Oak Hills Estate Habitat Conservation Plan Draft Oak... · Oak Hills Estate, LLC (Applicant) is seeking an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)

Oak Hills Estate Habitat Conservation Plan

Draft Environmental Assessment

prepared by

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office

2493 Portola Road, Suite B Ventura, California 93003

prepared with the assistance of

Rincon Consultants, Inc. 209 East Victoria Street

Santa Barbara, California 93101

August 2019

Table of Contents

Draft Env ironmental Assessment 1

Table of Contents

1 Purpose and Need for Action ...........................................................................................3 1.1 Introduction........................................................................................................3 1.2 Purpose of the Proposed Action .............................................................................3 1.3 Need for the Proposed Action................................................................................3 1.4 Scope of the Environmental Assessment .................................................................5 1.5 External Regulatory Requirements .........................................................................6

1.5.1 National Historic Preservation Act ............................................................6 1.5.2 California Environmental Quality Act ........................................................6

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives.....................................................................................7 2.1 No Action Alternative ...........................................................................................7 2.2 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative)..................................................................7

2.2.1 Federally Listed Species Covered by the HCP..............................................7 2.2.2 Covered Activities ................................................................................ 10 2.2.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures .................................. 11

3 Affected Environment................................................................................................... 12 3.1 Biological Resources........................................................................................... 12

3.1.1 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................... 12 3.1.2 Environmental Setting .......................................................................... 13

3.2 Visual Resources ................................................................................................ 21 3.2.1 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................... 21 3.2.2 Environmental Setting .......................................................................... 21

4 Environmental Consequences ........................................................................................ 24 4.1 Biological Resources........................................................................................... 24

4.1.1 Effects of the No Action Alternative........................................................ 24 4.1.2 Effects of the Proposed Action ............................................................... 24

4.2 Visual Resources ................................................................................................ 29 4.2.1 Effects of the No Action Alternative........................................................ 29 4.2.2 Effects of the Proposed Action ............................................................... 29

5 References .................................................................................................................. 31

6 List of Preparers........................................................................................................... 32

Tables Table 1 Natural Communities on the Project Site ............................................................... 15

Figures Figure 1 Regional Location ................................................................................................4

Figure 2 Oak Hills Estate Project Site, including On-site Open Space ........................................8

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv ice Oak Hills Estate Habitat Conservation Plan

2

Figure 3 Off-site Mitigation Area ........................................................................................9

Figure 4 Vegetation Communities on the Project Site .......................................................... 14

Figure 5 Distribution of Host Plants for El Segundo Blue Butterfly on the Project Site ............... 18

Figure 6 Distribution of California Red-legged Frog in the Vicinity of the Project Site................ 19

Figure 7 Vandenberg Monkeyflower Distribution and Critical Habitat in the Vicinity of the Project Site ....................................................................................................................... 20

Figure 8 Oak Hills Estate Project Site and Vicinity................................................................ 22

Figure 9 Proposed Restoration Areas within the On-site Open Space ..................................... 28

Appendices Appendix A Habitat Conservation Plan

Appendix B Open Space Management Plan

Appendix C Off-site Mitigation Area Restoration and Management Plan

Purpose and Need for Action


1 Purpose and Need for Action

1.1 Introduction Oak Hills Estate, LLC (Applicant) is seeking an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended. The ITP would authorize the take of the federally endangered El Segundo blue butterfly (ESBB; Euphilotes battoides allyni) and federally threatened California red-legged frog (CRLF; Rana draytonii) incidental to the development of the Oak Hills Estate Project (Project), a proposed residential subdivision located in an unincorporated portion of Santa Barbara County, California (Figure 1). The proposed Federal action is the issuance of an ITP for the Project in conjunction with implementation of the Oak Hills Estate Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The Oak Hills Estate HCP also addresses effects to designated critical habitat for the federally listed as endangered Vandenberg monkeyflower (VMF; Diplacus vandenbergensis).

This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S. Code [USC] §§4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508), and Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. This EA provides the required NEPA documentation for the proposed Federal action, providing baseline environmental setting information and a discussion of impacts to the human and natural environment that may occur as a result of the proposed action.

1.2 Purpose of the Proposed Action The purpose of the issuance of an ITP for the Project is to ensure compliance with the Act by authorizing the take of ESBB and CRLF within the Project site incidental to otherwise lawful activities associated with the construction of the Oak Hills Estate residential subdivision. “Take” is defined in section 3 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.” Take of federally listed species is prohibited under section 9 of the Act. Incidental take may be authorized under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act to allow otherwise legal activities to occur if impacts to affected species are minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. The Applicant is seeking a 20-year ITP to ensure compliance with the Act during Project construction.

1.3 Need for the Proposed Action The need for the issuance of an ITP for the Project is that construction activities may result in take of the federally listed ESBB and CRLF, and will affect designated critical habitat for the VMF.

ESBB has been documented on the Project site, and therefore, construction of the Project could result in the take of individual ESBB. Project construction would also impact coast buckwheat (Eriogonum parvifolium), which ESBB relies upon as its host plant for all four stages of the ESBB life


4

Figure 1 Regional Location

Purpose and Need for Action


cycle. During 2017 and 2018 biological surveys, 175 coast buckwheat plants were present on the Project site. Construction of the Project would remove approximately 60 coast buckwheat plants. In addition to removal of host plants, the Project would permanently remove 1.51 acres of suitable habitat for ESBB. Thinning of vegetation within the fuel management zone for the Project would impact an additional 1.57 acres of ESBB suitable habitat.

CRLF has been documented within dispersal distance (1.7 miles) of the Project site, and therefore, construction of the Project could result in the take of individual CRLF. In addition, Project construction would permanently remove 9.72 acres of upland dispersal habitat1 for CRLF. Thinning of vegetation within the fuel management zone for the Project would impact an additional 4.51 acres of CRLF dispersal habitat.

VMF was not observed on the Project site during botanical surveys conducted in April 2014, April 2017, or May 2017 (when the species was confirmed to be in flower at nearby reference sites), and therefore, construction of the Project is not anticipated to remove or otherwise directly impact individual VMFs. However, approximately 11.31 acres in the western portion of the Project site is VMF designated critical habitat. Project construction would permanently remove 7.22 acres of critical habitat. Thinning of vegetation within the fuel management zone for the Project would impact an additional 2.31 acres of VMF critical habitat.

1.4 Scope of the Environmental Assessment According to NEPA, an EA should be concise and provide brief discussions of environmental impacts of a proposed action and alternatives. Based on the environmental impact analysis included in the CEQA compliance document for the Project (Oak Hills Estate Tentative Tract Map, Rezone, and Development Plan Final Environmental Impact Report [EIR], prepared by the County of Santa Barbara, dated October 2017), the following environmental issue areas are anticipated to experience no effect or negligible effects from the proposed action, and therefore, are not evaluated in this EA:

Agricultural Resources Air Quality and Climate Change Cultural Resources Environmental Justice Geology and Soils Hydrology and Water Quality Noise and Vibration

Public Services Public Utilities Transportation and Circulation Recreation Land Use and Planning Public Health and Environmental Hazards

Accordingly, this EA only analyzes effects to biological resources and visual resources.

1 Designated dispersal habitat consists of upland and riparian habitat contiguous with breeding and nonbreeding aquatic habitat that is free of barriers, and connects two or more patches of aquatic habitat within 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) of one another (75 Federal Register [FR] 12816).


6

1.5 External Regulatory Requirements

1.5.1 National Historic Preservation Act All Federal agencies are required to examine the cultural impacts of their actions, including permit issuance, which requires consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office and appropriate American Indian tribes. All ITP applicants are requested to submit a Request for Cultural Resources Compliance form to the USFWS concurrent with submittal of a draft HCP. To initiate National Historic Preservation Act compliance requirements, the Applicant will submit a completed Request for Cultural Resources Compliance form to the Service.

1.5.2 California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is a California-specific statute that is generally similar to NEPA in that CEQA requires an environmental impact assessment for projects in California that may affect the environment. The County of Santa Barbara is the lead agency responsible for completing CEQA compliance for the project. The Final EIR for the project has been completed but the document has not yet been certified by the County of Santa Barbara.

Proposed Action and Alternativ es


2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

2.1 No Action Alternative Under the no action alternative, the Service would not issue an ITP for the Oak Hills Estate Project. Therefore, no take of ESBB or CRLF or impact to VMF designated critical habitat would occur. Under the No-Action alternative mitigation in the form of habitat restoration and preservation both at proposed on-site open space and at the off-site Burton Mesa Ecological Reserve (BMER) would not occur.

2.2 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) The proposed action would involve the issuance of an ITP for the Oak Hills Estate Project (project) in conjunction with implementation of the Oak Hills Estate HCP. Under the proposed action, the Service would issue an ITP to the Applicant to allow for take of ESBB and CRLF incidental to the construction of the Project. The duration for the ITP would be 20 years.

The Project would include the construction and occupancy of 29 single-family residential units on individual lots and the establishment and maintenance of one additional lot containing common open space managed by a homeowners’ association, roadways, drainage features, and natural open space (Figure 2). The natural open space would serve as a buffer between the residential lots and the BMER. The residential lots and open space area would require fuel management, as detailed in the project-specific EIR (County of Santa Barbara 2017), HCP (Rincon Consultants, Inc. [Rincon] 2019a; Appendix A), and Open Space Management Plan (Rincon 2019b; Appendix B). As determined in the EIR for the Project, mitigation in the form of habitat restoration and preservation is required to offset impacts to ESBB, CRLF, and designated critical habitat for VMF. Restoration activities would occur within two areas: the proposed open space area on the Project site (Figure 2) and an off-site mitigation area on the nearby BMER (Figure 3).

The success of the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures included in the HCP would be monitored to determine whether required habitat restoration activities have been successful in offsetting potential effects to ESBB, CRLF, and VMF (herein referred to as “covered species”) and their habitats.

The proposed action is considered the preferred alternative because the proposed action would fulfill the purpose of ensuring compliance with the Act and meet the need to permit incidental take of ESBB and CRLF that would be affected by construction and occupation of the project.

2.2.1 Federally Listed Species Covered by the HCP The species covered by the Oak Hills Estate HCP include the federally endangered ESBB and the federally threatened CRLF. The HCP also covers impacts to designated critical habitat for the federally listed as endangered VMF. Accordingly, ESBB, CRLF, and VMF are the covered species addressed in the HCP. The ITP would authorize incidental take, including injury or mortality,


8

Figure 2 Oak Hills Estate Project Site, including On-site Open Space



Figure 3 Off-site Mitigation Area


10

to ESBB and CRLF that could result from covered activities. In addition, the HCP covers impacts to VMF critical habitat. For detailed descriptions of the covered species, including their status, distribution, and natural history, refer to Section 3.2 of the HCP.

2.2.2 Covered Activities The proposed action of issuing an ITP is contingent on the approval and implementation of the Oak Hills Estate HCP. The following covered activities may result in take of ESBB and CRLF and/or impacts to VMF critical habitat.

2.2.2.1 Construction-related Activities Construction-related activities would include the following temporary and permanent impacts.

Temporary Impacts These impacts are associated with short-term conditions resulting from active construction and some of the effects would have an impact throughout the project site, particularly increased activity level, presence of fencing, and increased dust.

Equipment staging and active construction Exclusionary fencing during construction Increased dust/blowing soil Soil disturbance in temporary impact areas Initial fuel management trimming

Permanent Impacts These impacts are associated with the alteration of the project site conditions by removing native vegetation and constructing the residential development. These changes are associated with the proposed development footprint, and would occur within the residential lots, roadways, and stormwater basins.

Removal of ESBB larval food plants/host plants Vegetation clearing and site preparation (e.g., grading) Installation of the foundations for the proposed structures and other hardscape features such as

driveways, parking areas, perimeter walls, etc. Landscaping Conversion of habitat to residential uses and roadways Introduction of non-native plant species

2.2.2.2 Operat ional and Maintenance-related Activities

Temporary, Recurring Impacts Fuel management in the defensible space (30 to 100 feet from structures) Maintenance of structures and facilities Vehicular traffic Increased human activity Increased domestic animal presence



2.2.2.3 Open Space Area Initial Restoration-related Activities

Temporary, Recurring Impacts Vehicular traffic Increased human activity Herbicide use Temporary fencing (browse protection) Soil disturbance for weed removal

2.2.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures In accordance with section 10(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the Applicant has specified measures that would be taken to minimize and mitigate to the maximum extent practicable the impacts associated with take of federally listed animal due to implementation of covered activities. Section 5.1 in the HCP delineates the biological goals and objectives of the habitat restoration and preservation required for the construction of the project.

2.2.3.1 Avoidance and Minimization Measures To avoid and minimize impacts to covered species, the Applicant would implement avoidance and minimization measures corresponding to the biological goals and objectives. Section 5.2 in the HCP lists all avoidance and minimization measures to which the project is subject.

2.2.3.2 Mit igation Measures To mitigate permanent impacts to 9.72 acres on-site from construction of the project, the Applicant would be required to restore and preserve habitat on the on-site open space and off-site mitigation area on BMER. Refer to Section 5.3 in the HCP, as well as the Open Space Management Plan (Rincon 2019b; Appendix B) and the Off-site Mitigation Area Restoration and Management Plan (Rincon 2019c; Appendix C) for details regarding habitat restoration and preservation.

Compensatory mitigation for ESBB would be offset at two ratios, dependent upon the location of impacted coast buckwheat plants on the project site. Mitigation for ESBB would entail planting coast buckwheat plants and restoring habitat, including invasive plant management. Impacted ESBB habitat, including coast buckwheat plants within the development footprint, would be mitigated at a 3:1 ratio (restored habitat: impacted habitat). Impacted ESBB habitat, including coast buckwheat plants, within the open space area affected by fuel management activities within the 30-100 foot Fuel Management Zone would be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio.

Impacts to CRLF upland dispersal habitat would be mitigated through off-site restoration to offset the loss of 9.72 acres of such habitat. In addition, impacts to designated critical habitat for VMF would be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio (due to such on-site critical habitat occurring within central maritime chaparral). Mitigation would include restoring/enhancing and preserving perpetuity 3.72 acres of habitat within the on-site open space, and 0.55 acre of maritime chaparral; 13.29 acres of maritime chaparral, oaks, and rare plants; 4.54 acres of coast live oak woodland; and 0.14 acre of riparian arroyo willow thickets within the off-site mitigation area on BMER. The Applicant would provide funding assurances for the long-term management in the form of an endowment, as discussed in Section 7 of the HCP.


12

3 Affected Environment

3.1 Biological Resources

3.1.1 Regulatory Setting Federal, state, and local authorities under a variety of statutes and guidelines share regulatory authority over biological resources. The primary authority for general biological resources lies within the land use control and planning authority of local jurisdictions, which in this instance is the County of Santa Barbara. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is a trustee agency for biological resources throughout the state under CEQA and also has direct jurisdiction under the California Fish and Game Code, which includes, but is not limited to, resources protected by the State of California under the California Endangered Species Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is responsible for enforcing federal wildlife laws and administering the Federal Endangered Species Act (Act). The Service reviews applications for incidental take permits, and has authority to approve HCPs pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. As part of this process, the Service must complete NEPA analysis disclosing environmental effects of the proposed HCP. When an HCP is approved, the Service approves an implementing agreement and issues programmatic ITPs associated with implementation.

The USFWS responsibilities include administering the Act. Section 9 of the Act and its implementing regulations in effect at the time the covered species were listed prohibit 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; therefore, and pursuant to the Principal Deputy Director’s Memorandum: Guidance on When to Seek an Incidental Take Permit (USFWS 2018), harassment is not a form of take permitted under section 10(a)(1)(B) since it is not incidental take but an intentional or negligent act. 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 ITP 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 ITP must be accompanied by a HCP. 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

Affected Env ironment


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 ITP 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.

.

3.1.2 Environmental Setting The environmental setting for biological resources is based upon information in Section 4.3.1 of the Project EIR (County of Santa Barbara 2017).

3.1.2.1 Vegetation Communities/Habitats

Project Site

The project site contains four vegetation communities/land cover types: maritime chaparral, coyote brush scrub, ruderal, and spikerush emergent wetland (Table 1 and Figure 4). Native needlegrasses (Stipa pulchra and S. lepida) were occasional to common understory components within scrub and chaparral vegetation types, and also occur in patches along a disturbed swale but do not occur at


14

Figure 4 Vegetation Communities on the Project Site



sufficient density and areal abundance to constitute native grassland. A few Bishop pines (Pinus muricata) occur along the south and east edges of the project site, and a single red willow (Salix laevigata) is present near the culvert inlet at the southeast corner of the project site.

Table 1 Natural Communities on the Project Site

Natural Communities Existing Acreage on Project Site

Maritime Chaparral 10.64

Coyote Brush Scrub 5.60

Ruderal 0.62

Spikerush Emergent Wetland 0.02

Total 16.88

Source: County of Santa Barbara 2017

Maritime Chaparral

Maritime chaparral covers the western portion of the project site, occupying approximately 10.64 acres (63.1 percent of the project site). Maritime chaparral is a sensitive natural community. Chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum) is dominant to co-dominant with several other species locally common in maritime chaparral, including Lompoc ceanothus (Ceanothus cuneatus var. fasciculatum), Purisima manzanita (Arctostaphylos purissima), and sand mesa manzanita (Arctostaphylos rudis). Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) is common on the project site, particularly on the western side. Vegetation coverage varies from dense, nearly impenetrable mature brush to areas with intermittent clearings. Bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum) is common to abundant under canopy and in clearings. This vegetation type is locally known as Burton Mesa chaparral.

Coyote Brush Scrub

Coyote brush scrub is dominant in the eastern portion of the project site, covering approximately 5.6 acres (33.2 percent of the project site). Coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) is dominant to co-dominant with deer weed (Acmispon glaber) and sagebrush (Artemisia californica). Poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum) and sticky monkeyflower (Mimulus aurantiacus) are common associates. Black sage (Salvia mellifera), mock heather (Ericameria ericoides), and California aster (Corethrogyne filaginifolia) are occasionally present. The two on-site drainages are within the coyote brush scrub habitat.

Ruderal Ruderal vegetation covers approximately 0.62 acre (3.61 percent) of the project site. Ruderal vegetation is typically associated with disturbed areas, such as roadsides and infill parcels. This vegetation community includes patches of ice plant (Carpobrotus edulis), as well as areas dominated by non-native annual grasses and herbs in the southeastern portion of the project site. Ice plant is dominant in patches near the eastern boundary on dominant in swathes adjacent to Oak Hill Drive between the two on-site drainages.

Spikerush Emergent Wetland

A small, isolated depression, approximately 0.02 acre near the northern boundary of the project site, east of the western drainage, supports herbaceous wetland vegetation. Spikerush (Eleocharis


16

macrostachya [=E. palustris]) is dominant, with iris-leaved rush (Juncus xiphioides) and brass buttons (Cotula coronopifolia) also present in the depression bottom. Marsh baccharis (Baccharis douglasii [=B. glutinosa]) is abundant in a patch on the west side. A few alkali popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys leptocladus) and sheep sorrel (Rumex acetosella) were present along depression margins. There is no indication that this feature is hydrologically connected during normal events to the western drainage.

Off-site Mitigation Area One land cover type, fallow farm field, occurs on the off-site mitigation area (Figure 3). There are several vegetation communities adjacent to the off-site mitigation area such as arroyo willow thickets, coast live oak woodland, coastal scrub, and maritime chaparral. Additionally, a perennial pond with emergent wetland vegetation and riparian arroyo willow thickets occurs immediately south of the off-site mitigation area.

Agricultural operations have occurred for over a century in the area, and the off-site mitigation area is in a field that was managed for crop production. At the time of the site visit of the off-site mitigation area (November 15, 2017), the field lay fallow and had not been cultivated for at least two years. The field is dominated by ruderal herbs such as mustards (Brassica nigra and Hirschfeldia incana), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), thistles (Carduus pycnocephalus and Cirsium vulgare), horseweed (Erigeron canadensis), and annual grasses such as bromes (Bromus diandrus, B. hordeaceus, and B. madritensis ssp. rubens). Vegetation in the northeastern portion was very dense, comprised primarily of waist to chest-high herbs and sub-shrubs spaced tightly together. Vegetative cover was considerably lower in the southwestern portion with patches of bare soil between ruderal species. Some shrub cover was present, including coyote brush. However, young recruits of oak trees, La Purisima manzanita, coyote brush, and annual native herbs are present, indicating the site is in the very early stages of reverting to a natural community.

3.1.2.2 Jurisdict ional Waters and Wetlands

Project Site The project site contains two ephemeral drainage channels; however, neither feature is mapped on the Lompoc, California USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle, the National Hydrography Dataset, or the National Wetlands Inventory. There is no indication of surface connection to adjacent surface waters beyond the storm drain inlet. Direct hydrologic connection to waters of the U.S. cannot be established, and therefore, these features are not considered federal or state jurisdictional waters or wetlands.

Off-site Mitigation Area The off-site mitigation area is near an ephemeral drainage. A portion of the drainage is vegetated with a well-developed riparian woodland. Immediately south of the off-site mitigation area, a perennial pond, wetland, and riparian area are present. Restoration efforts associated with the project HCP would avoid impacting the drainage and riparian area. A small area of currently degraded habitat adjacent to the pond and wetland area would be restored to extend the riparian band and reduce the existing noxious weeds. Implementation of the HCP would not impact jurisdictional areas.



3.1.2.3 Federally Listed Species

Project Site

El Segundo Blue Butterfly

The ESBB has been documented on the project site incidental to surveys of BMER (Rincon 2019a). On August 1, 2012, a single male ESBB was reported on the project site, and on July 15, 2016, a single female ESBB was reported on the project site. Because the species was reported on-site and coast buckwheat plants are present throughout in the project site, the entire project site is considered occupied by ESBB. During surveys in 2017 and 2018, Rincon botanists mapped 175 coast buckwheat plants on the project site, as depicted in Figure 5, which also depicts areas around the plant clusters that was defined as suitable ESBB habitat within the project development footprint and the 30-100 foot Fuel Management Zone.

California Red-Legged Frog

No CRLF occurrences have been documented on the project site; however, the site is located within the known range of CRLF in Santa Barbara County based upon the current range depicted in the Service’s Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog (Rincon 2019a).

The project site does not occur within federally designated critical habitat for the CRLF. No occurrences are present within one mile of the project site (relevant to CRLF in accordance with the Service’s site assessment protocol). However, two occurrences are reported within dispersal distance (1.7 miles) of the project site (Figure 6).

The project site lacks potential aquatic habitat, although such habitat occurs within one mile of the project site; however, upland habitat suitable for CRLF occurs within the project site. Based on the condition of upland habitat and distance to nearest aquatic habitat, CRLF could be present on the project site, but the potential of encountering individuals is likely limited to periods of suitable climatic conditions (e.g., rain events, dense fog, cool conditions, high humidity), as well as during the day while frogs are sheltering between periods of movement.

Vandenberg Monkeyflower – Designated Critical Habitat VMF was not observed on the project site in April 2014, April 2017, or May 2017 on survey days when the species was confirmed to be in flower at nearby reference sites. Based on two years of negative survey results, it is assumed that this species does not currently occur at the project site (Rincon 2017 and 2019a).

The western portion of the project site is within designated critical habitat for VMF. Vegetation in this area consists of mature maritime chaparral that is fairly dense and contains limited sandy openings. The soils in the area are mapped as Marina sands, and field observations confirmed presence of sandy soils (Rincon 2019a). Figure 7 depicts the extent of VMF critical habitat on-site (approximately 11.31 acres) and the locations of nearby known occurrences of VMF.

Off-site Mitigation Area No federally listed species are known to occur on the off-site mitigation area; however, CRLF could potentially utilize the off-site mitigation area as upland dispersal or refuge habitat.


18

Figure 5 Distribution of Host Plants for El Segundo Blue Butterfly on the Project Site



Figure 6 Distribution of California Red-legged Frog in the Vicinity of the Project Site


20

Figure 7 Vandenberg Monkeyflower Distribution and Critical Habitat in the Vicinity of the Project Site



3.2 Visual Resources

3.2.1 Regulatory Setting Policies pertaining to design of development and preservation of scenic resources are set forth in the Land Use, Environmental Resources Management, and Open Space Elements of the Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan, including the Lompoc Area Interpretive Guidelines. In general, the Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan encourages minimizing alterations to topography; conforming new structures with the scale and character of the existing community; and preserving to the maximum extent feasible natural features, landforms, and native vegetation.

The Santa Barbara County Land Use & Development Code Chapter 35, Zoning, includes development standards protecting the visual resources of the project area. The Hillside and Ridgeline Protection Ordinance (Section 35.62.040) regulates development on slopes to minimize grading, disruption of natural vegetation, and erosion.

3.2.2 Environmental Setting

3.2.2.1 Project Site The environmental setting for visual resources is based upon information in Section 4.1.1 of the project EIR (County of Santa Barbara 2017).

The currently undeveloped project site is located in the central coast region of California, approximately 9 miles east of the Pacific Ocean, in the Lompoc Valley of northwestern Santa Barbara County. The visual character of the area surrounding the project site is defined by a combination of natural and built environments. The project site is bounded by condominiums to the southwest and the Village Country Club golf course to the south across Oak Hill Drive, and is adjacent to the BMER to the north and west (Figure 8). Single-family residences are located east of the project site. An ephemeral north-south drainage bisects the central portion of the project site and a smaller drainage occurs in the eastern portion of the project site.

The project site contains a variety of important scenic resources characteristic of the Lompoc Valley, including rolling hills with a mix of mature oak woodlands. The project site also provides views of BMER, which consists of 5,368 acres between the Purisima Hills and the Santa Ynez Mountains, and encompasses one of the last stands of maritime chaparral in the state (County of Santa Barbara 2017). The project site is contiguous to the BMER, which contributes to a semirural atmosphere adjacent to the existing unincorporated residential areas surrounding the Village Country Club golf course.

The project site is within foreground views from Oak Hill Drive, portions of the golf course, the condominiums to the southeast, and front yards of single-family residences to the south and east. The project site is within middle-ground and background views from existing residential developments to the south, more distant portions of the golf course and hillsides to the north, east, and west, including areas within BMER. The project site is visible to hikers using nearby trails in BMER, dependent upon the extent of intervening screening by topography and vegetation.

Highway 1, a designated scenic highway, is located approximately 2 miles south of the project site. However, there is little or no visibility of the project site from Highway 1 due to distance and intervening commercial and residential development, golf course vegetation, and groves of large


22

Figure 8 Oak Hills Estate Project Site and Vicinity



trees adjacent to the highway. There are no designated scenic ridgelines in the vicinity of the project site.

The project site contains no existing sources of light other than an adjacent street light located along Oak Hill Drive. Nearby existing residences and the Village Country Club golf course to the east and south, respectively, as well as facilities at the Lompoc Oil Field to the northeast, create nighttime lighting and some glare in the project area.

3.2.2.1 Off-site Mitigation Area The off-site mitigation area is located in a gently sloped area of the BMER, just east of VAFB. Accordingly, trail users within the BMER can easily view the off-site mitigation area. The site was previously farmed for several decades, but has been fallow since about 2017.

The off-site mitigation area is approximately 0.8 mile east of Highway 1, a designated scenic highway. However, there is little or no visibility from Highway 1 of the portions of the off-site mitigation area that would be restored as part of mitigation for the proposed project due to intervening topography and vegetation adjacent to the highway.


24

4 Environmental Consequences

4.1.1 Biological Resources

4.1.1.1 Effects of the No Act ion Alternative Under the no action alternative, the project would not be constructed and the project site would remain in its current state. Accordingly, the no action alternative would have no effect on existing biological resources. However, under this alternative, no on- or off-site habitat restoration would occur; therefore, fallow agricultural lands at the off-site mitigation area would not be converted to suitable habitat for covered species.

4.1.1.2 Effects of the Proposed Action

Vegetation Communities The project would result in permanent and temporary impacts to maritime chaparral and coyote brush scrub, which are considered to be sensitive vegetation communities. Therefore, project effects to on-site vegetation communities would be adverse. However, as discussed in the project EIR, impacts to sensitive vegetation communities would be mitigated by on- and off-site habitat restoration and preservation. Implementation of the HCP would mitigate the project’s effects to on-site sensitive vegetation communities.

Habitat restoration at the off-site mitigation area would result in the removal of fallow farm field. Because fallow farm field is not considered a sensitive vegetation community, no significant impacts would occur to vegetation communities at the off-site mitigation area.

Therefore, no significant impacts to vegetation communities would result from the proposed action.

Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Construction and occupancy of the project would not impact any jurisdictional waters or wetlands. In addition, habitat restoration at the on-site open space and the offsite mitigation area, as described in the HCP, would not impact such resources. Therefore, no effects to jurisdictional waters or wetlands would result from the proposed action.

Federally Listed Species

El Segundo Blue Butterfly

Potential direct effects to ESBB could occur if the species is present within the development area during project construction. Specifically, killing of ESBB larvae would occur during removal of coast buckwheat plants, if larvae are present on removed plants, and killing of ESBB pupae would occur due to disruption of the leaf litter and soil surrounding the buckwheat plants. The onset of the species’ flight season (June 1 through September 15) is closely synchronized to the beginning of the flowering cycle of coast buckwheat. By late September, coast buckwheat flower heads have

Env ironmental Consequences


generally senesced2 and the ESBB larvae have pupated underground or in the leaf litter at the base of the host plants (USFWS 1998). Implementation of avoidance and minimization measure ESBB-3 included in Section 5.2 of the Oak Hills Estate HCP, which requires initial ground disturbance to occur outside of the species’ flight season, would avoid and/or minimize potentially adverse effects to ESBB larvae during construction of the project. The loss of buckwheat plants in the project site could also affect dispersal patterns of adult butterflies. However, the project would include preservation of buckwheat plants within on-site open space that is adjacent to the BMER (Figure 5). Therefore, the project would not create isolated pockets of coast buckwheat. Implementation of the HCP would include plantings of coast buckwheat in the on-site open space; nonetheless, a temporal loss of habitat would occur as immature buckwheat plants do not produce a many flowers as mature plants. Loss of suitable habitat and mature buckwheat plants could result in displacement of adult butterflies, and reduced habitat for feeding and egg laying.

Project construction activities could also result in impacts to adult ESBB during the flight season, although the potential for such impacts would be minimized by timing initial ground disturbance activities to occur outside the flight season (June 1 through September 15) when adults are present, as required by the project’s avoidance and minimization measures; however, construction activities would likely extend into flight season and could therefore contribute to the incidental killing of adults via collisions with construction equipment.

Fuel management and restoration activities, including weed removal, could result in impacts to larvae, pupae, and adult ESBB if buckwheat plants and surrounding soil and leaf litter are disturbed. Impacts resulting from fuel management and restoration activities would be minimized through timing restrictions, the use of pre-treatment survey and buckwheat marking techniques, and restriction of activities within five feet of buckwheat plants, as described in Section 5 of the HCP. Control of invasive species through hand pulling of non-native plants in close proximity (within 5 feet) could impact pupae in the leaf litter and soil. However, hand pulling of weeds within five feet of buckwheat plants would be restricted to highly invasive species, and would be completed only when soil is moist to minimize soil disturbance and impacts to buckwheat roots.

Use of herbicide may also impact ESBB. Impacts could include herbicide drift that damages coast buckwheat individuals, impairing their growth and bloom, as well as direct impacts to ESBB. To minimize impacts, herbicide application would be limited to cool, calm weather for treatment of aggressive invasive species. Because organosilicone surfactants that are frequently used when applying herbicide have been shown to negatively impact pollinators (Rincon 2019a), only non-organosilicone surfactants would be used. Section 5 of the HCP discusses the measures that would restrict types and timing of activities associated with invasive species management to minimize effects to ESBB.

Occupancy of the proposed 29 residences could result in an increase of domestic animals (e.g., dogs and cats) at the project site. The future homeowners’ association would be required to provide educational brochures to future residences that state that domestic pets are prohibited from protected areas of on-site open space. Nonetheless, domestic animals, particularly cats, could prey upon small wildlife, including adult ESBB. However, because the project site is adjacent to existing residences, it is assumed that domestic animals already occur in the area, and the project would result in only a slight increase in domestic animal presence.

2 “Senesced” means deteriorated with age (with regard to a living organism).


26

Installation of landscaping, particularly irrigated landscapes, has been shown to facilitate invasion of Argentine ants (Linepithema humile; Rincon 2019a). Argentine ants could spread from developed areas into the open space, displacing native ants that are known to have a beneficial association with ESBB larvae. However, some evidence suggests that Argentine ants assume the larvae tending and parasite/predator deterrent functions performed by native ants (refer to Section 3 of the HCP). While invasion of Argentine ants on other species may be detrimental, the effect on ESBB is currently unknown.

In addition, restoration of approximately 0.65 acre of ESBB habitat at the on-site open space (Figure ), as well as conversion of 13.84 acres of fallow farmland within the off-site mitigation area to maritime chaparral with a coast buckwheat component, would offset the regional loss of occupied habitat.

In summary, temporary and permanent effects to ESBB would occur as a result of project implementation, but effects to ESBB would be minimized during construction activities and occupancy through implementation of avoidance and minimization measures. In addition, implementation of mitigation measures would restore habitat and offset impacts to this species. Accordingly, no significant impacts to ESBB would occur as a result of the proposed action.

California Red-legged Frog

Potential direct impacts to CRLF could occur if the species is present within the project area during project construction, with the greatest potential for injury/death occurring when the species is migrating to/from a suitable aquatic habitat off-site during specific climatic conditions (e.g., nighttime during rain events). If CRLF are migrating through the site, impacts could occur through collisions with equipment or vehicle traffic during both construction and occupancy of the project. Impacts could also occur during fuel management activities if CRLF are sheltering under vegetation when fuel management is conducted. The use of exclusionary fencing during project construction to minimize direct mortality of CRLF (refer to Section 5 of the HCP) may result in take if the fencing hinders the ability of CRLF to utilize straight line routes as they disperse or migrate, if CRLF traverse through the project site during dispersal and/or migration. Measures such as restrictions on construction activities during favorable climatic conditions for CRLF movement would minimize direct impacts to CRLF from the project.

The effects of the project on the persistence of CRLF are considered to be low due to the lack of disturbance within suitable aquatic and adjacent upland habitat, distance of the project site to potentially suitable aquatic habitats, and implementation of avoidance and minimization measures. Construction and occupation of the project adjacent to existing roads, residential development, and a golf course would not result in significant fragmentation of upland habitat. In addition, implementation of the HCP would result in the conversion of approximately 13.84 acres of fallow farmland at the off-site mitigation area to maritime chaparral, as well as the restoration of 4.54 acres of oak woodland at the off-site mitigation area, which would connect restored habitat with existing native vegetation. Implementation of the avoidance and minimization measures included in Section 5.2 of the HCP would minimize effects to CRLF during restoration activities at the off-site mitigation area. In summary, effects to CRLF would be minimized, and mitigation for project impacts would offset the loss of CRLF upland habitat and improve connectivity of native habitats in proximity to known CRLF occurrences.

Accordingly, no significant impacts to CRLF would occur as a result of the proposed action.



Vandenberg Monkeyflower – Designated Critical Habitat A total of 7.22 acres of VMF designated critical habitat would be permanently removed by the project, and an additional 2.31 acres of VMF designated critical habitat occur within the 30-100 foot Fuel Management Zone, in which vegetation is periodically thinned. A total of 1.78 acres of VMF critical habitat would be retained in the project site.

Although it is assumed that VMF is not currently present at the project site (Rincon 2017 and 2019a), construction and occupation of the project would reduce the extent of potentially suitable habitat within the region and would therefore contribute to the cumulative loss of habitat determined to be critical to the recovery of VMF. However, the project site is at the edge of the Santa Lucia critical habitat unit, and therefore, the project would not result in habitat fragmentation or isolation of this critical habitat unit or designated critical habitat for VMF as a whole because the project would not segment the critical habitat into smaller, noncontiguous areas. Impacts to VMF critical habitat would be offset through habitat restoration at the off-site


28

Figure 9 Proposed Restoration Areas within the On-site Open Space



mitigation area. The overall effects to VMF associated with the proposed action would be minor, as impacts to approximately 7.22 acres of unoccupied critical habitat represents 0.4 percent of the VMF critical habitat in the Santa Lucia unit and 0.3 percent of all VMF designated critical habitat. Approximately 86 percent of the VMF critical habitat in the project area is located on land owned by federal, state, or local agencies. The loss of 0.3 percent of all VMF designated critical habitat would be offset through conservation and restoration activities on the on-site open space and off-site mitigation area. Based on these factors, the project would not affect the functionality of VMF designated critical habitat. Accordingly, the proposed action would not significantly impact VMF designated critical habitat.

4.2 Visual Resources

4.2.1 Effects of the No Action Alternative Because the project site would remain in its existing state under the no action alternative, no effects to visual resources would occur under this alternative. The no action alternative would not affect views from the BMER or other public viewpoints, as the project site would remain undeveloped with natural vegetation. Under the no action alternative, the off-site mitigation area would also remain is its existing state; therefore, no conversion of fallow farm field to natural vegetation would occur, and no long-term beneficial effect to the visual character of the area and public views of the off-site mitigation area would occur.

4.2.2 Effects of the Proposed Action There are no designated scenic ridgelines in the vicinity of the project site. One designated state scenic highway (Highway 1) is located approximately 2 miles south of the project site. This scenic highway has little to no visibility of the project site due to its distance from the site, and intervening topography, development, and vegetation. Scenic resources associated with Highway 1 would not be affected by development of the project site.

The BMER is located immediately north and west of the project site and is considered an important scenic area. Hiking trails within the BMER are open daily to the public from sunrise to sunset. Because the project site is located at the urban fringe, the project site provides views of high scenic value to surrounding areas of gently rolling topography, wildlife habitat, and native vegetation. These views of open space along the Purisima Hills and the Lompoc Valley are visible from the adjacent residences and Oak Hill Drive, and the Village Country Club golf course.

The project site is currently undeveloped and shares the scenic qualities of the adjacent natural open space of the BMER. Development of the project would result in the removal of up to 127 coast live oaks of varying maturity and 9.10 acres of native habitat, which equates to up to 35 percent of the existing tree cover at the project site. Accordingly, the project would cause a substantial change to the existing on-site visual resources and alter the overall visual character of the site when viewed from the BMER and public areas (e.g., roadways, sidewalks, parks, schools, etc.) within existing residential areas adjacent to the project site.

The project would be required to mitigate impacts to biological resources in the form of habitat restoration and preservation on-site and off-site. Off-site restoration would include planting of replacement trees at a 10:1 ratio. Restoration at the off-site mitigation area would result in the conversion of fallow farm field to natural vegetation, including shrubs and trees, which, once established, would result in a beneficial effect to the visual character of the area and public views of


30

the off-site mitigation area. However, the off-site mitigation area is not adjacent to the project site and would therefore not compensate for the visual impacts to public views from the BMER as scenic quality is a site-specific resource.

Construction of the project would result in grading and clearing of 57 percent of the site with the construction of 29 houses, two roads, drainage swales, infrastructure, and extensive vegetation thinning in the fuel management area that extends outward 30 feet from proposed residences. These changes would affect the visual quality of the existing semi-disturbed, yet undeveloped project site. Views of the project site from the BMER would be permanently altered, and following project construction, would include views of low-density, landscaped, urban residential development. However, the project would be in character with surrounding residential development that may be visible from the same viewpoints on the BMER that offer views of the project site. Additionally, approximately 7.25 acres of the project site would remain undeveloped. The on-site open space would help to retain some of the existing natural views that are currently available from the BMER, although views would also include the adjacent proposed project development.

Landscaping of the proposed project would be visually compatible with existing native vegetation, and would visually compensate for the loss of native habitat through on-site mitigation. On-site mitigation in the form of planting oak trees would partially offset visual impacts from tree canopy reduction in the long term, but this effect would not occur for decades and the change to the visual character would persist.

Visual impacts to the BMER would occur due to project development as the project site is currently semi-disturbed with natural vegetation and the project would convert the majority of the site from semi-disturbed open space to rural residential and developed urban fringe. No feasible mitigation is available that would fully address these impacts to the existing visual character and public views of the site from the BMER. However, the project would be visually compatible with adjacent land uses (i.e., similar residential developments). Furthermore, on-site mitigation requirements for impacts to biological resources would partially offset impacts to visual resources (e.g., native plants will be installed to blend in with adjacent native vegetation within the open space area to the greatest extent feasible), and off-site mitigation requirements for impacts to biological resources would result in a beneficial effect to visual resources. Therefore, no significant impacts to visual resources would occur as a result of the proposed action.

References


5 References

Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon). 2019a. Oak Hills Estate Habitat Conservation Plan. August 2019.

_____. 2019b. Oak Hills Estate Project Open Space Management Plan. May 2019.

_____. 2019c. Oak Hills Estate Off-site Mitigation Area Restoration and Management Plan. June 2019.

_____. 2017. Oak Hills Estate Project Biological Resources Assessment. May 2017.

Santa Barbara, County of. 2017. Oak Hills Estate Tentative Tract Map, Rezone, and Development Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 2015111069. October 2017.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. Recovery Plan of the El Segundo Blue Butterfly (Euphilotes battoides allyni). Region 1, Portland, OR. September 28, 1998.

_____. 2018. Principal Deputy Director’s Memorandum: Guidance on When to Seek an Incidental Take Permit. Washington D.C.


32

6 List of Preparers

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prepared this EA with assistance from Rincon Consultants, Inc. served as project managers for the Service.

Rincon staff involved in preparation of this EA, data gathering, project management, and quality control include:

Richard Daulton, MURP, Quality Assurance/Quality Control Reviewer Melissa Whittemore, NEPA Specialist/EA Preparer Colby Boggs, Principal Biologist Michael Tom, Project Manager/Lead Biologist Douglas Drynan, Senior Biologist

Appendix A Oak Hills Estate Habitat Conservation Plan

Appendix B Oak Hills Estate Project Open Space Management Plan

Appendix C Oak Hills Estate Project Off-site Mitigation Area Restoration and Management Plan

Documents

Oak Hills Estate Habitat Conservation Plan Draft Oak... · Oak Hills Estate, LLC (Applicant) is seeking an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)