State-listed species.

4. An alternative, depending on the planned components and activities of the project would be to obtain a “may affect but is not likely to adversely affect” concurrence from USFWS and/or consistency determination from CDFW through informal consultation.

Betteravia Farms

6 Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project California Tiger Salamander and California Red-legged Frog Habitat Assessment

1.2.2 CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG

Life History

The historic range of the CRLF extended along the coast from the vicinity of Point Reyes National Seashore, Marin County, and inland from the vicinity of Redding, Shasta County, southward to northwestern Baja California, Mexico. The species has lost approximately 70 percent of its former range; California red-legged frogs are locally abundant in the San Francisco Bay area and the central coast, but only isolated populations have been documented in the Sierra Nevada, northern Coast, and northern Transverse ranges.

The California red-legged frog inhabits quiet pools of streams, marshes, and ponds. All life history stages are most likely to be encountered in and around breeding sites, which include coastal lagoons, marshes, springs, permanent and semi-permanent natural ponds, and ponded and backwater portions of streams, as well as artificial impoundments such as stock ponds, irrigation ponds, and siltation ponds. Eggs are typically deposited in permanent pools, attached to emergent vegetation.

Regulatory Overview

The CRLF is federally listed as threatened and a State species of special concern throughout its range.

Refer to Section 1.2.1 for an overview of the FESA.

The final rule on federally designated critical habitat for the CRLF lists the following PCEs as defined in Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii); Final Rule published on March 17, 2010:

1. Aquatic Breeding Habitat. Standing bodies of fresh water (with salinities less than 7.0 ppt), including natural and manmade (e.g., stock) ponds, slow moving streams or pools within streams, and other ephemeral or permanent water bodies that typically become inundated during winter rains and hold water for a minimum of 15 weeks in all but the driest of years.

2. Non-Breeding Aquatic Habitat. Fresh water habitats as described above which may or may not hold water long enough for the subspecies to hatch and complete its aquatic lifecycle but which does provide for shelter, foraging, predator avoidance, and aquatic dispersal habitat for juvenile and adult California red-legged frogs.

3. Upland Habitat. Upland areas within 200 ft (60 m) of the surrounding aquatic and wetland habitat comprised of various vegetational series such as grasslands, woodlands, and/or wetland/riparian plant species.

4. Dispersal Habitat. Accessible upland or wetland dispersal habitat within designated units and between occupied locations within 0.7 mile (1.2 kilometers [km]) of each other that allow for movement between such sites. Dispersal habitat includes various natural habitats and altered habitats such as agricultural fields, which also do not contain barriers to dispersal.

Betteravia Farms

7 Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project California Tiger Salamander and California Red-legged Frog Habitat Assessment

The following are the typical steps involved with complying with the FESA as it relates to the CRLF:

1. If a habitat/site assessment indicates there is potential for the CRLF to occur within the BSA, the USFWS may request protocol-level surveys to determine presence or absence of CRLF. According to the CRLF survey protocol (USFWS, 2005), night and day time surveys would be conducted February to April to detect presence or confirm absence of the CRLF.

2. If CRLF are found to be present, a federal permit for incidental take would be required from the USFWS under either Section 7 or Section 10 of the FESA. Take can be authorized under Section 7 if a federal agency is involved in the project (e.g., permitting or funding) and agrees to be the lead agency requesting Section 7 consultation. This consultation process takes 135 days from the official request that includes the preparation of a BA of the predicted impacts of the project on the species with measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for such impacts. The result is a BO issued by the USFWS that includes specified life stage(s) and allowable number of individuals for each life stage to which take can occur in addition to terms and conditions to minimize and offset such take. Take may or may not be issued for operation of the project. Section 10 is used to authorize incidental take when no federal permit or funding is involved. This process can take years to complete and involves preparation of a HCP typically including protection of the covered species at a specific location in perpetuity. If no federal nexus can be invoked, the only option is to obtain a Section 10 permit through preparation and approval of a HCP.

3. An alternative, depending upon the planned components and activities of the project, would be to obtain a “may affect but is not likely to adversely affect” concurrence from the USFWS through informal consultation.

Betteravia Farms

8 Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project California Tiger Salamander and California Red-legged Frog Habitat Assessment

SECTION 2 – METHODOLOGY

2.1 CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER

This California tiger salamander site assessment was conducted in accordance with Interim Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for Determining Presence or a Negative Finding of the California Tiger Salamander (USFWS, 2003).

2.1.1 DATABASE AND LITERATURE REVIEW

Queries of the CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CDFW, 2016b), updated CTS range mapping (USFWS, 2015b) cross referenced with CTS range mapping from 2010 (USFWS, 2010), as well as a literature review were conducted in order to identify CTS localities within 3.1 miles (5.0 km) of the project boundaries, or if none are recorded, the nearest occurrence. In addition, the following resources were reviewed for information about the project site:

• Aerial imagery of the project site and vicinity (Google, 2016);

• USFWS Critical Habitat Portal (2016a); and

• CDFW Biogeographic Information and Observation System (2016a).

2.1.2 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY METHODOLOGY

Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) biologist Michael Tom visited the project site on May 4, 2016 to characterize the existing conditions of the site and to assess CTS habitat suitability. Weather conditions during the survey included an average temperature of 67 degrees Fahrenheit, with winds of 7-10 miles per hour, and 100 percent cloud cover. Mr. Tom surveyed the entire project site on foot along intuitively controlled transects and recorded all biological resources encountered onsite. During the field survey, an inventory of all plant and animal species observed was compiled. Plant species nomenclature and taxonomy followed The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition (Baldwin et al., 2012). All plant species encountered were noted and identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level. The vegetation classification system used for this analysis is based on A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (Sawyer et al., 2009) and Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Communities of California (Holland, 1986); but has been modified as needed to accurately describe the existing habitats observed onsite. The relative density of fossorial mammal burrows and soil characteristics throughout the site were also noted. In addition, the area within 1.24 miles (2.0 km) of the project site was assessed for potentially suitable CTS aquatic and upland habitats (photos are included in Appendix A). A follow-up visit was also made on August 5, 2016. Because of access issues to private properties, habitats were assessed from publicly accessible vantages such as public roads to the extent feasible. Upland refuge habitat was characterized within the 1.24-mile radius as low quality, medium quality, or high quality as follows:

Betteravia Farms

9 Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project California Tiger Salamander and California Red-legged Frog Habitat Assessment

• Low quality upland refuge habitat includes areas of active agriculture or areas of urban/industrial development. Few or no small mammal burrows are expected to be found in these areas due to frequent ground disturbance, development or heavily compacted soils. Low quality upland habitat may still be suitable for CTS dispersal depending upon the condition of and the types of activities occurring in a given area.

• Medium quality upland refuge habitat is identified as areas that have moderate amounts of disturbance such as fields that have been disced at one time but not recently planted, rural residential, orchards, and livestock corrals. Medium quality upland habitat can also be defined as areas where soils were somewhat disturbed and there was low to moderate amount of small mammal burrowing activity. Also in this category are areas such as grassland and coastal scrub habitats that otherwise have high quality habitat but are small in area and isolated by actively farmed agricultural fields, development or roads with moderate to high levels of vehicular use.

• High quality upland refuge habitat can be considered as those areas of large patches of or contiguous native habitat such as grassland, coastal scrub, and riparian with medium to high concentrations of small mammal burrowing activity. These areas also may exhibit potential connectivity to a known or potential CTS breeding location identified by the USFWS. It should be noted that areas of high quality upland habitat does not necessarily increase the probability that CTS occur due to limited regional connectivity as well as proximity to breeding sites.

2.2 CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG

This California red-legged frog site assessment was conducted in accordance with Revised Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for California Red-legged Frogs (USFWS, 2005).

2.2.1 DATABASE AND LITERATURE REVIEW

Queries of the CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CDFW, 2016b), as well as a literature review were conducted in order to identify CRLF localities within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of the project boundaries. The Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog (USFWS, 2002) provided information regarding the known existing and historic populations of California red- legged frogs in the region. The following resources were reviewed for information about the CRLF:

• Aerial imagery of the project site and vicinity (Google, 2016);

• USFWS Critical Habitat Portal (2016); and

• CDFW Biogeographic Information and Observation System (2016a).

Betteravia Farms

10 Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project California Tiger Salamander and California Red-legged Frog Habitat Assessment

2.2.2 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY METHODOLOGY

Rincon biologist Michael Tom visited the project site on May 4, 2016 to also assess CRLF habitat suitability (Refer to Section 2.1.2 for survey conditions). Mr. Tom surveyed the entire project site on foot along intuitively controlled transects and recorded all biological resources encountered onsite. During the field .survey, an inventory of all plant and animal species observed was compiled. Plant, wildlife and habitat identification and classifications were determined using the resources mentioned in Section 2.1.2. The area within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of the project site was assessed for potentially suitable CRLF aquatic and upland habitats (photos are located in Appendix A). Habitats on private properties were assessed from publicly accessible vantages such as public roads, to the extent feasible, due to access constraints. Aquatic habitats were mapped and characterized (e.g., ponds vs. creeks, pool vs. riffle, ephemeral vs. permanent, vegetation type and characteristics, water depth, substrate, and description of bank), and the presence of bullfrogs and other aquatic predators documented. A CRLF Habitat Site Assessment Data Sheet was filled out for those aquatic habitat areas observed during the field reconnaissance survey (see Appendix B). Upland refuge habitat was characterized within the 1.0-mile radius as low quality, medium quality, or high quality as follows:

• Low quality upland refuge habitat includes areas of active agriculture or areas of urban/industrial development. Few or no small mammal burrows were found or expected to be found in these areas due to frequent ground disturbance, development or heavily compacted soils. Low quality upland habitat, however, may still be suitable for CRLF dispersal.

• Medium quality upland refuge habitat can be identified as areas that have moderate amounts of disturbance such as fields that have been disced at one time but not recently planted, rural residential, orchards and livestock corrals. Medium quality upland habitat can also be defined as areas where soils were somewhat disturbed and there was low to moderate amount of small mammal burrowing activity. Also in this category are areas of habitat that otherwise had high quality, but were small in area and isolated by actively farmed agricultural fields, development or roads with moderate to high levels of vehicular use.

Areas also included in this category are those that are generally suitable for dispersal and upland activity however, only during conditions in which movement can be facilitated (i.e. rain events, dense fog, etc.). Examples of these areas are annual grasslands and coastal scrub in the vicinity of aquatic habitat that are typically xeric and not conducive to extensive amphibian movement unless suitable moisture is present.

• High quality upland refuge habitat was considered as those areas consisting of large patches of or contiguous native habitat such as riparian with medium to high concentrations of small mammal burrowing activity as well as other native habitats such as woodlands, coastal scrub and grasslands in close proximity to aquatic habitat. It should be noted that areas of high quality upland habitat does not necessarily increase the probability that CRLF occur due to limited regional connectivity or moisture availability.

Betteravia Farms

11 Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project California Tiger Salamander and California Red-legged Frog Habitat Assessment

SECTION 3 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

3.1 HABITAT TYPES

3.1.1 TERRESTRIAL HABITATS

Four terrestrial habitat/land cover types were identified during the survey within the BSA and include non-native annual grassland, agriculture, ruderal/developed, and red willow thicket. These habitat/land cover types also occur within 1.24 miles (relevant to CTS) and/or 1.0 mile (relevant to CRLF) of the project site. Vegetation classification was based on Sawyer et al. (2009) and cross-referenced to Holland (1986). A map that illustrates the extent of the terrestrial habitats/land cover types within the BSA is presented as Figure 3 and is also discussed in greater detail below.

Non-native Grassland This vegetation community includes areas dominated by non-native grasses including rip-gut brome (Bromus diandrus) and veldt grass (Ehrharta calycina). Although non-native annual grasses form the dominant plant species composition, native annual forbs are also scattered within this vegetation type and consist of black mustard (Brassica nigra), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), and poison hemlock (Conium maculatum). The non-native grassland habitat type within the BSA, most closely resembles the non-native grassland described by Holland (1986), as well as most closely with the Bromus (diandrus, hordeaceus) – Brachypodium distachyon Semi- Natural Herbaceous Stands described in Sawyer et al., 2009.

Within the BSA, non-native annual grassland primarily occurs outside the graded pad proposed for the common use structures. It also occurs in narrow bands on both sides of the access road leading up to the graded pad.

Agriculture Agricultural type habitats are predominant within the region. Agriculture is an anthropogenic, frequently disturbed habitat and includes irrigated row crops that are typically monotypic. Regular cultivation and other agricultural practices generally eliminate habitat for burrowing animals such as small mammals, and many amphibian and reptile species that utilize small mammal burrows or construct their own burrows. Given that this community type is not naturally occurring, it is not described in either the Holland (1986) or Sawyer et al. (2009) classification systems.

The majority of this habitat type occurs adjacent to the BSA; however, a small portion extends within the BSA along the proposed sewer line route. At the time of the site visit the agricultural areas within and adjacent to the BSA were ready to harvest and strawberry (Fragaria ananassa) was in production.

Ruderal/Developed This habitat type occurs in areas that are regularly disturbed by human activities and is commonly associated with road shoulders, fallow fields, abandoned lots, landscaped lots, and developed areas. Vegetation can vary depending upon the degree of disturbance or Betteravia Farms

12 Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project California Tiger Salamander and California Red-legged Frog Habitat Assessment

O

r

c

u

t

t

C

r

e

e

k

h

c

t

i

D

e

r

u

t

l

u

c

i

r

g

A

E

p

h

e

m

e

r

a

l

D

r

a

i

n

a g ST1 e

Biological Study Area Natural Communities Project Area Agriculture Sewer Line Non-native Grassland Burrows Red Willow Thicket 0 250 500 Ruderal/Developed Feet ± Imagery provided by Google and its licensors © 2015.

Natural Communities Figure 3 Betteravia Farms Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project California Tiger Salamander and California Red-legged Frog Habitat Assessment

development. For instance, landscaped areas dominated by ornamentals such as Peruvian pepper trees (Schinus molle) can be found in highly developed areas. In areas less developed such as the SR 1 and agricultural road shoulders, ruderal species dominate, including non- native herbaceous species such as perennial mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), mallow (Malva nicaeensis) and common sow thistle (Sonchus oleraceus), as well as non-native grasses such as ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), and Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon). Plant species observed within the agricultural ditch include non-native upland species such as bull mallow, perennial mustard, and black mustard. Cover by plant species is generally low due to disturbance, and there is a high percentage of bare soil. Ruderal areas provide poor habitat for animal species; however, these areas can be used during dispersal and for movement during foraging in adjacent habitats. Given that this community type is not naturally occurring, it is also not described in either the Holland (1986) or Sawyer et al. (2009) classification systems. During observations made on May 4, 2016, no small mammal burrows were observed within the graded pad; however, during a follow-up visit on August 5, 2016 one small isolated patch of gopher burrows within the graded pad was observed (Figure 3). Small mammal burrows also occur along the periphery of the graded pad along the existing fence line.

Within the BSA, ruderal/developed habitat occupies the vast majority of acreage. Developed/ruderal areas within the proposed project area include: the graded pad, gravel access roads, dirt agricultural roads, all road shoulders, and the drainage ditch.

Red Willow Thicket Within the BSA, red willow thickets occur on the banks on both sides of Orcutt Creek. The upper canopy is dominated by red willow (Salix laevigata). The red willow thicket vegetation community within the project area most closely corresponds to element #61210 Central Coast Cottonwood-Sycamore Riparian Forest (Holland, 1986) and to Salix laevigata Shrubland Alliance in the Sawyer et al., 2009.

Along Orcutt Creek the canopy provides intermittent tree cover in a narrow band, typically one or two trees wide, on each side of the stream, and does not fully shade Orcutt Creek. The understory of this habitat type is well developed, and shrub layer dominants included red willow, arroyo willow, poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), and coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis). Dominants occurring within the herb layer include red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), ripgut brome, mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana), and stinging nettle (Urtica dioica).

3.1.2 AQUATIC HABITATS

Two aquatic habitat types were also observed within and/or in the regional vicinity of the BSA that includes ponds/basins (including depressions) and drainages. These habitat types are visible on aerial photography and are also discussed below. The extent of these aquatic habitats within the BSA is presented in Figure 3 and is also discussed in greater detail below.

Ponds/Basins The BSA does contain one depression area that shows evidence of ponding. This area corresponds to GUAD-5 (USFWS, 2010) and is located parallel to SR 1 in the northwestern portion of the BSA. During the site visit the deepest portion of the depression lacked vegetation

Betteravia Farms

14 Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project California Tiger Salamander and California Red-legged Frog Habitat Assessment

and contained a small patch of wetland vegetation comprised of rush (Juncus sp.), the remaining vegetation consisted of annual grassland species.

Ponds and basins also occur within 1.24 miles (relevant to CTS) and 1.0 mile (relevant to CRLF) of the BSA as indicated by aerial imagery. In general, these aquatic features consist of man- made ponds associated with the Laguna County Sanitation District wastewater treatment plant, agricultural ponds, man-made stormwater basins or natural ponds and other impoundments. These features vary in size and depth but are typically up to three feet or more in depth. These ponds can contain varying amounts of vegetation. No emergent vegetation was observed in any of the ponds associated with the wastewater treatment plant. Due to private land access restrictions, no other ponds in the general vicinity were evaluated for emergent vegetation.

Drainages An unnamed ephemeral drainage begins on the southern end of the BSA and flows east. Within the BSA, the drainage begins as a swale and develops an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) as it flows downstream in an easterly direction prior to its confluence with a northerly flowing drainage. At the time of the site visit, the drainages were dry and had defined OHWMs. The substrate consisted of loamy sand and the banks were steep and highly eroded. The average distance between the top of each bank is approximately eight feet.

An agricultural ditch is located north of SR 1 and runs in a northerly direction parallel to existing agricultural access roads prior to its confluence with Orcutt Creek, north of the BSA. At the time of the site visit, the ditch was dry and had a defined OHWM. The substrate consisted of loamy sand and the banks were steep and eroded. The average distance between the top of each bank is approximately five feet.

Orcutt Creek runs in a northerly direction through the proposed sewer line route within the northern portion of the BSA. At the time of the site visit, the creek contained water and had a defined OHWM. The substrate consisted of loamy sand and the banks contained riparian vegetation. The average distance between the top of each bank is approximately three feet.

Other drainages also occur within 1.24 miles (relevant to CTS) and 1.0 mile (relevant to CRLF). Drainages range from being highly ephemeral and containing upland species associated within annual grasslands to contain riparian vegetation comprised of willows. Some reaches of these drainages contain ponded areas with some of those also containing emergent vegetation such as rushes, sedges (Carex spp.) and cattails (Typha spp.)

Betteravia Farms

15 Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project California Tiger Salamander and California Red-legged Frog Habitat Assessment

SECTION 4 – RESULTS

4.1 CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER

4.1.1 CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER RANGE AND CRITICAL HABITAT

The BSA is within the potential range of the CTS in Santa Barbara County as depicted in the USFWS map of CTS range and breeding ponds (2010). Based on Draft Recovery Plan for the Santa Barbara County Distinct Population Segment of the California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense) (USFWS, 2015), the BSA is located within the West Santa Maria/Orcutt Metapopulation Area for the CTS Santa Barbara County DPS. The BSA is also located within federally designated critical habitat for the CTS (Critical Habitat Unit 1) (Figure 4).

4.1.2 KNOWN CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER OCCURRENCES

Seven (7) CTS occurrences documented by the CNDDB have been recorded within 3.1 miles of the BSA (CDFW, 2016b; Figure 5). The following are descriptions of the locations of these occurrences:

1. Occurrence #333: This occurrence is located approximately 0.5 mile northwest of the intersection of Airox Road and Lompoc-Casmalia Road, four miles northeast of Casmalia. The occurrence consists of observations of larvae in a pool located approximately 1,900 feet east of the Pacific Railroad tracks. The habitat consists of a farm pond surrounded by open grassland. The pool had a muddy bottom, was approximately 3.5 feet deep, and contained small amounts of aquatic vegetation.

2. Occurrence #334: This occurrence is located approximately 0.3 mile northwest of the intersection of Lompoc-Casmalia Road and Pacific Railroad tracks, 3.5 miles north of Casmalia. The occurrence consists of observations of larvae in a farm pond surrounded by open grassland. The pool had a muddy bottom, was approximately 3.5 feet deep, with sparse aquatic vegetation.

3. Occurrence #335: This occurrence is located approximately 0.3 mile east of the intersection of Dutard Road and Black Road, west of the Santa Maria Airport. The occurrence consists of observations of larvae within a vernal pool surrounded by relatively undisturbed, open grassland.

4. Occurrence #527: This occurrence is located on the south side of the Santa Maria Airport. The occurrence consists of observations of larvae within two vernal pools; surrounded by non-native grassland, coastal sage/scrub chaparral, & scattered oaks.

5. Occurrence #528: This occurrence is located in the southwest corner of Santa Maria Airport. The occurrence consists of detection of a juvenile CTS at a marshy pool; surrounded by non-native grassland. The pool area contained willows at the west end and a broad, marshy area to the east with spikerush.

Betteravia Farms

16 Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project California Tiger Salamander and California Red-legged Frog Habitat Assessment

Biological Study Area Critical Habitat California red-legged frog California tiger Salamander

0 1.6 3.2 Miles ±

Imagery provided by ESRI and its licensors © 2015. California Tiger Salamander and California Red-legged Frog Critical Habitat Figure 4 Betteravia Farms Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project California Tiger Salamander and California Red-legged Frog Habitat Assessment

GUAD-11

GUAD-9

GUAD-3

SAMA-2 GUAD-5 SAMA-4 SAMA-7

ST1 GUAD-4 GUAD-6 SAMA-3

SAMA-6 GUAD-1 GUAD-7 GUAD-2 SAMA-21

Biological Study 1.24 Mile Buffer California Tiger Salamander Localities 3.1 Mile Buffer Other Aquatic 0 3,000 6,000 Potential CTS Breeding Pools Feet ± Known CTS Breeding Pools

Imagery provided by Google and its licensors © 2015. Additional data provided by USFWS, 2010, California Natural Diversity Database, August 2015. Known California Salamander Localities within 3.1 miles and Other Aquatic Habitats within 1.24 miles Figure 5 Betteravia Farms Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project California Tiger Salamander and California Red-legged Frog Habitat Assessment

6. Occurrence #977: This occurrence is located at the Rancho Maria Golf Club approximately one mile east of the State Route 1 from the Black Road intersection. The occurrence consists of detection of an adult CTS at the golf course.

7. Occurrence #1169: This occurrence is located in the vicinity of Orcutt Creek at the Laguna County Sanitation District wastewater treatment facility approximately 1 mile north northwest of Black Road at State Route 1. The occurrence consists of detection of an adult CTS on the west side of wastewater treatment facility within ruderal vegetation adjacent to cultivated agriculture.

Seven (7) known CTS breeding pools have been recorded within 1.24 miles of the project area (USFWS, 2010 and USFWS, 2015b; Figure 5) and include the following: GUAD-3, SAMA-2, SAMA-3, GUAD-6, GUAD-4, GUAD-1 and GUAD-2. GUAD-6 is the closest known breeding pool and is located approximately 90 feet south of the portion of the BSA which contains the proposed sewer line.

Four (4) potential CTS breeding pools identified by the USFWS have also been recorded within 1.24 miles of the project area (USFWS, 2010 and USFWS, 2015b; Figure 5) and include the following: GUAD-9, GUAD-11, GUAD-5 and GUAD-7. GUAD-5 is located in the northwest portion of the BSA parallel to SR 1.

4.1.3 HABITAT QUALITY

Aquatic Habitat The BSA does contain suitable breeding habitat but the project site does not contain any suitable breeding habitat. Specifically, the depression noted as GUAD-5 (potential breeding pond) is within the BSA. In addition, the known breeding pond, GUAD-6, occurs in close proximity to the BSA. Based on current site conditions documented during the site visits, these areas were dried but showed signs of previous ponding and are possibly suitable for CTS breeding as there are no fish predators, and the ponds are adjacent to suitable upland habitat. If ponding is suitable within Orcutt Creek, this area could also provide suitable aquatic habitat.

Upland Habitat The area within 1.24 miles of the project site is comprised of a mixture of high quality upland habitat consisting of large areas of undeveloped natural community types and low quality areas consisting of active agriculture and residential development (Figure 6). Although low quality habitat, consisting of primarily agricultural uses, are located in the region, these areas do not necessarily preclude the CTS from traversing these areas during dispersal events compared to development that would convert natural areas to an urban setting, although dispersing through agricultural areas is still high risk in terms of survivability. However, because agricultural areas tend to not contain small mammal burrows, these areas are very limited for use as upland refuge during the non-breeding season.

The onsite upland habitat quality, not taking into consideration regional connectivity, generally consists of areas of low quality and high quality areas. Low quality areas consist of already

Betteravia Farms

19 Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project California Tiger Salamander and California Red-legged Frog Habitat Assessment

d ravia R W Bette

d R y e n o h a M

ST1

Black Rd

Biological Study Area 1.24 Mile Buffer Habitat Quality High Low

0 1,300 2,600 Feet ±

Imagery provided by Google and its licensors © 2015. California Tiger Salamander Regional Upland Habitat Quality Figure 6 Betteravia Farms Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project California Tiger Salamander and California Red-legged Frog Habitat Assessment

disturbed areas that generally lack small mammal burrows such as the graded/compacted areas, agriculture, paved roadways and associated road shoulders (Figure 3 and Figure 7). However, there is one small isolated patch of gopher burrows within the graded pad (Figure 3) and small mammal burrows occur along the periphery of the graded pad (i.e., along the existing fence line). These small mammal burrows could provide upland refuge for CTS due to proximity to known and potential breeding areas.

High quality upland habitat areas are associated within the undeveloped portions of the BSA and include the annual grassland and riparian areas which are also connected to larger areas of these habitat types outside the BSA. High quality upland areas do not occur within the project footprint as these areas have been previously disturbed by previous agricultural activities.

4.2 CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG

4.2.1 CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG RANGE AND CRITICAL HABITAT

The project site is located within the known range of the CRLF in Santa Barbara County based upon the current range depicted in Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog (USFWS, 2002). The BSA is not located within federally designated critical habitat for the CRLF, but federally designated critical habitat has been designated in the vicinity and is located approximately 300 feet south of the BSA (Figure 4).

4.2.2 KNOWN CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG OCCURRENCES

One (1) CRLF occurrences has been recorded within one mile of the BSA (CDFW, 2016b; Figure 8). The following is a description of the location of this occurrence:

Occurrence #604: This occurrence is located at Orcutt Creek, at the Black Road/Mahoney Road Bridge, northeast of the State Route 1 and Black Road/Mahoney Road intersection. The occurrence consists of two adults that were observed in a large in-stream pool. The habitat at the occurrence location consisted of riparian scrub, dominated by arroyo willow and shining willow, with nearby emergent wetlands with cattails, California bulrush, and common spike rush.

4.2.3 HABITAT QUALITY

Aquatic Habitat The northeastern portion of the BSA contains potentially suitable breeding habitat for the CRLF, specifically Orcutt Creek. Orcutt Creek contained sufficient water depth and ponding for breeding. However, the portion of Orcutt Creek that occurs within the BSA contains substantial canopy cover from the dense stand of willows present. The constant shade produced by the willows may make this particular stretch of Orcutt Creek less conducive to egg and tadpole development due to lower temperatures compared to other more open reaches. Nonetheless, Orcutt Creek within the BSA provides suitable habitat for the CRLF. In addition, the aquatic areas associated with GUAD-6 and GUAD-5 could provide suitable aquatic habitat for this species if water was present (likely only during the late winter and early spring months). CTS Betteravia Farms

21 Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project California Tiger Salamander and California Red-legged Frog Habitat Assessment

ST1

Biological Study Habitat Quality High Medium Low

0 250 500 Feet ±

Imagery provided by Google and its licensors © 2015. California Tiger Salamander Upland Habitat Quality within the BSA Figure 7 Betteravia Farms Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project California Tiger Salamander and California Red-legged Frog Habitat Assessment

d R y e n o h a M

ST1 ST1

Black Rd

Biological Study 1 Mile Buffer California Red-legged Frog Localities Other Aquatic

0 1,100 2,200 Feet ±

Imagery provided by Google and its licensors © 2015. Additional data provided by California Natural Diversity Database, August 2015. Known California Red-legged Frog Localities and Aquatic Habitats within 1 Mile Figure 8 Betteravia Farms Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project California Tiger Salamander and California Red-legged Frog Habitat Assessment

and CRLF have been known to co-occur within aquatic areas. The hydroperiod and depth of GUAD-5 and GUAD-6 however, are unknown at this time and therefore it is unknown whether they are suitable for CRLF breeding. If suitable for CRLF breeding the presence of CTS would not necessarily preclude the CRLF from utilizing GUAD-5 and GUAD-6 as they are known to co-occur within habitat where their ranges overlap (Alvarez et al., 2013). Other aquatic habitat that could be suitable for the CRLF also occurs within one mile of the BSA in the form of other ponds and drainages; for example, the wastewater treatment facility ponds that occur immediately north of the proposed sewer line at Orcutt Creek. The intermittent to ephemeral drainages found within one mile of the BSA, such as those depicted in Figure 8, are likely highly limited in aquatic habitat suitability due to the lack of water and its persistence; however, these can still be traversed by the CRLF if water is present.

Upland Habitat The area within one mile of the project is comprised of a mixture of high quality upland habitat consisting of large areas of undeveloped natural community types and low quality areas consisting of active agriculture and urban development (Figure 9). Although low quality habitat, consisting of primarily agricultural uses, are located in the region these areas do not necessarily preclude the CRLF from traversing these areas (Bulger et al., 2003) during dispersal events compared to development that would convert natural areas to an urban setting, although dispersing through agricultural areas is still high risk in terms of survivability.

The onsite upland habitat quality within the BSA, taking into account the ecology of the species as well as not taking into consideration regional connectivity, is largely medium to low quality. The presence of either highly disturbed habitats or natural community types (annual grassland) are undeveloped and generally xeric for most of the year (Figure 3 and Figure 10), but can facilitate dispersal during moist climatic and seasonal conditions. The project area and the majority of the proposed sewer line are comprised of low quality upland habitat. The CRLF would most likely only be utilizing these areas if they are in the dispersal distance of occupied aquatic habitat and climatic and moisture conditions are appropriate for movement. Within the BSA, riparian vegetation associated with Orcutt Creek provides high quality habitat for the CRLF. Medium quality areas would limit CRLF movement to only certain weather conditions as well as to nocturnal movements due to lower temperatures and higher humidity. That said due to proximity to Orcutt Creek those agricultural areas, although generally of low quality, could still be utilized by the CRLF if climatic and moisture conditions are sufficient. Non- dispersing CRLF are known to make short distance upland movements of a few hundred meters from aquatic habitat with the majority of movements less than 100 meters (Bulger et al, 2003). Dispersing individuals though are known to make substantial upland movement from aquatic habitats.

Betteravia Farms

24 Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project California Tiger Salamander and California Red-legged Frog Habitat Assessment

d R y e n o h a M

ST1

Black Rd

Biological Study Area 1 Mile Buffer Habitat Quality High Low

0 1,100 2,200 Feet ±

Imagery provided by Google and its licensors © 2015. California Red-legged Frog Regional Upland Habitat Quality Figure 9 Betteravia Farms Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project California Tiger Salamander and California Red-legged Frog Habitat Assessment

ST1

Biological Study Area Habitat Quality High Medium Low

0 250 500 Feet ±

Imagery provided by Google and its licensors © 2015. California Red-legged Frog Upland Habitat Quality within the BSA Figure 10 Betteravia Farms Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project California Tiger Salamander and California Red-legged Frog Habitat Assessment

SECTION 5 – CONCLUSIONS

5.1 CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER

Since the BSA contains a potential CTS breeding pond (GUAD-5) and is within about 90 feet of a known breeding pond (GUAD-6) (USFWS, 2010; USFWS, 2015) there is a moderate to high probability of CTS occurring within the BSA. As noted in Section 4.1.3, the proposed project footprint is comprised of already disturbed/developed land and only contains one small, isolated patch of small mammal burrows. Due to the close proximity of the project footprint to known and potential breeding ponds, CTS could occur transiently within project site as they make upland movements. The CTS could also utilize the small mammal burrow complex noted on Figure 3 or the small mammal burrows surrounding the project footprint (i.e., along the existing fence line). High quality habitat areas surrounding the project footprint could and likely do provide suitable habitat for upland movement as well as upland refugia. Observations of the CTS within the project footprint would likely be limited to when conditions are suitable for above ground movements (e.g., during rain events) during the breeding season and when CTS are moving from aquatic habitat to upland habitat upon completion of metamorphosis. That said, the CTS could utilize the small mammal burrows within and adjacent to the project footprint during the non-breeding season.

5.2 CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG

Based on the presence of suitable breeding habitat within the BSA (Orcutt Creek) and potentially suitable aquatic habitat in GUAD-5 and GUAD-6, the CRLF has potential to occur. In addition, other potentially suitable aquatic habitat also occurs within the dispersal distance of the CRLF, which can be as far as five miles. Based on the condition of upland habitat, the CRLF could be encountered in upland areas of the BSA, if present, but potential is likely low and limited to during suitable climatic conditions (e.g., during rain event, dense fog, during cool conditions, high humidity, etc.). That said those portions of the proposed project in close proximity to Orcutt Creek or GUAD-5 and GUAD-6 are more likely to be utilized by the CRLF, if present, during short distance daily movements for foraging in upland areas, basking, etc.

Betteravia Farms

27 Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project California Tiger Salamander and California Red-legged Frog Habitat Assessment

SECTION 6 – REFERENCES

Alvarez, J., M. Shea, J. Wilcox, M. Allaback, S Foster, G. Padgett-Flohr and J. Haire. 2013. Sympatry in California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog breeding habitat within their overlapping range. California Fish and Game. 99(1):42-48.

Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken (Eds.). 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Bulger, John, B., Norman J. Scott Jr., and Richard B. Seymour. 2003. Terrestrial Activity and Conservation of Adult California Red-legged Frogs Rana aurora draytonii in Coastal Forest and Grasslands. Biological Conservation 110: 85-95.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016a. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS).

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016b. California Natural Diversity Database, via Rarefind 5.

Google Inc. (2016). Google Earth Pro [Software].

Holland, Robert F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Heritage Program.

Loredo, I., D. Van Vuren, and M.L. Morrison. 1996. Habitat Use and Migration Behavior of the California Tiger Salamander. Journal of Herpetology 30: 282-285.

Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California.

Trenham, P.C. 2001. Terrestrial Habitat Use by Adult Ambystoma californiense. Journal of Herpetology 35: 343-346.

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

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.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Revised Guidance on Site Assessments and Field Surveys for the California Red-legged Frog.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. California Tiger Salamander Habitat Map.

Betteravia Farms

28 Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project California Tiger Salamander and California Red-legged Frog Habitat Assessment

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Draft recovery plan for the Santa Barbara County Distinct Population Segment of the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Ventura, California. vi + 76 pp.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Critical Habitat Portal. Available at: http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov

Betteravia Farms

29 Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project California Tiger Salamander and California Red-legged Frog Habitat Assessment

SECTION 7 – LIST OF PREPARERS

RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.

• Primary Author: Michael Tom, Associate Biologist

• Technical Review: Colby J. Boggs, Principal/Senior Ecologist

• Graphics: Doug Carreiro, GIS Analyst

• Field Reconnaissance Survey: Michael Tom, Associate Biologist

Betteravia Farms

30

Appendix A Site Photographs

Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project California Tiger Salamander and California Red-legged Frog Habitat Assessment

Photo 1. View of the location of the proposed labor housing. The photo was taken facing southwest.

Photo 2. View of the location of the proposed labor housing. The photo was taken facing southeast.

Betteravia Farms A-1

Curletti Farm Employee Housing Project California Tiger Salamander and California Red-legged Frog Habitat Assessment

Photo 3. View of the annual grassland areas adjacent to the BSA. The photo was taken facing west.

Photo 4. View of the potential pond, GUAD-5 adjacent to State Route 1 showing a small amount of emergent vegetation.

Betteravia Farms A-2

Appendix B CRLF Site Assessment Data Sheet