Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
App-B_Hosking 99 Commercial Center Biological Resources Evaluation
Appendix B Biological Resources Evaluation BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION HOSKING/99 COMMERCIAL CENTER July 2014 Biological Resources Evaluation Hosking/99 Commercial Center Prepared for: 3 J's & R, LLC P.O. Box 1969 Bakersfield, CA 93303 Contact Person: John Giumarra, Jr. Phone: (661) 395-7070 Consultant: 5080 California Avenue, Suite 220 Bakersfield, CA 93309 Contact: Belen Perez Phone: (661) 616-2600 Fax: (661) 616-5970 July 2014 © Copyright by Quad Knopf, Inc. Unauthorized use prohibited. 140086 i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 – Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Project Description ............................................................................................................. 1 2.0 – Environmental Setting ............................................................................................................................ 4 2.1 Regional Overview ............................................................................................................. 4 2.2 Project Area ........................................................................................................................ 4 3.0 – Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................................................. 6 3.1 Federal Endangered Species Act (16 USC §1531 et seq.) .................................................. 6 3.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC §703-711) ................................................................. 6 3.3 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection (16 USC §668)............................................................. 6 3.4 California Endangered Species Act (Fish and Game Code §2050 et seq.) ......................... 6 3.5 California Fish and Game Codes ........................................................................................ 6 3.6 Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan ......................................................... 7 4.0 – Methods ................................................................................................................................................. 8 4.1 Literature Search ................................................................................................................. 8 4.2 Field Survey ........................................................................................................................ 8 5.0 – Results and Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 8 5.1 Sensitive Habitats ............................................................................................................... 8 5.2 Migration Corridors ............................................................................................................ 9 5.3 Jurisdictional Waters ........................................................................................................... 9 5.4 General Wildlife ................................................................................................................. 9 5.5 Special-Status Species ...................................................................................................... 10 6.0 – Recommended Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................... 26 6.1 General Avoidance and Minimization Measures .............................................................. 26 6.2 Species-Specific Protocol-level Surveys .......................................................................... 27 7.0 – Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 28 8.0 – References ........................................................................................................................................... 29 Appendices Appendix A – Photoplates Appendix B – United States Fish and Wildlife Service Species List Appendix C – San Joaquin Kit Fox Standardized Recommendations Appendix D – Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation ii LIST OF TABLES Table Page No. Title No. 1 List of Plant and Animal Species Observed on the Project Site ............................10 2 List of Sensitive Plant and Animal Species Occurring Within the Nine Quadrangles in or Adjacent to the project Area ......................................11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page No. Title No. 1 Hosking/99 Commercial Center Biological Resources Evaluation Site Vicinity Map ...............................................................................................2 2 Hosking/99 Commercial Center Biological Resources Evaluation USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map .................................................................3 3 Hosking/99 Commercial Center Biological Resources Evaluation 2014 Aerial Location Map .................................................................................5 4 Hosking/99 Commercial Center Biological Resources Evaluation CNDDB Plant Observation Within a 10-Mile Radius .....................................22 5 Hosking/99 Commercial Center Biological Resources Evaluation CNDDB Wildlife Observations Within a 10-Mile Radius ..............................23 Biological Resources Evaluation July 2014 Hosking/99 Commercial Center 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION This biological resources evaluation has been prepared by Quad Knopf, Inc. (Quad Knopf) at the request of 3 J’s and R, LLC. for the proposed construction of a regional retail center located northeast of State Route 99 and Hosking Avenue, Bakersfield, Kern County, California. The purpose of this report is to provide updated information on the condition and sensitivity of the natural resources currently on and around the project site, and to evaluate the potential impacts on those resources. This study focuses on sensitive natural communities and special status plant and animal species and identifies mitigation measures that reduce potential project related impacts to a less than significant level. A biota report and full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) were prepared for the project in 2007, but no construction has since taken place. The proposed project site will require a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review and certification. Throughout this biological resource evaluation, the term “project site” is used to represent the construction footprint (area of disturbance) for the proposed Hosking/99 Commercial Center project (referred to hereinafter as the proposed Project). The term “project area” includes surrounding lands, outside but adjacent to the project site. The term “project vicinity” is used to denote a more expansive landscape context. 1.1 Project Location The proposed project consists of development of a regional retail center in southeast Bakersfield, located in central Kern County, California, between State Route 99 and South H Street (west and east boundaries respectively), and Berkshire Road and Hosking Avenue (north and south boundaries respectively) (Figure 1). Specifically, the proposed Project is located in a portion of the southeast ¼ of Section 25, Township 30 South, Range 27 East Mount Diablo Base and Meridian (MDB&M) within, the Gosford U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographical quadrangle (Figure 2). Elevation across the site ranges from approximately 340-350 ft. above mean sea level (AMSL). The site is approximately 85 acres. 1.2 Project Description The proposed Project includes developing a regional retail center of 800,000 square feet, including 300 hotel rooms. Biological Resources Evaluation July 2014 Hosking/99 Commercial Center 2 HOSKING/99 COMMERCIAL CENTER BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION SITE VICINITY MAP Figure 1 Biological Resources Evaluation July 2014 Hosking/99 Commercial Center 3 HOSKING/99 COMMERCIAL CENTER BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION USGS 7.5-MINUTE TOPOGRAPHIC MAP Figure 2 Biological Resources Evaluation July 2014 Hosking/99 Commercial Center 4 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 2.1 Regional Overview The proposed Project is located in the San Joaquin Valley region of the California floristic province (Hickman 1993). The region encompasses a variety of physical features that offer a diversity of habitat types, represented by a characteristic assemblage of plant species. The size of the region, together with its geology, soils, climate, and anthropogenic influences, have combined to produce a mosaic of floristic components and associated wildlife species. The climate of the region is dry and shares many characteristics with the California desert province. Climate is characterized by hot, dry summers and cool, moist winters. Summer temperatures are hot both day and night, with maximum temperatures reaching 115°F. Winters are cool, but not cold; Bakersfield averages only 16 days each year with frost. The upper San Joaquin Valley is separated from the influence of the ocean by the Coast Ranges and is in a broad rain shadow. Normally, approximately 90 percent of the precipitation occurs from November to April. In Bakersfield, the average annual precipitation is approximately 5.8 inches. Yearly precipitation patterns are variable which coupled with extremes in temperature, create a harsh and unpredictable environment for a variety of wildlife. The availability of water or soil moisture is the critical factor that determines the broad distribution of vegetation types and associated wildlife species in the region. 2.2 Project Area The project area consists of approximately 85 acres of undeveloped vacant land located between residential developments and vacant lots (Figure 3). One residence appears to have been located on the south end of the proposed Project site. The existing structure has been removed; however, foundation from a demolished house, trash, and vegetation remnants remain onsite. A trench has been cut around the entire perimeter of the site. Additionally, burned areas and dry earthen sumps are present throughout the proposed Project site and project area, particularly along the border of State Route 99. The site has been disked periodically and vegetative cover has been nearly eliminated. Biological Resources Evaluation July 2014 Hosking/99 Commercial Center 5 HOSKING/99 COMMERCIAL CENTER BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION 2014 AERIAL LOCATION MAP Figure 3 Biological Resources Evaluation July 2014 Hosking/99 Commercial Center 6 3.0 REGULATORY SETTING 3.1 Federal Endangered Species Act (16 USC §1531 et seq.) The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973 (50 CFR 17) provides legislation to protect plant and animal taxa considered at risk of extinction, and classified as either “threatened” or “endangered.” Section 9 of the FESA prohibits any person or entity from the “taking” of any endangered fish or animal species. Impacts to listed species resulting from development of the subject property would require the responsible agency or individual to consult the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Formal consultations must take place with the USFWS pursuant to Sections 7 and 10 of the FESA. The USFWS will make a determination as to the extent of impact to a particular species; if the USFWS determines that impacts to a species would likely occur, alternatives and measures to avoid or reduce impacts must be identified. 3.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC §703-711) The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits actions resulting in the pursuit, capture, killing, and/or possession of any protected migratory bird, nest, egg, or parts thereof. The USFWS maintains a list of designated migratory birds occurring in various regions of the United States. 3.3 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC §668) The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act specifically protects bald and golden eagles from harm and from trade in parts (feathers, skins, etc.) of these species. 3.4 California Endangered Species Act (Fish and Game Code §2050 et seq.) California has a parallel mandate to the FESA, which is embodied in the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) of 1984 and the California Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) of 1977. These laws regulate the listing and take of plant and animal species designated as endangered, threatened, or rare. The State of California also lists Species of Special Concern (CSC) based on limited distribution, declining populations, diminishing habitat, or unusual scientific, recreational, or educational value. Under State law, the CDFW is empowered to review projects for their potential to impact listed species and their habitats. 3.5 California Fish and Game Codes 3.5.1 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE § 3511 State law describes bird species, primarily raptors, which are “fully protected.” Fully protected birds may not be taken or possessed, except under specific permit requirements. 3.5.2 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE §3503 State law states it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by the Code or any associated regulation. Biological Resources Evaluation July 2014 Hosking/99 Commercial Center 7 3.5.3 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE §3503.5 State law makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy birds of prey. It also prohibits the take, possession, or destruction of nests or eggs of any bird of prey. 3.5.4 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE §3513 State law deems it unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the MBTA or any part of such migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the MBTA. 3.5.5 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE §4700, 5050, 5515, State law lists mammal, reptile, amphibian, and fish species that are classified as “fully protected” in California. 3.5.6 NATIVE PLANT PROTECTION ACT (FISH AND GAME CODE §1900 ET SEQ.) The Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) includes measures to preserve, protect, and enhance rare and endangered native plant species. Definitions for “rare and endangered” are different from those contained in CESA, although CESA-listed rare and endangered species are included in the list of species protected under the NPPA. 3.5.7 TITLE 14, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, §670.2, 670.5 Title 14 State regulations list plant and animal species designated as threatened and endangered under CESA. California Species of Concern (CSC) are those species that are indicators of regional habitat changes or are considered potential future protected species. CSC do not have any special legal status, but are intended by CDFW to be considered when decisions are made concerning the future of any land parcel. 3.5.8 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE §1600-1616 Pursuant to these sections, CDFW Codes 1600-1616 regulates all changes to the natural flow, bed, or bank of any river, stream, or lake that supports fish or wildlife resources. A stream is defined broadly as a body of water that flows at least periodically, or intermittently, through a channel that has banks and that supports fish or other aquatic biota. Such areas are referred to as State jurisdictional waters. Impacts to vegetation and wildlife from sediment, diversions, and other disturbances are included in the review. 3.6 Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan The Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) is an approved program that allows for the preservation and protection of habitat for several rare or endangered species found within the city limits of Bakersfield while authorizing the take of some listed species under Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Take authorized by the MBHCP is subject to regulatory permitting for the Plan and established mitigation and conservation measures outlined in the ESA. Biological Resources Evaluation July 2014 Hosking/99 Commercial Center 8 Take for species covered by the MBHCP is mitigated through the collection of a standard project development fee that in turn supports the reduction of take through species relocation and the acquisition and management of habitat targeted for preservation. The permit term is twenty years and expires in August 2014. 4.0 METHODS 4.1 Literature Search A literature search of the CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2014) was conducted to identify reported historical occurrences of special-status plant and animal species and sensitive habitats within the Gosford USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle, as well as eight surrounding quadrangles (Rosedale, Oildale, Oil Center, Stevens, Millux, Conner, Lamont, and Weed Patch). The results of the CNDDB inquiry were subsequently reviewed to evaluate the potential for occurrence of special-status species within or near the project site. The California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2014) was also reviewed to provide information on rare plants anticipated to occur in the nine quadrangles. A species list was also obtained from the USFWS website for sensitive species potentially occurring within the project site and the surrounding project area (Appendix B). Additional literature searches included a review of aerial photographs and Quad Knopf project files from previous projects in the vicinity of the proposed Project site. 4.2 Field Survey A reconnaissance-level biological survey was conducted on February 19, 2014 to determine the locations and extent of plant communities and sensitive habitats, and the potential for occurrences of sensitive plant and animal species within the project site and surrounding project area. The entire project site and a 250-foot buffer area was surveyed where feasible and appropriate. Surveys consisted of meandering pedestrian transects throughout all present habitat types. The current land uses within the project site and surrounding land were noted. A list of plants, wildlife, and wildlife sign (scat, burrows, feathers, tracks, etc) observed on the site were recorded. Additionally, all suitable habitats that may potentially support wildlife within the project site and adjacent areas were also noted. Protocol level surveys for specific species were not conducted for this report. Photographs of the project site and any biological resources that might require additional consideration were taken and are included in Appendix A. 5.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 5.1 Sensitive Habitats No sensitive natural communities are identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations within the project area. The CNDDB (2014) identifies four natural communities with known occurrences within 10 miles of the Project site. These include Valley Saltbush Scrub, Valley Biological Resources Evaluation July 2014 Hosking/99 Commercial Center 9 Sacaton Grassland, Great Valley Cottonwood Riparian Forest, and Great Valley Mesquite Scrub. However, the nearest documented occurrence is approximately three miles southeast of the Project site. Valley Saltbush Scrub, considered a sensitive habitat by the CDFW, occurs three miles southeast of the Project site (Figure 4). There will be no adverse impacts to sensitive natural communities as a result of implementation of the proposed Project. 5.2 Migration Corridors Wildlife movement corridors are linear landscape elements that serve as linkages between historically connected habitat/natural areas, thereby facilitating wildlife movement between these natural areas (McEuen, 1993). The project vicinity lies within an area of low density development that interfaces with low- density residential housing to the north and open undeveloped areas to the south and northeast. The Kern Island Canal parallels South H Street arterial to the east. This concrete-lined canal and network of open vacant lots (including the proposed project site) likely serve as wildlife movement corridors, particularly for species such as San Joaquin kit fox that have successfully adapted to urban habitat. Movement east to west beyond the site’s western boundary is limited and essentially blocked by State Route 99. Wildlife species that may currently utilize the site to move locally through the area may be temporarily displaced by the proposed development. However, it is expected that wildlife will utilize the adjacent canal and vacant spaces for local and regional movement. Consequently, development of the site is not expected to have a significant impact on local or regional wildlife movement. 5.3 Jurisdictional Waters No areas meeting the regulatory definition of “Waters of the U.S.,” (jurisdictional waters) or State jurisdictional waters were identified in the immediate area of the project site. No wetlands or waterways potentially under the jurisdiction of either the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) or CDFW are present within, or adjacent to, the proposed project site or areas of project related activity. The proposed development is not expected to have a significant impact on jurisdictional waters. 5.4 General Wildlife The wildlife species inhabiting the project site and surrounding area included those typically found in urban/natural lands/agricultural lands interfaces in Kern County and the southern San Joaquin Valley. Results from the field survey of the project area conducted February 19, 2014 indicated the presence of wildlife species consistent with that of the surrounding region. Four wildlife species, including one bird, two mammal species, and one reptile species, were identified by either sign or direct observation (Table 1). Of the wildlife species observed, sign (burrows and scat) of the federal and State-listed San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) were observed throughout the project site. Additional small mammal burrows observed were collapsed and/or appeared to be inactive. Biological Resources Evaluation July 2014 Hosking/99 Commercial Center 10 Table 1 List of Plant and Animal Species Observed on the Project Site Scientific name Common name Animals Falco sparverius American kestrel Sylvilagus audubonii* desert cottontail Uta stansburiana Western side-blotched lizard Vulpes macrotis mutica* San Joaquin kit fox Plants Amsinckia menziesii rancher’s fireweed (fiddleneck) Baccharis salicifolia mule fat Bromus spp. brome grasses Datura stramonium jimson weed Hordeum jubatum foxtail barley Erodium cicutarium red-stem filaree Heterotheca grandiflora telegraph weed Malva neglecta common mallow Salsola tragus Russian thistle Sisymbrium spp. mustard * Indicates that only sign (scat, tracks, digs, etc.) of this species was observed and no individuals were observed. 5.5 Special-Status Species Special-status plant and animal species include those listed as threatened or endangered under FESA or CESA, species proposed for listing, species of special concern, and other species identified either by the USFWS, U.S. Forest Service (USFS), CDFW, CNPS, or the NEPA as unique or rare, and which have the potential to occur within the project area. On the basis of searches of the CNDDB records, USFWS website, and the CNPS Online inventory, Quad Knopf identified fifty-five special-status plant and wildlife species, and four sensitive habitat communities within the Gosford and eight surrounding quadrangles. These species, including their status, habitat requirements, and potential to occur within the project area are presented in Table 2. Only those species whose distributional ranges overlap the project area and/or have similar habitat requirements to habitats present within the project area were selected from this list for further evaluation. No sensitive habitat communities or special-status plant species are expected to occur in the project area. Seven special-status wildlife species have either a “low,” “moderate,” or “high” potential to occur in the project area. The remaining species, indicated here as “absent,” are not expected to occur on the project area due to a lack of specific habitat requirements. Biological Resources Evaluation July 2014 Hosking/99 Commercial Center 11 Table 2 List of Sensitive Plant and Animal Species Occurring Within the Nine Quadrangles in or Adjacent to the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Status Potential Occurrence in Project Area SENSITIVE VEGETATION COMMUNITIES Valley Saltbush Scrub Valley Saltbush Scrub Dominated by chenopod scrub species including saltbush (Atriplex spp.) with low, annual understory wildflowers and grasses. Absent. Habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. Valley Sacaton Grassland Valley Sacaton Grassland Intermittently flooded or saturated grassland dominated by Alkali Sacaton (Sporobolus airoides) with other alkali tolerant grasses and plants generally present. Absent. Habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. Great Valley Cottonwood Riparian Forest Great Valley Cottonwood Riparian Forest A dense, broadleafed, winter deciduous riparian forest dominated by Fremont cottonwood. (Populus fremontii ssp. fremontii) and Goodding’s black willow (Salix gooddingii). Understory is usually dense, with abundant vegetative reproduction of canopy dominants and California wild grape (Vitis californica). Absent. Habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. Great Valley Mesquite Scrub Great Valley Mesquite Scrub An open woodland or savanna dominated by Honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa torreyana) and Allscale (Atriplex polycarpa). Understories are grassy in good rainfall years, though usually dominated by introduced annuals. Perennial cover usually is low, with mesquite densities as low as 2-3 per acre. Absent. Habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. SPECIAL-STATUS PLANTS Astragalus hornii var. hornii Horn’s milk-vetch Alkali playa, meadows, seeps; lake margins, alkaline sites. 200-2,790 ft. CNPS 1B.2 BLM_S Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. Atriplex coronata var. vallicola Lost Hills crownscale Chenopod scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools. Soft alkaline soils with moisture. 0-1,000 ft. CNPS 1B.2 BLM_S Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. Biological Resources Evaluation July 2014 Hosking/99 Commercial Center 12 Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Status Potential Occurrence in Project Area Atriplex tularensis Bakersfield smallscale Alkali desert scrub, annual grasslands, vernal pools, pasture; Tulare and Kern counties; 300–655 ft. CE CNPS 1A Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. Calochortus striatus Alkali mariposa lily Chaparral, chenopod scrub, Mojave desert scrub, Alkaline meadows and ephermeral washes, with Atriplex spp., Suaeda moquinii, and Prosopis glandulos. 300-5,230 ft. CNPS 1B.2 BLM_S USFS_S Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. Caulanthus californicus California jewelflower Alkali desert scrub, annual grassland, pasture; Kings, Tulare and Kern Counties. 240–2,950 ft. FE/CE CNPS 1B.1 Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. Cloropyron molle ssp. hispidum Hispid salty birds-beak Meadows, playas, valley and foothill grassland In damp alkaline soils, especially in Alkaline meadows and alkali sinks with salt grass. 510 ft. CNPS 1B.2 BLM_S Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. Delphinium recurvatum Recurved larkspur Chenopod scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, cismontane woodland. alkaline soils, valley saltbush. 400 ft. CNPS 1B.2 BLM_S Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. Eremalche kernensis Kern mallow Alkali desert scrub, annual grasslands, vernal pools, pasture; Tulare and Kern Counties; 200-4,200 ft. FE CNPS 1.B1 Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. Eriastrum hooveri Hoover’s eriastrum Silty to sandy soils with a low cover of competing herbaceous vegetation, and the presence of cryptogamic crust (a layer of moss, lichen, and algae), or loamy soils, in areas of dense vegetation; lacking cryptogamic crust. Hoover's woolly-star may reinvade disturbed soil surfaces. 0-300 ft. CNPS 4.2 Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. Biological Resources Evaluation July 2014 Hosking/99 Commercial Center 13 Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Status Potential Occurrence in Project Area Imperata brevifolia California satintail Chaparral, coastal scrub, riparian scrub, mojave scrub, meadows and alkali seeps, riparian areas and mesic sites. 0-1,500 ft CNPS_2B.1 USFS_S Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri Coulter’s goldfields Alkali playa, coastal salt marshes, playas, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools; alkaline soils. 0 - 4,600 ft. CNPS 1B.2 BLM_S Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. Layia leucopappa Comanche Point layia Chenopod scrub, Valley and foothill grassland. Lightly colored clay soils, with weedy grasses. 300-1,200 ft. CNPS 1B.1 BLM_S Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. Mimulus pictus Calico monkeyflower Broad leaved upland forest, cismontane woodland. Bare ground around gooseberry (Ribes sp.) shrubs, granite rock outcrops. 330-4,290 ft. CNPS 1B.2 BLM_S Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. Monolopia congdonii San Joaquin woolly-threads Alkali desert scrub, annual grassland, pasture; Kings and Kern Counties; 200–2,600 ft. FE Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. Navarretia setiloba Piute Mountain navarretia Cismontane woodland, pinyon-juniper woodland, Valley and foothill grassland; red clay soils, gravelly loam. 990-6,930 ft. CNPS 1B.1 BLM_S USFS_S Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. Opuntia basilaris treleasei Bakersfield cactus Chenopod scrub, Valley and foothill grassland; coarse, cobble well-drained granitic sand, bluffs, low hills, flats within grassland. Kern County; 460-3,800 ft. FE/CE CNPS 1B.1 Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. Pterygoneurum californicum California chalk moss Chenopod scrub, Valley and foothill grassland (alkali). 33-330 ft. CNPS 1B.1 Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. Biological Resources Evaluation July 2014 Hosking/99 Commercial Center 14 Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Status Potential Occurrence in Project Area Stylocline citroleum Oil neststraw Chenopod scrub, coastal scrub. Valley and foothill grassland, flats; clay soils in oil-producing areas. 165- 1,320 ft. CNPS 1B.1 BLM_S Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. Stylocline masonii Mason’s neststraw Chenopod scrub, pinyon-juniper woodland, sandy washes. 330-3960 ft. CNPS 1B.1 BLM_S USFS_S Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. Tortula californica California screw moss Chenopod scrub, Valley and foothill grassland; sandy soil. 30-4,800 ft. CNPS 1B.2 BLM_S Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. INVERTEBRATES Branchinecta lynchii Vernal pool fairy shrimp Vernal pools, seasonal wetlands that fill with water during fall and winter rains and dry up in spring and summer. FT Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. Danaus plexippus Monarch butterfly Winter roost sites in wind protected tree groves (eucalyptus) with nectar and water nearby. None Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. Desmocerus californicus dimorphus Valley elderberry longhorn beetle Occurs only in the Central Valley of California, in association with blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicana). Prefers to lay eggs in elderberries 2 to 8 inches in diameter, some preference shown for stressed elderberries. FT Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. Helminthoglypta callistoderma Kern shoulderband Freshwater; found along the lower Kern River canyon. None Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. Biological Resources Evaluation July 2014 Hosking/99 Commercial Center 15 Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Status Potential Occurrence in Project Area FISH Hypomesus transpacificus Delta smelt Sacramento, San Joaquin delta. FT Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas AMPHIBIANS Lithobates pipens Northern leopard frog Native range is east of the Sierra Nevada/Cascade crest. Found near permanent or near-permanent water in a variety of habitats. Highly aquatic. CDFW_SSC USFS_S Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. Rana draytonii California red-legged frog Found mainly near ponds in humid forests, woodlands, grasslands, coastal scrub, and stream sides with plant cover; lowlands or foothills. Breeding habitat is permanent or ephemeral water sources; lakes, ponds, reservoirs, slow streams, marshes, bogs, and swamps. Ephemeral wetland habitats require animal burrows or other moist refuges for estivation when the wetlands are dry 0-5,000 ft. FT Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas Spea hammondii Western spadefoot Washes, floodplains, alluvial fans, plays, alkali flats in Valley and foothill grasslands, chaparral, pine-oak woodlands, foothills, mountains. Ponds, ditches, livestock troughs, tire ruts. Requires wetlands or temporary and/or vernal rain pools for reproduction upland habitat outside the reproductive cycle. CDFW_SSC BLM_S Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. REPTILES Anniella grinnellii Bakersfield legless lizard Moist warm loose sandy soil; sparsely vegetated areas of chaparral, pine-oak woodlands, desert scrub, sandy washes, open areas, and stream terraces of sycamores, oaks cottonwoods. May be found under leaf litter and bushes in sunny areas. - Low to Moderate: Suitable habitat is present on the site. Masticophis flagellum ruddocki San Joaquin whipsnake Open, dry, treeless areas, grassland and saltbush scrub. Takes refuge in rodent burrows, under shaded vegetation and surface objects. CDFW_SSC Not Expected: Suitable habitat is not present on the site. Biological Resources Evaluation July 2014 Hosking/99 Commercial Center 16 Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Status Potential Occurrence in Project Area Thamnophis gigas Giant garter snake Primarily marshes, sloughs, drainage canals, irrigation ditches; rice fields, occasionally in slow-moving creeks. Prefers locations with vegetation close to the water for basking. FT Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas BIRDS Agelaius tricolor Tri-colored blackbird Requires open water, protected nesting substrate, and foraging area with insect prey within a few kilometers of the (nesting) colony. BLM_S CDFW_SSC Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. Ardea alba Great egret Open freshwater and saline emergent wetlands, estuary margins lakes, and slow moving streams, mudflats, salt ponds, irrigated croplands and pastures. CDF_S (Nesting) Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. Athene cunicularia Burrowing owl Occurs in open, dry grasslands, deserts, and ruderal areas along ditch levees. Requires burrows for refuge and subterranean nesting; frequently utilize California ground squirrel burrows. BLM_S CDFW_SSC Moderate to High: Suitable borrows and foraging habitat is present onsite. Absence/Presence will need to be confirmed by conducting USFWS protocol surveys prior to ground disturbance activities. Buteo swainsoni Swainson's hawk Open prairie and grassland habitat. Will forage in agricultural fields, pastures, grain crops, and row crops. Utilize trees near agricultural fields and grasslands for nesting sites. CT/ BLM_S USFS_S Low: Suitable foraging habitat occurs on the site. However, there are no occurrence records for this species in the project region. Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus Western snowy plover Barren to sparsely vegetated sand beaches, dry salt flats in lagoons, dredge spoils deposited on beach or dune habitat, levees and flats at salt evaporation ponds, river bars, along alkaline or saline lakes, reservoirs, and ponds. Overwinters inland in open areas. FT CDFW_SSC (over-wintering) Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. Biological Resources Evaluation July 2014 Hosking/99 Commercial Center 17 Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Status Potential Occurrence in Project Area Coccyzus americanus occidentalis Western yellow-billed cuckoo Dense willow and cottonwood stands in river floodplains. FPT/CE BLM_S USFS_S Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. Dendrocygna bicolor Fulvous whistling duck Wetlands and flooded agricultural areas and fields. CDFW_SSC Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. Egretta thula Snowy egret Coastal estuarian shores, fresh and emergent wetlands, ponds, slow moving waters, irrigations ditches and wet fields. MTBA (Nesting) Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. Elanus leucurus White-tailed kite Commonly found in savanna, open woodlands, marshes, desert grassland, partially cleared lands, and cultivated fields. BLM_S CDFW_FP Low: Suitable foraging habitat occurs on the site. Not observed during survey. Empidonax traillii extimus Southwestern willow flycatcher Riparian woodlands of willow, cottonwood, box elder, salt cedar trees. Generally with water present. FE Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. Eremophila alpestris actia California horned lark Open, barren, short grasslands, fallow agricultural fields, deserts, barren steppes, tundra. CDFW_WL Low: Marginally suitable foraging and nesting habitat occurs on the site. Plegadis chihi White-faced ibis Dense freshwater emergent wetlands, shallow lakes, mudflat meadows, irrigated or flooded pastures and croplands. CDFW _WL (Nesting) Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus Yellow-headed blackbird Forages in agricultural fields. Breeding habitat includes prairie and mountain meadow wetland areas and marshes. CDFW_SSC Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. Biological Resources Evaluation July 2014 Hosking/99 Commercial Center 18 Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Status Potential Occurrence in Project Area MAMMALS Ammospermophilus nelsoni Nelson’s antelope squirrel Frequents grassland, oak savanna, and edges of mixed woodland and lower elevation coniferous forest. CT/BLM_S Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas/habitat. Dipodomys ingens Giant kangaroo rat Annual grassland, some shrubland; gently sloping topography; friable sandy-loam soils. FE/CE Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. Dipodomys nitratoides brevinasus Short-nosed kangaroo rat Arid grasslands and shrublands with low, gently- sloping hills and friable soils BLM_S CDFW_SSC Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides Tipton kangaroo rat Saltbrush scrub and sink scrub communities. Needs soft friable soils which escape seasonal flooding. FE/CE Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. Eumops perotis californicus Western mastiff bat Diurnal refuge in crevices in rocks that form vertical or nearly vertical cliffs. The roost entrances typically are horizontally oriented, have moderately large openings, and face downward so they can be entered from below. BLM_S CDFW_SSC Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. Lasiurus cinereus Hoary bat Prefers open habitats with access to trees for cover. Roosts in dense foliage of medium to large trees. Requires water. - Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. Onychomys torridus tularensis Tulare grasshopper mouse Typically inhabit arid shrubland communities in hot, arid grassland and shrubland associations. Other reported habitats are alkali sink, dominated by one or more saltbush species, iodine bush, seepweed, and pale-leaf goldenbush; mesquite associations on the Valley floor; saltbush scrub. BLM_S CDFW_SSC Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. Biological Resources Evaluation July 2014 Hosking/99 Commercial Center 19 Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Status Potential Occurrence in Project Area Perognathus inornatus inornatus San Joaquin pocket mouse Arid annual grasslands, savanna, washes and desert shrub associations with sand or finely textured soils. BLM_S Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas/habitat Sorex ornatus ornatus Buena Vista Lake ornate shrew Marshland and riparian areas. FE/ CDFW_SSC Absent/Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas. Taxidea taxus American badger Abundant in drier open stages of most shrub, forest, and herbaceous habitats with friable soils. Needs sufficient food source of burrowing rodents, friable soils, and open, uncultivated grounds. CDFW_SSC Low: Marginally suitable habitat is present onsite. However, the lack of small mammal burrows indicates the absence of adequate prey base. Vulpes macrotis mutica San Joaquin kit fox Chenopod scrub, grasslands, open areas with scattered shrubby vegetations; sometimes forage in agricultural areas. Requires loose-textured sandy soils for burrowing, and suitable prey base. FE/CT Moderate to High: Suitable burrows and sign (scat and prints) detected onsite. Absence/Presence will need to be confirmed by conducting USFWS protocol surveys prior to ground disturbances associated with the proposed project. Biological Resources Evaluation July 2014 Hosking/99 Commercial Center 20 Sources: California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2014. California Natural Diversity Database, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. California Native Plant Society. 2013. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California Online Inventory, California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Abbreviations: FE Federal Endangered Species FT Federal Threatened Species MBTA Species Protected Under the Auspices of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act CE California Endangered Species CT California Threatened Species CSC California Department of Fish and Game Species of Special Concern Rare California Rare FP California Department of Fish and Game Fully Protected BLMS U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Sensitive Species WBWG:H Western Bat Working Group High Priority Species -- Species not listed under the California or Federal Endangered Species Act CNPS Abbreviations: 1B California Native Plant Society List 1B Species-Plants Categorized as Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere 2 California Native Plant Society List 2 Species- Plants Categorized as Rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere. 4 California Native Plant Society List 4 Species – Plants Categorized as having a limited distribution (watch list). .1 Seriously endangered in California. .2 Fairly endangered in California. .3 Not very endangered in California. The “potential for occurrence” ranking is based on the following criteria: § Absent. Species was not observed during focused surveys conducted at an appropriate time for identification of the species or species is restricted to habitats that do not occur within the proposed project. § Low. Either a historical record exists of the species within the immediate vicinity of the proposed project (approximately 10 miles) and/or habitats needed to support the species are of poor quality. § Moderate. Either a historical record exists of the species within the immediate vicinity of the proposed project (approximately 10 miles) or the habitat requirements associated with the species occur within the project site. § High. Both a historical record exists of the species within the proposed project and its immediate vicinity (approximately 10 miles) and the habitat requirements associated with the species occur within the proposed project. § Not Expected: Suitable habitat does not occur on the site or in adjacent areas; could occur as a seasonal or incidental transient/migrant. Not observed during survey; however focused or seasonally appropriate surveys were not conducted. Biological Resources Evaluation July 2014 Hosking/99 Commercial Center 21 5.5.1 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANTS No special-status plant species were observed during the field survey effort conducted on February 19, 2014. Protocol-level botanical surveys for special-status plants, listed by regulatory agencies as potentially occurring within the project area, were not conducted as part of this analysis due to seasonal timing, drought, and the highly disturbed condition of the proposed Project site. There are no documented occurrences of special-status plant species in or near the project area in either CNDDB or CNPS records. The nearest recorded occurrence of a special- status plant species is of Bakersfield smallscale (Atriplex tularensis), approximately one mile southeast of the project site (Figure 4). Most, if not all special-status species that are known to occur in the project vicinity require undisturbed natural habitat with specific micro-habitats that were not observed and are not present on the site. Consequently, the proposed project is not expected to impact special-status plants or their habitat. 5.5.2 SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE The literature search revealed that one of the thirty-six special-status wildlife species is known to occur in the project area (Figure 5). The San Joaquin kit fox habitat occupies the northwest region of the project site and several potential dens were observed throughout the survey area (Photoplate 2, Appendix A). Although no other special-status wildlife CNDDB occurrences overlap the project site, the field survey indicated the potential for six additional species to occur onsite. These include, the American badger (Taxidea taxus), western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), and Bakersfield legless lizard (Anniella grinnellii). The site provides suitable ground nesting and general nesting habitat for bird species protected by State and federal regulations (see sections 3.2 and 3.5.2 above). Focused and/or protocol-level surveys for these species were not conducted at the time of this analysis, but will be conducted prior to project related ground disturbances. The following sections describe these species and specific project related mitigation measures associated with them. 5.5.2.1 San Joaquin Kit Fox The San Joaquin kit fox is a federally-listed endangered species and a State-listed threatened species that inhabits Annual Grassland, Valley Saltbush Scrub, and Valley Sink Scrub habitats, as well as in agricultural and developed urban areas. San Joaquin kit fox will utilize a variety of non-native, highly disturbed habitats, including canals, vacant lots, commercial and light industrial developments; railroad, power and other utility right-of-ways; oil fields, parks, golf courses, schools, and storm water retention basins and sumps. The CNDDB (2014) identifies several occurrences of the species within 10 miles of the project area. Biological Resources Evaluation July 2014 Hosking/99 Commercial Center 22 HOSKING/99 COMMERCIAL CENTER BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION CNDDB PLANT OBSERVATIONS WITHIN A 10-MILE RADIUS Figure 4 Biological Resources Evaluation July 2014 Hosking/99 Commercial Center 23 HOSKING/99 COMMERCIAL CENTER BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION CNDDB WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS WITHIN A 10-MILE RADIUS Figure 5 Biological Resources Evaluation July 2014 Hosking/99 Commercial Center 24 Sign of San Joaquin kit fox (tracks, scat, dens, etc.) was observed during the biological field survey of the project area. Numerous dens were observed throughout the site, but recent activity was not readily detectable. Protocol-level surveys to assess absence or presence of San Joaquin kit fox on the site will be conducted prior to any project related ground disturbance and potential impacts to the species will be mitigated to less than significant levels under the terms and conditions set forth in the MBHCP. 5.5.2.2 American Badger The American badger is an uncommon carnivorous mammal found in dry shrublands, forests, and herbaceous habitats with friable soils and a prey base of small mammals. These typically include rodents such as ground squirrels, mice and pocket gophers, but this species will opportunistically eat insects, reptiles, eggs, birds and carrion (California Wildlife Habitat Relationships 1988-1990). Suitable habitat for badgers is characterized by herbaceous, shrub, and open stages of most habitats with dry, friable soils. The American badger is considered a CDFW special animal and species of concern. Though the presence of the American badger was not detected or observed during the February 2014 field survey, suitable denning habitat for the species was observed on the proposed Project site. Because habitat requirements for the badger closely parallel those for the San Joaquin kit fox, protocol-level surveys for kit fox will concurrently assess the potential for the badger on the site. Furthermore, avoidance and minimization measures and the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) are expected to fully mitigate potential impacts to any American badgers that may be detected onsite. Consequently, project related impacts to the American badger are expected to be mitigated to less than significant levels. 5.5.2.3 Western Burrowing Owl The western burrowing owl is a California species of concern and is protected by the MBTA. Burrowing owls occupy grasslands, deserts, sagebrush scrub, agricultural areas (including pastures and untilled margins of cropland), earthen levees and berms, coastal uplands, and urban vacant lots; as well as the margins of airports, golf courses, and roads. This species selects sites that support short vegetation, including bare soil, presumably because they can easily see over it, and utilizes abandoned or unused pipes. Western burrowing owls nest and roost in abandoned burrows dug by small mammals, such as ground squirrels, but will occupy abandoned badger, tortoise or kit fox dens. In California, the range of burrowing owls extends through the lowlands south and west from north and central California to Mexico, with small, scattered populations occurring in the Great Basin and the desert regions of the southwestern part of the state (DeSante et al. 1997). Burrowing owls are absent from the coast north of Sonoma County and from high mountain areas, such as the Sierra Nevada and the ranges extending east from Santa Barbara to San Bernardino. Burrowing owl populations have been greatly reduced or extirpated from the San Francisco Bay Area (Trulio 1997) and along the California coast to Los Angeles. They have also disappeared from the Coachella Valley. The remaining major population densities of burrowing owls in California are in the Central and Imperial Valleys (DeSante et al. 1997). Multiple occurrences of burrowing owls were recorded within 10 miles of the project vicinity (CNDDB 2014). Biological Resources Evaluation July 2014 Hosking/99 Commercial Center 25 Declines and threats to western burrowing owl populations are attributed to land conversions for agricultural and urban development, habitat degradation and loss due to habitat fragmentation, predation, illegal shooting, pesticides and other contaminants. Additionally, ground disturbing activities that result in the loss of burrows and/or are disruptive to nesting activities, including fledging and dispersal, may result in impacts and potential loss of individuals and habitat. Suitable foraging and burrows were observed on the proposed Project site therefore, protocol- level surveys will be conducted on the site prior to the implementation of construction-related activities to determine absence or presence of the species. Additionally, avoidance and minimization measures, including (BMPs) will be implemented in order to mitigate adverse impacts to the burrowing owl and its breeding habitat to less than significant levels. 5.5.2.4 White-tailed Kite The white-tailed kite is listed as a State fully protected species and is protected by the MBTA. They are found primarily in open grasslands, agricultural areas, wide river valleys, open oak savannas, and desert grasslands (Dunk 1995). Currently, white-tailed kite is found in virtually all lowlands of California west of the Sierra Nevada range and the southeast deserts. It is common in the Central Valley and along the entire CA coast (Dunk 1995). The primary factor known to regulate white-tailed kite populations is prey availability. Factors influencing population trends directly or indirectly include: 1) conversion of natural or agricultural lands to urban sprawl or commercial properties, 2) clean farming techniques that leave few residual vegetation areas for prey, 3) increased competition for nest sites with other raptors and corvids, 4) drought, 5) increased disturbance at nests, and 6) removal of suitable nesting habitat (Dunk 1995). The white-tail kite was not observed during the field survey however, the site may be utilized by this species for foraging. Avoidance and minimization measures, including (BMPs) to mitigate any potential adverse impacts to the species shall be implemented. 5.5.2.5 Swainson’s Hawk The Swainson’s hawk is listed as a State threatened species and is protected by the MBTA. This species breeding and wintering ranges consist of open and semi-open country including deserts, grasslands and prairies. The Swainson’s hawk favors wild prairie, hayfields, and pastures over wheat fields and alfalfa fields, which may offer its prey too much cover. The current summer distribution of Swainson’s hawk in California is mainly confined to the Sacramento Valley, the northern half of the San Joaquin Valley, and Northeastern Plateau of Lassen and Modoc counties. Numerous occurrences of Swainson’s hawks are recorded within 10 miles of the Project site. The most recognized threat to this species is the loss of their native foraging and breeding grounds. Other threats include climate change, infrastructure placement, disease, pesticide poisoning, and electrocution. The Swainson’s hawk was not observed during the field survey and suitable nesting habitat is not present onsite. However, a low probability exists that the site may be utilized by this species for foraging. Therefore, avoidance and minimization measures (BMPs) to mitigate potential adverse Biological Resources Evaluation July 2014 Hosking/99 Commercial Center 26 impacts to Swainson’s hawks shall be implemented. Consequently, project related impacts to Swainson’s hawks are expected to be less than significant. 5.5.2.6 California Horned Lark The California horned lark is afforded protection by the MBTA. It occurs in open, generally barren country, rolling short-grass prairies, fallow agricultural fields containing bare ground, deserts, and barren steppes and tundra. This species range includes the Coastal Range in Humboldt County, throughout the California Central Valley, and south to Baja California. The main threat to the California horned lark is habitat loss or degradation by agricultural development. The California horned lark were detected (vocalization) on the proposed Project site and suitable nesting and foraging habitat is also present. Nesting bird surveys for this and other avian species will be conducted prior to project related ground disturbance and nesting bird and general avoidance and minimization measures, including (BMPs) will be implemented to avoid and minimize any adverse impacts to the species. Therefore, project related impacts are expected to be mitigated to less than significant. 5.5.2.7 Bakersfield legless lizard The Bakersfield legless lizard is one of four newly designated Anniella species. The known range of A. grinellii is restricted to the southern San Joaquin Valley and the eastside of the Carrizo Plain. Specimens have been collected within the Plan boundary and Bakersfield City limits. Distinguishing characteristics of this species versus other Anniella species are coloration (ventral coloration of Grayish Red); morphological differences in vertebral structure, and mitochondrial variations. As with other legless lizards, Bakersfield legless lizards have been found in sandy soils typically with moisture and under cover provided by boards and similar items. Identified threats to legless lizards are loss of habitat due to land conversion for agriculture, housing development, sand mining, recreation, off-road vehicle traffic, and the introduction of exotic plants. Individuals may also be impacted or lost as a result of ground disturbing activities related to other human development projects. Avoidance and minimization measures (BMPs) to mitigate adverse effects to Bakersfield legless lizard shall be implemented and project related impacts are expected to be less than significant. 6.0 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES The following mitigation measures, when implemented are expected to minimize and/or avoid impacts to special-status species and habitat that may occur on the proposed Project site. 6.1 General Avoidance and Minimization Measures Best Management Practices that will be implemented to avoid and/or minimize potential project related impacts to biological resources include, but are not limited to: Biological Resources Evaluation July 2014 Hosking/99 Commercial Center 27 • Project construction activities should be limited to daylight hours. • All food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps should be disposed of in securely closed containers. • Firearms should be prohibited from the Project site during construction. • Pets should not be permitted on the Project site during construction. • Prior to the initiation of ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist should conduct a species-specific awareness training session with all personnel that will be working on the Project site. The training session should consist of a brief presentation by persons knowledgeable in kit fox biology and legislative protection to explain endangered species concerns to personnel involved in the Project. The training session should include the following: a description of the species that could potential be found on the Project site and their habitat needs; an explanation of the status of the species and their protection under the Endangered Species Act(s); and a list of measures being taken to reduce impacts to the species during project construction and implementation. A fact sheet conveying this information should be prepared for distribution to the previously referenced people and anyone else who may enter the Project site. • A pre-construction survey should be conducted 14 to 30 days prior to ground breaking to ensure that no special-status species have moved onto the Project site and could be subject to Project-related impacts. • Project-related vehicles should observe a daytime speed limit of 20-mph throughout the Project site, except on county and city roads and State and Federal highways; this is particularly important at night when nocturnal species such as kit foxes are most active. Night-time construction should be minimized to the greatest extent possible. However, if night work does occur, the speed limit should be reduced to 10-mph. Off-road traffic outside of designated Project areas should be prohibited. • It is highly recommended that all equipment staged at the Project site be checked every morning to ensure no special-status species have taken refuge in the equipment over night. • To prevent inadvertent entrapment of special-status species or other animals during construction of the Project, all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches more than 2-feet deep should be covered at the close of each working day by plywood or similar materials. If trenches cannot be closed, one or more escape ramps constructed of earthen-fill or wooden planks shall be installed. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they should be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals. If at any time a trapped or injured animal is discovered, a qualified biologist should be called to assess the need to contact the USFWS and CDFW. Biological Resources Evaluation July 2014 Hosking/99 Commercial Center 28 • Some special-status species, such as kit fox and burrowing owls, are attracted to den-like structures such as pipes and may enter stored pipes becoming trapped or injured. All pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of 4 inches or greater that are stored at the Project site for one or more overnight periods shall be thoroughly inspected for special-status species before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way. If a special-status species is discovered inside a pipe, that section of pipe shall not be moved until the USFWS and CDFW has been consulted. If necessary, and under the direct supervision of the agency approved biologist, the pipe may be moved once to remove it from the path of activity, until the fox has escaped. • The USFWS and CDFW should immediately be notified if a dead, injured, or entrapped San Joaquin kit fox is found. Work in the immediate area should be temporarily halted until further notice from USFWS and CDFW. Any entrapped San Joaquin kit fox shall be permitted to escape. • Pre-activity surveys of the project area and a 500-foot perimeter of the project area shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the start of project activities. If more than 14days lapse between the time of the pre-activity survey and the start of ground- disturbing activities, another pre-activity survey must be completed. • If burrowing owls become present on the construction sites (or within 250 feet of the construction sites) during the breeding season (April 15 through July 15), and appear to be engaged in nesting behavior, a fenced ESA buffer shall be installed according to standard recommendations (CDFW 1995) between the nest site or active burrow and any earth-moving activity or other potential disturbance. This buffer may be removed once it is determined by a qualified biologist that the young have fledged and are no longer dependent on the nest or burrow for survival. Typically, the young fledge by August 31st. Actual fledging dates may be earlier or later, and shall be determined by the lead biologist. Buffer distances may be reduced on a case-by-case basis and with the guidance of the lead biologist and prior approval by the CDFW. The standard buffer distances shall only be reduced to a size that retains “no disturbance” to burrowing owls. These measures, as well as any biological provisions provided in the permits issued by regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over the proposed project will be adhered to throughout the duration of project activities. Additional measures that address specific sensitive resources are included below. 6.2 Species-Specific Protocol-level Surveys The USFWS, CDFW, and a number of resource organizations have established and approved a number of survey guidelines and protocols designed to focus survey efforts and maximize detection of a given species during field surveys. These guidelines and recommendations are based on available life history and scientific data and consider seasonal activity patterns, habitat requirements, home range data, behavioral sensitivities and dispersal information. In addition to survey guidelines, protocol guidelines generally recommend specific mitigation measures to avoid and/or minimize impacts to species. Biological Resources Evaluation July 2014 Hosking/99 Commercial Center 29 In order to avoid and/or minimize project related impacts to San Joaquin kit fox and burrowing owl, protocol-level surveys are recommended and will likely be required for agency approvals. Nesting bird surveys are also recommended and expected to be required should construction- related activities be planned during the nesting bird season (typically February 15 – September 15). Should active nests for tree nesting species be observed, avoidance measures may be required to ensure that nest abandonment does not occur. Typically, avoidance buffers are required by CDFW and USFWS up to 500 feet for raptor nests and up to 250 feet for other bird nests in order to avoid “take” (i.e., disturbance causing nest abandonment, or death). Because the Project footprint and surrounding areas are within a heavily impacted, residential area, nesting birds are likely to be highly acclimated to disturbance activities. The construction activities that are proposed are relatively low-impact and are unlikely to result in nest abandonment. We therefore recommend that, should an active nest be observed, standard 500-foot buffers for raptors and standard 250-foot buffers for passerine nests be reduced to allow construction activities to proceed as planned, so long as a biological monitor is present to monitor these nests when work is conducted within the respective standard avoidance buffer areas. If an active nest is located within the buffer area and the biologist observe a sign of distress from the parents or young indicating that they may abandon the site because of construction activity, these activities would cease until the young have fledged and the nest is no longer active. Protocol survey guidelines for the San Joaquin kit fox and western burrowing owl are included in Appendices C and D. 7.0 CONCLUSION Direct and indirect impacts to federal- and State-listed plant and wildlife species will be avoided through strict adherence to the avoidance and minimization measures described in Section 6 and in diligent compliance to all biological provisions provided by the required regulatory agency permits. Results of the literature search and field survey conducted as part of this BRE characterized existing conditions on the proposed Project site as highly degraded and unsuitable for most wildlife species. However, some evidence of prior use by special-status species, specifically the San Joaquin kit fox was observed during the field survey. In addition, San Joaquin kit fox dens provide potential denning opportunities for the American badger and western burrowing owl. The level of activity and use of the site by any of these special-status species is difficult to assess with a single site visit and will require additional protocol-level surveys prior to project approval and planned ground disturbance. In addition, Quad Knopf recommends that with the implementation of the above mentioned BMPs, and mitigation measures required by the MBHCP and regulatory agencies, all adverse impacts to special-status species on the project site and vicinity will be mitigated to less than significant levels. Biological Resources Evaluation July 2014 Hosking/99 Commercial Center 30 8.0 REFERENCES McEuen, A. 1993. The Wildlife Corridor Controversy: A Review. Endangered Species Update, 10 (11 &12). California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2014. California Natural Diversity Database, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, California. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2014. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California Online Inventory, California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2014. Database records search of RareFind for USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles (Oil Center, Weed Patch, Stevens, Oildale, Gosford, Rosedale, Millux, Conner, Lamont) Animal and Habitat Analysis Branch, California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, California. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) System were originally published in: Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1988-1990. California's Wildlife. Vol. I-III. California Depart. of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. DeSante, D. F., E. D. Ruhlen, and D. K. Rosenberg. 1997. The distribution and relative abundance of burrowing owls in California: evidence for a declining population. Unpublished manuscript. The Institute for Bird Populations, Point Reyes Station, CA. Dunk, J. R. 1995. White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus). In The Birds of North America, No. 178 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. (journal) Hickman, J. C. (ed.) 1993. The Jepson Manual. Higher Plants of California. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London. McEuen, A. 1993. The Wildlife Corridor Controversy: A Review. Endangered Species Update, 10 (11 &12). AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX AA PPhhoottooppllaatteess Biological Resources Evaluation Photoplate 1 Hosking Avenue Commercial Center Photo 1A: Photo taken facing north from the south end of the proposed project site. No native vegetation exists on site. Photo 1B: Photo was taken on 02/19/2014. Photo is facing southeast from the northwest end of the project site. No native vegetation occurs on site. Biological Resources Evaluation Photoplate 2 Hosking Avenue Commercial Center Photo 2A: Proposed Project site as of 02/19/2014. Photo was taken facing east from the north end of the proposed site. Photo 2B: Photo taken on 02/19/2014 on the north end of the project site. One of many potential kit fox dens observed through out the project site. AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX BB UUSSFFWWSS SSppeecciieess LLiisstt United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605 Sacramento, California 95825 April 24, 2014 Document Number: 140424014901 Belen Perez Quad Knopf 5080 California Avenue Suite 220 Bakersfield , CA 93309 Subject: Species List for SR99/Hosking Commerical Center BRE Dear: Ms. Perez We are sending this official species list in response to your April 24, 2014 request for information about endangered and threatened species. The list covers the California counties and/or U.S. Geological Survey 7½ minute quad or quads you requested. Our database was developed primarily to assist Federal agencies that are consulting with us. Therefore, our lists include all of the sensitive species that have been found in a certain area and also ones that may be affected by projects in the area. For example, a fish may be on the list for a quad if it lives somewhere downstream from that quad. Birds are included even if they only migrate through an area. In other words, we include all of the species we want people to consider when they do something that affects the environment. Please read Important Information About Your Species List (below). It explains how we made the list and describes your responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act. Our database is constantly updated as species are proposed, listed and delisted. If you address proposed and candidate species in your planning, this should not be a problem. However, we recommend that you get an updated list every 90 days. That would be July 23, 2014. Please contact us if your project may affect endangered or threatened species or if you have any questions about the attached list or your responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act. A list of Endangered Species Program contacts can be found http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/Branch-Contacts/es_branch-contacts.htm. Endangered Species Division AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX CC UUSSFFWWSS SSttaannddaarrddiizzeedd RReeccoommmmeennddaattiioonnss STANDARD RECOMMENDATIONS 1 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE STANDARDIZED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROTECTION OF THE ENDANGERED SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX PRIOR TO OR DURING GROUND DISTURBANCE Prepared by the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office January 2011 INTRODUCTION The following document includes many of the San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) protection measures typically recommended by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), prior to and during ground disturbance activities. However, incorporating relevant sections of these guidelines into the proposed project is not the only action required under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) and does not preclude the need for section 7 consultation or a section 10 incidental take permit for the proposed project. Project applicants should contact the Service in Sacramento to determine the full range of requirements that apply to your project; the address and telephone number are given at the end of this document. Implementation of the measures presented in this document may be necessary to avoid violating the provisions of the Act, including the prohibition against "take" (defined as killing, harming, or harassing a listed species, including actions that damage or destroy its habitat). These protection measures may also be required under the terms of a biological opinion pursuant to section 7 of the Act resulting in incidental take authorization (authorization), or an incidental take permit (permit) pursuant to section 10 of the Act. The specific measures implemented to protect kit fox for any given project shall be determined by the Service based upon the applicant's consultation with the Service. The purpose of this document is to make information on kit fox protection strategies readily available and to help standardize the methods and definitions currently employed to achieve kit fox protection. The measures outlined in this document are subject to modification or revision at the discretion of the Service. IS A PERMIT NECESSARY? Certain acts need a permit from the Service which includes destruction of any known (occupied or unoccupied) or natal/pupping kit fox dens. Determination of the presence or absence of kit foxes and /or their dens should be made during the environmental review process. All surveys and monitoring described in this document must be conducted by a qualified biologist and these activities do not require a permit. A qualified biologist (biologist) means any person who has completed at least four years of university training in wildlife biology or a related science and/or has demonstrated field experience in the identification and life history of the San Joaquin kit fox. In addition, the biologist(s) must be able to identify coyote, red fox, STANDARD RECOMMENDATIONS 2 gray fox, and kit fox tracks, and to have seen a kit fox in the wild, at a zoo, or as a museum mount. Resumes of biologists should be submitted to the Service for review and approval prior to an6y survey or monitoring work occurring. SMALL PROJECTS Small projects are considered to be those projects with small foot prints, of approximately one acre or less, such as an individual in-fill oil well, communication tower, or bridge repairs. These projects must stand alone and not be part of, or in any way connected to larger projects (i.e., bridge repair or improvement to serve a future urban development). The Service recommends that on these small projects, the biologist survey the proposed project boundary and a 200-foot area outside of the project footprint to identify habitat features and utilize this information as guidance to situate the project to minimize or avoid impacts. If habitat features cannot be completely avoided, then surveys should be conducted and the Service should be contacted for technical assistance to determine the extent of possible take. Preconstruction/preactivity surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to the beginning of ground disturbance and/or construction activities or any project activity likely to impact the San Joaquin kit fox. Kit foxes change dens four or five times during the summer months, and change natal dens one or two times per month (Morrell 1972). Surveys should identify kit fox habitat features on the project site and evaluate use by kit fox and, if possible, assess the potential impacts to the kit fox by the proposed activity. The status of all dens should be determined and mapped (see Survey Protocol). Written results of preconstruction/preactivity surveys must be received by the Service within five days after survey completion and prior to the start of ground disturbance and/or construction activities. If a natal/pupping den is discovered within the project area or within 200-feet of the project boundary, the Service shall be immediately notified and under no circumstances should the den be disturbed or destroyed without prior authorization. If the preconstruction/preactivity survey reveals an active natal pupping or new information, the project applicant should contact the Service immediately to obtain the necessary take authorization/permit. If the take authorization/permit has already been issued, then the biologist may proceed with den destruction within the project boundary, except natal/pupping den which may not be destroyed while occupied. A take authorization/permit is required to destroy these dens even after they are vacated. Protective exclusion zones can be placed around all known and potential dens which occur outside the project footprint (conversely, the project boundary can be demarcated, see den destruction section). STANDARD RECOMMENDATIONS 3 OTHER PROJECTS It is likely that all other projects occurring within kit fox habitat will require a take authorization/permit from the Service. This determination would be made by the Service during the early evaluation process (see Survey Protocol). These other projects would include, but are not limited to: Linear projects; projects with large footprints such as urban development; and projects which in themselves may be small but have far reaching impacts (i.e., water storage or conveyance facilities that promote urban growth or agriculture, etc.). The take authorization/permit issued by the Service may incorporate some or all of the protection measures presented in this document. The take authorization/permit may include measures specific to the needs of the project and those requirements supersede any requirements found in this document. EXCLUSION ZONES In order to avoid impacts, construction activities must avoid their dens. The configuration of exclusion zones around the kit fox dens should have a radius measured outward from the entrance or cluster of entrances due to the length of dens underground. The following distances are minimums, and if they cannot be followed the Service must be contacted. Adult and pup kit foxes are known to sometimes rest and play near the den entrance in the afternoon, but most above-ground activities begin near sunset and continue sporadically throughout the night. Den definitions are attached as Exhibit A. Potential den** 50 feet Atypical den** 50 feet Known den* 100 feet Natal/pupping den Service must be contacted (occupied and unoccupied) *Known den: To ensure protection, the exclusion zone should be demarcated by fencing that encircles each den at the appropriate distance and does not prevent access to the den by kit foxes. Acceptable fencing includes untreated wood particle-board, silt fencing, orange construction fencing or other fencing as approved by the Service as long as it has openings for kit fox ingress/egress and keeps humans and equipment out. Exclusion zone fencing should be maintained until all construction related or operational disturbances have been terminated. At that time, all fencing shall be removed to avoid attracting subsequent attention to the dens. STANDARD RECOMMENDATIONS 4 **Potential and Atypical dens: Placement of 4-5 flagged stakes 50 feet from the den entrance(s) will suffice to identify the den location; fencing will not be required, but the exclusion zone must be observed. Only essential vehicle operation on existing roads and foot traffic should be permitted. Otherwise, all construction, vehicle operation, material storage, or any other type of surface- disturbing activity should be prohibited or greatly restricted within the exclusion zones. DESTRUCTION OF DENS Limited destruction of kit fox dens may be allowed, if avoidance is not a reasonable alternative, provided the following procedures are observed. The value to kit foxes of potential, known, and natal/pupping dens differ and therefore, each den type needs a different level of protection. Destruction of any known or natal/pupping kit fox den requires take authorization/permit from the Service. Destruction of the den should be accomplished by careful excavation until it is certain that no kit foxes are inside. The den should be fully excavated, filled with dirt and compacted to ensure that kit foxes cannot reenter or use the den during the construction period. If at any point during excavation, a kit fox is discovered inside the den, the excavation activity shall cease immediately and monitoring of the den as described above should be resumed. Destruction of the den may be completed when in the judgment of the biologist, the animal has escaped, without further disturbance, from the partially destroyed den. Natal/pupping dens: Natal or pupping dens which are occupied will not be destroyed until the pups and adults have vacated and then only after consultation with the Service. Therefore, project activities at some den sites may have to be postponed. Known Dens: Known dens occurring within the footprint of the activity must be monitored for three days with tracking medium or an infra-red beam camera to determine the current use. If no kit fox activity is observed during this period, the den should be destroyed immediately to preclude subsequent use. If kit fox activity is observed at the den during this period, the den should be monitored for at least five consecutive days from the time of the observation to allow any resident animal to move to another den during its normal activity. Use of the den can be discouraged during this period by partially plugging its entrances(s) with soil in such a manner that any resident animal can escape easily. Only when the den is determined to be unoccupied may the den be excavated under the direction of the biologist. If the animal is still present after five or more consecutive days of plugging and monitoring, the den may have to be excavated when, in the judgment of a biologist, it is temporarily vacant, for example during the animal's normal foraging activities. STANDARD RECOMMENDATIONS 5 The Service encourages hand excavation, but realizes that soil conditions may necessitate the use of excavating equipment. However, extreme caution must be exercised. Potential Dens: If a take authorization/permit has been obtained from the Service, den destruction may proceed without monitoring, unless other restrictions were issued with the take authorization/permit. If no take authorization/permit has been issued, then potential dens should be monitored as if they were known dens. If any den was considered to be a potential den, but is later determined during monitoring or destruction to be currently, or previously used by kit fox (e.g., if kit fox sign is found inside), then all construction activities shall cease and the Service shall be notified immediately. CONSTRUCTION AND ON-GOING OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS Habitat subject to permanent and temporary construction disturbances and other types of ongoing project-related disturbance activities should be minimized by adhering to the following activities. Project designs should limit or cluster permanent project features to the smallest area possible while still permitting achievement of project goals. To minimize temporary disturbances, all project-related vehicle traffic should be restricted to established roads, construction areas, and other designated areas. These areas should also be included in preconstruction surveys and, to the extent possible, should be established in locations disturbed by previous activities to prevent further impacts. 1. Project-related vehicles should observe a daytime speed limit of 20-mph throughout the site in all project areas, except on county roads and State and Federal highways; this is particularly important at night when kit foxes are most active. Night-time construction should be minimized to the extent possible. However if it does occur, then the speed limit should be reduced to 10-mph. Off-road traffic outside of designated project areas should be prohibited. 2. To prevent inadvertent entrapment of kit foxes or other animals during the construction phase of a project, all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches more than 2-feet deep should be covered at the close of each working day by plywood or similar materials. If the trenches cannot be closed, one or more escape ramps constructed of earthen-fill or wooden planks shall be installed. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they should be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals. If at any time a trapped or injured kit fox is discovered, the Service and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) shall be contacted as noted under measure 13 referenced below. 3. Kit foxes are attracted to den-like structures such as pipes and may enter stored pipes and become trapped or injured. All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of 4-inches or greater that are stored at a construction site for one or more overnight periods should be thoroughly inspected for kit foxes before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way. If a kit fox is STANDARD RECOMMENDATIONS 6 discovered inside a pipe, that section of pipe should not be moved until the Service has been consulted. If necessary, and under the direct supervision of the biologist, the pipe may be moved only once to remove it from the path of construction activity, until the fox has escaped. 4. All food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps should be disposed of in securely closed containers and removed at least once a week from a construction or project site. 5. No firearms shall be allowed on the project site. 6. No pets, such as dogs or cats, should be permitted on the project site to prevent harassment, mortality of kit foxes, or destruction of dens. 7. Use of rodenticides and herbicides in project areas should be restricted. This is necessary to prevent primary or secondary poisoning of kit foxes and the depletion of prey populations on which they depend. All uses of such compounds should observe label and other restrictions mandated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and other State and Federal legislation, as well as additional project-related restrictions deemed necessary by the Service. If rodent control must be conducted, zinc phosphide should be used because of a proven lower risk to kit fox. 8. A representative shall be appointed by the project proponent who will be the contact source for any employee or contractor who might inadvertently kill or injure a kit fox or who finds a dead, injured or entrapped kit fox. The representative will be identified during the employee education program and their name and telephone number shall be provided to the Service. 9. An employee education program should be conducted for any project that has anticipated impacts to kit fox or other endangered species. The program should consist of a brief presentation by persons knowledgeable in kit fox biology and legislative protection to explain endangered species concerns to contractors, their employees, and military and/or agency personnel involved in the project. The program should include the following: A description of the San Joaquin kit fox and its habitat needs; a report of the occurrence of kit fox in the project area; an explanation of the status of the species and its protection under the Endangered Species Act; and a list of measures being taken to reduce impacts to the species during project construction and implementation. A fact sheet conveying this information should be prepared for distribution to the previously referenced people and anyone else who may enter the project site. 10. Upon completion of the project, all areas subject to temporary ground disturbances, including storage and staging areas, temporary roads, pipeline corridors, etc. should be STANDARD RECOMMENDATIONS 7 re-contoured if necessary, and revegetated to promote restoration of the area to pre- project conditions. An area subject to "temporary" disturbance means any area that is disturbed during the project, but after project completion will not be subject to further disturbance and has the potential to be revegetated. Appropriate methods and plant species used to revegetate such areas should be determined on a site-specific basis in consultation with the Service, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and revegetation experts. 11. In the case of trapped animals, escape ramps or structures should be installed immediately to allow the animal(s) to escape, or the Service should be contacted for guidance. 12. Any contractor, employee, or military or agency personnel who are responsible for inadvertently killing or injuring a San Joaquin kit fox shall immediately report the incident to their representative. This representative shall contact the CDFG immediately in the case of a dead, injured or entrapped kit fox. The CDFG contact for immediate assistance is State Dispatch at (916)445-0045. They will contact the local warden or Mr. Paul Hoffman, the wildlife biologist, at (530)934-9309. The Service should be contacted at the numbers below. 13. The Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office and CDFG shall be notified in writing within three working days of the accidental death or injury to a San Joaquin kit fox during project related activities. Notification must include the date, time, and location of the incident or of the finding of a dead or injured animal and any other pertinent information. The Service contact is the Chief of the Division of Endangered Species, at the addresses and telephone numbers below. The CDFG contact is Mr. Paul Hoffman at 1701 Nimbus Road, Suite A, Rancho Cordova, California 95670, (530) 934-9309. 14. New sightings of kit fox shall be reported to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). A copy of the reporting form and a topographic map clearly marked with the location of where the kit fox was observed should also be provided to the Service at the address below. Any project-related information required by the Service or questions concerning the above conditions or their implementation may be directed in writing to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at: Endangered Species Division 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W2605 Sacramento, California 95825-1846 (916) 414-6620 or (916) 414-6600 STANDARD RECOMMENDATIONS 8 EXHIBIT “A” - DEFINITIONS "Take" - Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) prohibits the "take" of any federally listed endangered species by any person (an individual, corporation, partnership, trust, association, etc.) subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. As defined in the Act, take means " . . . to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct". Thus, not only is a listed animal protected from activities such as hunting, but also from actions that damage or destroy its habitat. "Dens" - San Joaquin kit fox dens may be located in areas of low, moderate, or steep topography. Den characteristics are listed below, however, the specific characteristics of individual dens may vary and occupied dens may lack some or all of these features. Therefore, caution must be exercised in determining the status of any den. Typical dens may include the following: (1) one or more entrances that are approximately 5 to 8 inches in diameter; (2) dirt berms adjacent to the entrances; (3) kit fox tracks, scat, or prey remains in the vicinity of the den; (4) matted vegetation adjacent to the den entrances; and (5) manmade features such as culverts, pipes, and canal banks. "Known den" - Any existing natural den or manmade structure that is used or has been used at any time in the past by a San Joaquin kit fox. Evidence of use may include historical records, past or current radiotelemetry or spotlighting data, kit fox sign such as tracks, scat, and/or prey remains, or other reasonable proof that a given den is being or has been used by a kit fox. The Service discourages use of the terms ”active” and “inactive” when referring to any kit fox den because a great percentage of occupied dens show no evidence of use, and because kit foxes change dens often, with the result that the status of a given den may change frequently and abruptly. "Potential Den" - Any subterranean hole within the species’ range that has entrances of appropriate dimensions for which available evidence is insufficient to conclude that it is being used or has been used by a kit fox. Potential dens shall include the following: (1) any suitable subterranean hole; or (2) any den or burrow of another species (e.g., coyote, badger, red fox, or ground squirrel) that otherwise has appropriate characteristics for kit fox use. "Natal or Pupping Den" - Any den used by kit foxes to whelp and/or rear their pups. Natal/pupping dens may be larger with more numerous entrances than dens occupied exclusively by adults. These dens typically have more kit fox tracks, scat, and prey remains in the vicinity of the den, and may have a broader apron of matted dirt and/or vegetation at one or more entrances. A natal den, defined as a den in which kit fox pups are actually whelped but not necessarily reared, is a more restrictive version of the pupping den. In practice, however, it is difficult to distinguish between the two, therefore, for purposes of this definition either term applies. STANDARD RECOMMENDATIONS 9 "Atypical Den" - Any manmade structure which has been or is being occupied by a San Joaquin kit fox. Atypical dens may include pipes, culverts, and diggings beneath concrete slabs and buildings. AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX DD SSttaaffff RReeppoorrtt oonn BBuurrrroowwiinngg OOwwll MMiittiiggaattiioonn Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation State of California Natural Resources Agency Department of Fish and Game March 7, 20121 1 This document replaces the Department of Fish and Game 1995 Staff Report On Burrowing Owl Mitigation. 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report ii TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE..........................................................................................................................1 DEPARTMENT ROLE AND LEGAL AUTHORITIES..............................................................................................2 GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR CONSERVATION.....................................................................................................3 CONSERVATION GOALS FOR THE BURROWING OWL IN CALIFORNIA.........................................................4 ACTIVITIES WITH THE POTENTIAL TO TAKE OR IMPACT BURROWING OWLS.............................................4 PROJECT IMPACT EVALUATIONS.......................................................................................................................5 MITIGATION METHODS.........................................................................................................................................8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.....................................................................................................................................15 REFERENCES......................................................................................................................................................15 Appendix A. Burrowing Owl Natural History and Threats...............................................................................20 Appendix B. Definitions.....................................................................................................................................24 Appendix C. Habitat Assessment and Reporting Details................................................................................26 Appendix D. Breeding and Non-breeding Season Survey and Reports...................................................................................................................................28 Appendix E. Draft Example Components for Burrowing Owl Artificial Burrow and Exclusion Plans........................................................................................31 Appendix F. Mitigation Management Plan and Vegetation Management Goals.......................................................................................................................33 1 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE Maintaining California’s rich biological diversity is dependent on the conservation of species and their habitats. The California Department of Fish and Game (Department) has designated certain species as “species of special concern” when their population viability and survival is adversely affected by risk factors such as precipitous declines or other vulnerability factors (Shuford and Gardali 2008). Preliminary analyses of regional patterns for breeding populations of burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) have detected declines both locally in their central and southern coastal breeding areas, and statewide where the species has experienced modest breeding range retraction (Gervais et al. 2008). In California, threat factors affecting burrowing owl populations include habitat loss, degradation and modification, and eradication of ground squirrels resulting in a loss of suitable burrows required by burrowing owls for nesting, protection from predators, and shelter (See Appendix A). The Department recognized the need for a comprehensive conservation and mitigation strategy for burrowing owls, and in 1995 directed staff to prepare a report describing mitigation and survey recommendations. This report, “1995 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation,” (Staff Report) (CDFG 1995), contained Department-recommended burrowing owl and burrow survey techniques and mitigation measures intended to offset the loss of habitat and slow or reverse further decline of this species. Notwithstanding these measures, over the past 15+ years, burrowing owls have continued to decline in portions of their range (DeSante et al. 2007, Wilkerson and Siegel, 2010). The Department has determined that reversing declining population and range trends for burrowing owls will require implementation of more effective conservation actions, and evaluating the efficacy of the Department’s existing recommended avoidance, minimization and mitigation approaches for burrowing owls. The Department has identified three main actions that together will facilitate a more viable, coordinated, and concerted approach to conservation and mitigation for burrowing owls in California. These include: 1. Incorporating burrowing owl comprehensive conservation strategies into landscape-based planning efforts such as Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCPs) and multi-species Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) that specifically address burrowing owls. 2. Developing and implementing a statewide conservation strategy (Burkett and Johnson, 2007) and local or regional conservation strategies for burrowing owls, including the development and implementation of a statewide burrowing owl survey and monitoring plan. 3. Developing more rigorous burrowing owl survey methods, working to improve the adequacy of impacts assessments; developing clear and effective avoidance and minimization measures; and developing mitigation measures to ensure impacts to the species are effectively addressed at the project, local, and/or regional level (the focus of this document). This Report sets forth the Department’s recommendations for implementing the third approach identified above by revising the 1995 Staff Report, drawing from the most relevant and current knowledge and expertise, and incorporating the best scientific information 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 2 available pertaining to the species. It is designed to provide a compilation of the best available science for Department staff, biologists, planners, land managers, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lead agencies, and the public to consider when assessing impacts of projects or other activities on burrowing owls. This revised Staff Report takes into account the California Burrowing Owl Consortium’s Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines (CBOC 1993, 1997) and supersedes the survey, avoidance, minimization and mitigation recommendations in the 1995 Staff Report. Based on experiences gained from implementing the 1995 Staff Report, the Department believes revising that report is warranted. This document also includes general conservation goals and principles for developing mitigation measures for burrowing owls. DEPARTMENT ROLE AND LEGAL AUTHORITIES The mission of the Department is to manage California's diverse fish, wildlife and plant resources, and the habitats upon which they depend, for their ecological values and for their use and enjoyment by the public. The Department has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitats necessary to maintain biologically sustainable populations of those species (Fish and Game Code (FGC) §1802). The Department, as trustee agency pursuant to CEQA (See CEQA Guidelines, §15386), has jurisdiction by law over natural resources, including fish and wildlife, affected by a project, as that term is defined in Section 21065 of the Public Resources Code. The Department exercises this authority by reviewing and commenting on environmental documents and making recommendations to avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential negative impacts to those resources held in trust for the people of California. Field surveys designed to detect the presence of a particular species, habitat element, or natural community are one of the tools that can assist biologists in determining whether a species or habitat may be significantly impacted by land use changes or disturbance. The Department reviews field survey data as well as site-specific and regional information to evaluate whether a project’s impacts may be significant. This document compiles the best available science for conducting habitat assessments and surveys, and includes considerations for developing measures to avoid impacts or mitigate unavoidable impacts. CEQA CEQA requires public agencies in California to analyze and disclose potential environmental impacts associated with a project that the agency will carry out, fund, or approve. Any potentially significant impact must be mitigated to the extent feasible. Project-specific CEQA mitigation is important for burrowing owls because most populations exist on privately owned parcels that, when proposed for development or other types of modification, may be subject to the environmental review requirements of CEQA. Take Take of individual burrowing owls and their nests is defined by FGC section 86, and prohibited by sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513. Take is defined in FGC Section 86 as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill.” 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 3 Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) implements various treaties and conventions between the United States and Canada, Japan, Mexico, and Russia for the protection of migratory birds, including the burrowing owl (50 C.F.R. § 10). The MBTA protects migratory bird nests from possession, sale, purchase, barter, transport, import and export, and collection. The other prohibitions of the MBTA - capture, pursue, hunt, and kill - are inapplicable to nests. The regulatory definition of take, as defined in Title 50 C.F.R. part 10.12, means to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect. Only the verb “collect” applies to nests. It is illegal to collect, possess, and by any means transfer possession of any migratory bird nest. The MBTA prohibits the destruction of a nest when it contains birds or eggs, and no possession shall occur during the destruction (see Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Permit Memorandum, April 15, 2003). Certain exceptions to this prohibition are included in 50 C.F.R. section 21. Pursuant to Fish & Game Code section 3513, the Department enforces the Migratory Bird Treaty Act consistent with rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Treaty Act. Regional Conservation Plans Regional multiple species conservation plans offer long-term assurances for conservation of covered species at a landscape scale, in exchange for biologically appropriate levels of incidental take and/or habitat loss as defined in the approved plan. California’s NCCP Act (FGC §2800 et seq.) governs such plans at the state level, and was designed to conserve species, natural communities, ecosystems, and ecological processes across a jurisdiction or a collection of jurisdictions. Complementary federal HCPs are governed by the Endangered Species Act (7 U.S.C. § 136, 16 U.S.C.§ 1531 et seq.) (ESA). Regional conservation plans (and certain other landscape-level conservation and management plans), may provide conservation for unlisted as well as listed species. Because the geographic scope of NCCPs and HCPs may span many hundreds of thousands of acres, these planning tools have the potential to play a significant role in conservation of burrowing owls, and grasslands and other habitats. Fish and Game Commission Policies There are a number of Fish and Game Commission policies (see FGC §2008) that can be applied to burrowing owl conservation. These include policies on: Raptors, Cooperation, Endangered and Threatened Species, Land Use Planning, Management and Utilization of Fish and Wildlife on Federal Lands, Management and Utilization of Fish and Wildlife on Private Lands, and Research. GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR CONSERVATION Unless otherwise provided in a statewide, local, or regional conservation strategy, surveying and evaluating impacts to burrowing owls, as well as developing and implementing avoidance, minimization, and mitigation and conservation measures incorporate the following principles. These principles are a summary of Department staff expert opinion and were used to guide the preparation of this document. 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 4 1. Use the Precautionary Principle (Noss et al.1997), by which the alternative of increased conservation is deliberately chosen in order to buffer against incomplete knowledge of burrowing owl ecology and uncertainty about the consequences to burrowing owls of potential impacts, including those that are cumulative. 2. Employ basic conservation biology tenets and population-level approaches when determining what constitutes appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation for impacts. Include mitigation effectiveness monitoring and reporting, and use an adaptive management loop to modify measures based on results. 3. Protect and conserve owls in wild, semi-natural, and agricultural habitats (conserve is defined at FGC §1802). 4. Protect and conserve natural nest burrows (or burrow surrogates) previously used by burrowing owls and sufficient foraging habitat and protect auxiliary “satellite” burrows that contribute to burrowing owl survivorship and natural behavior of owls. CONSERVATION GOALS FOR THE BURROWING OWL IN CALIFORNIA It is Department staff expert opinion that the following goals guide and contribute to the short and long-term conservation of burrowing owls in California: 1. Maintain size and distribution of extant burrowing owl populations (allowing for natural population fluctuations). 2. Increase geographic distribution of burrowing owls into formerly occupied historical range where burrowing owl habitat still exists, or where it can be created or enhanced, and where the reason for its local disappearance is no longer of concern. 3. Increase size of existing populations where possible and appropriate (for example, considering basic ecological principles such as carrying capacity, predator-prey relationships, and inter-specific relationships with other species at risk). 4. Protect and restore self-sustaining ecosystems or natural communities which can support burrowing owls at a landscape scale, and which will require minimal long-term management. 5. Minimize or prevent unnatural causes of burrowing owl population declines (e.g., nest burrow destruction, chemical control of rodent hosts and prey). 6. Augment/restore natural dynamics of burrowing owl populations including movement and genetic exchange among populations, such that the species does not require future listing and protection under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and/or the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). 7. Engage stakeholders, including ranchers; farmers; military; tribes; local, state, and federal agencies; non-governmental organizations; and scientific research and education communities involved in burrowing owl protection and habitat management. ACTIVITIES WITH THE POTENTIAL TO TAKE OR IMPACT BURROWING OWLS The following activities are examples of activities that have the potential to take burrowing owls, their nests or eggs, or destroy or degrade burrowing owl habitat: grading, disking, cultivation, earthmoving, burrow blockage, heavy equipment compacting and crushing burrow tunnels, levee maintenance, flooding, burning and mowing (if burrows are impacted), and operating wind turbine collisions (collectively hereafter referred to as “projects” or “activities” 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 5 whether carried out pursuant to CEQA or not). In addition, the following activities may have impacts to burrowing owl populations: eradication of host burrowers; changes in vegetation management (i.e. grazing); use of pesticides and rodenticides; destruction, conversion or degradation of nesting, foraging, over-wintering or other habitats; destruction of natural burrows and burrow surrogates; and disturbance which may result in harassment of owls at occupied burrows. PROJECT IMPACT EVALUATIONS The following three progressive steps are effective in evaluating whether projects will result in impacts to burrowing owls. The information gained from these steps will inform any subsequent avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures. The steps for project impact evaluations are: 1) habitat assessment, 2) surveys, and 3) impact assessment. Habitat assessments are conducted to evaluate the likelihood that a site supports burrowing owl. Burrowing owl surveys provide information needed to determine the potential effects of proposed projects and activities on burrowing owls, and to avoid take in accordance with FGC sections 86, 3503, and 3503.5. Impact assessments evaluate the extent to which burrowing owls and their habitat may be impacted, directly or indirectly, on and within a reasonable distance of a proposed CEQA project activity or non-CEQA project. These three site evaluation steps are discussed in detail below. Biologist Qualifications The current scientific literature indicates that only individuals meeting the following minimum qualifications should perform burrowing owl habitat assessments, surveys, and impact assessments: 1. Familiarity with the species and its local ecology; 2. Experience conducting habitat assessments and non-breeding and breeding season surveys, or experience with these surveys conducted under the direction of an experienced surveyor; 3. Familiarity with the appropriate state and federal statutes related to burrowing owls, scientific research, and conservation; 4. Experience with analyzing impacts of development on burrowing owls and their habitat. Habitat Assessment Data Collection and Reporting A habitat assessment is the first step in the evaluation process and will assist investigators in determining whether or not occupancy surveys are needed. Refer to Appendix B for a definition of burrowing owl habitat. Compile the detailed information described in Appendix C when conducting project scoping, conducting a habitat assessment site visit and preparing a habitat assessment report. Surveys Burrowing owl surveys are the second step of the evaluation process and the best available scientific literature recommends that they be conducted whenever burrowing owl habitat or sign (see Appendix B) is encountered on or adjacent to (within 150 meters) a project site 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 6 (Thomsen 1971, Martin 1973). Occupancy of burrowing owl habitat is confirmed at a site when at least one burrowing owl, or its sign at or near a burrow entrance, is observed within the last three years (Rich 1984). Burrowing owls are more detectable during the breeding season with detection probabilities being highest during the nestling stage (Conway et al. 2008). In California, the burrowing owl breeding season extends from 1 February to 31 August (Haug et al. 1993, Thompsen 1971) with some variances by geographic location and climatic conditions. Several researchers suggest three or more survey visits during daylight hours (Haug and Diduik 1993, CBOC 1997, Conway and Simon 2003) and recommend each visit occur at least three weeks apart during the peak of the breeding season, commonly accepted in California as between 15 April and 15 July (CBOC 1997). Conway and Simon (2003) and Conway et al. (2008) recommended conducting surveys during the day when most burrowing owls in a local area are in the laying and incubation period (so as not to miss early breeding attempts), during the nesting period, and in the late nestling period when most owls are spending time above ground. Non-breeding season (1 September to 31 January) surveys may provide information on burrowing owl occupancy, but do not substitute for breeding season surveys because results are typically inconclusive. Burrowing owls are more difficult to detect during the non-breeding season and their seasonal residency status is difficult to ascertain. Burrowing owls detected during non-breeding season surveys may be year-round residents, young from the previous breeding season, pre-breeding territorial adults, winter residents, dispersing juveniles, migrants, transients or new colonizers. In addition, the numbers of owls and their pattern of distribution may differ during winter and breeding seasons. However, on rare occasions, non-breeding season surveys may be warranted (i.e., if the site is believed to be a wintering site only based on negative breeding season results). Refer to Appendix D for information on breeding season and non-breeding season survey methodologies. Survey Reports Adequate information about burrowing owls present in and adjacent to an area that will be disturbed by a project or activity will enable the Department, reviewing agencies and the public to effectively assess potential impacts and will guide the development of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. The survey report includes but is not limited to a description of the proposed project or proposed activity, including the proposed project start and end dates, as well as a description of disturbances or other activities occurring on-site or nearby. Refer to Appendix D for details included in a survey report. Impact Assessment The third step in the evaluation process is the impact assessment. When surveys confirm occupied burrowing owl habitat in or adjoining the project area, there are a number of ways to assess a project’s potential significant impacts to burrowing owls and their habitat. Richardson and Miller (1997) recommended monitoring raptor behavior prior to developing management recommendations and buffers to determine the extent to which individuals have been sensitized to human disturbance. Monitoring results will also provide detail necessary for developing site-specific measures. Postovit and Postovit (1987) recommended an analytical approach to mitigation planning: define the problem (impact), set goals (to guide mitigation development), evaluate and select mitigation methods, and monitor the results. 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 7 Define the problem. The impact assessment evaluates all factors that could affect burrowing owls. Postovit and Postovit (1987) recommend evaluating the following in assessing impacts to raptors and planning mitigation: type and extent of disturbance, duration and timing of disturbance, visibility of disturbance, sensitivity and ability to habituate, and influence of environmental factors. They suggest identifying and addressing all potential direct and indirect impacts to burrowing owls, regardless of whether or not the impacts will occur during the breeding season. Several examples are given for each impact category below; however, examples are not intended to be used exclusively. Type and extent of the disturbance. The impact assessment describes the nature (source) and extent (scale) of potential project impacts on occupied, satellite and unoccupied burrows including acreage to be lost (temporary or permanent), fragmentation/edge being created, increased distance to other nesting and foraging habitat, and habitat degradation. Discuss any project activities that impact either breeding and/or non-breeding habitat which could affect owl home range size and spatial configuration, negatively affect onsite and offsite burrowing owl presence, increase energetic costs, lower reproductive success, increase vulnerability to predation, and/or decrease the chance of procuring a mate. Duration and timing of the impact. The impact assessment describes the amount of time the burrowing owl habitat will be unavailable to burrowing owls (temporary or permanent) on the site and the effect of that loss on essential behaviors or life history requirements of burrowing owls, the overlap of project activities with breeding and/or non-breeding seasons (timing of nesting and/or non-breeding activities may vary with latitude and climatic conditions, which should be considered with the timeline of the project or activity), and any variance of the project activities in intensity, scale and proximity relative to burrowing owl occurrences. Visibility and sensitivity. Some individual burrowing owls or pairs are more sensitive than others to specific stimuli and may habituate to ongoing visual or audible disturbance. Site-specific monitoring may provide clues to the burrowing owl’s sensitivities. This type of assessment addresses the sensitivity of burrowing owls within their nesting area to humans on foot, and vehicular traffic. Other variables are whether the site is primarily in a rural versus urban setting, and whether any prior disturbance (e.g., human development or recreation) is known at the site. Environmental factors. The impact assessment discusses any environmental factors that could be influenced or changed by the proposed activities including nest site availability, predators, prey availability, burrowing mammal presence and abundance, and threats from other extrinsic factors such as human disturbance, urban interface, feral animals, invasive species, disease or pesticides. Significance of impacts. The impact assessment evaluates the potential loss of nesting burrows, satellite burrows, foraging habitat, dispersal and migration habitat, wintering habitat, and habitat linkages, including habitat supporting prey and host burrowers and other essential habitat attributes. This assessment determines if impacts to the species will result in significant impacts to the species locally, regionally and range-wide per CEQA Guidelines §15382 and Appendix G. The significance of the impact to habitat depends on the extent of habitat disturbed and length of time the habitat is unavailable (for example: minor – several days, medium – several weeks to months, high - breeding season affecting juvenile survival, 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 8 or over winter affecting adult survival). Cumulative effects. The cumulative effects assessment evaluates two consequences: 1) the project’s proportional share of reasonably foreseeable impacts on burrowing owls and habitat caused by the project or in combination with other projects and local influences having impacts on burrowing owls and habitat, and 2) the effects on the regional owl population resulting from the project’s impacts to burrowing owls and habitat. Mitigation goals. Establishing goals will assist in planning mitigation and selecting measures that function at a desired level. Goals also provide a standard by which to measure mitigation success. Unless specifically provided for through other FGC Sections or through specific regulations, take, possession or destruction of individual burrowing owls, their nests and eggs is prohibited under FGC sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513. Therefore, a required goal for all project activities is to avoid take of burrowing owls. Under CEQA, goals would consist of measures that would avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts to a less than significant level. For individual projects, mitigation must be roughly proportional to the level of impacts, including cumulative impacts, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4(a)(4)(B), 15064, 15065, and 16355). In order for mitigation measures to be effective, they must be specific, enforceable, and feasible actions that will improve environmental conditions. As set forth in more detail in Appendix A, the current scientific literature supports the conclusion that mitigation for permanent habitat loss necessitates replacement with an equivalent or greater habitat area for breeding, foraging, wintering, dispersal, presence of burrows, burrow surrogates, presence of fossorial mammal dens, well drained soils, and abundant and available prey within close proximity to the burrow. MITIGATION METHODS The current scientific literature indicates that any site-specific avoidance or mitigation measures developed should incorporate the best practices presented below or other practices confirmed by experts and the Department. The Department is available to assist in the development of site-specific avoidance and mitigation measures. Avoiding. A primary goal is to design and implement projects to seasonally and spatially avoid negative impacts and disturbances that could result in take of burrowing owls, nests, or eggs. Other avoidance measures may include but not be limited to: Avoid disturbing occupied burrows during the nesting period, from 1 February through 31 August. Avoid impacting burrows occupied during the non-breeding season by migratory or non-migratory resident burrowing owls. Avoid direct destruction of burrows through chaining (dragging a heavy chain over an area to remove shrubs), disking, cultivation, and urban, industrial, or agricultural development. Develop and implement a worker awareness program to increase the on-site worker’s recognition of and commitment to burrowing owl protection. Place visible markers near burrows to ensure that farm equipment and other machinery does not collapse burrows. Do not fumigate, use treated bait or other means of poisoning nuisance animals in areas where burrowing owls are known or suspected to occur (e.g., sites observed with nesting 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 9 owls, designated use areas). Restrict the use of treated grain to poison mammals to the months of January and February. Take avoidance (pre-construction) surveys. Take avoidance surveys are intended to detect the presence of burrowing owls on a project site at a fixed period in time and inform necessary take avoidance actions. Take avoidance surveys may detect changes in owl presence such as colonizing owls that have recently moved onto the site, migrating owls, resident burrowing owls changing burrow use, or young of the year that are still present and have not dispersed. Refer to Appendix D for take avoidance survey methodology. Site surveillance. Burrowing owls may attempt to colonize or re-colonize an area that will be impacted; thus, the current scientific literature indicates a need for ongoing surveillance at the project site during project activities is recommended. The surveillance frequency/effort should be sufficient to detect burrowing owls if they return. Subsequent to their new occupancy or return to the site, take avoidance measures should assure with a high degree of certainty that take of owls will not occur. Minimizing. If burrowing owls and their habitat can be protected in place on or adjacent to a project site, the use of buffer zones, visual screens or other measures while project activities are occurring can minimize disturbance impacts. Conduct site-specific monitoring to inform development of buffers (see Visibility and sensitivity above). The following general guidelines for implementing buffers should be adjusted to address site-specific conditions using the impact assessment approach described above. The CEQA lead agency and/or project proponent is encouraged to consult with the Department and other burrowing owl experts for assistance in developing site-specific buffer zones and visual screens. Buffers. Holroyd et al. (2001) identified a need to standardize management and disturbance mitigation guidelines. For instance, guidelines for mitigating impacts by petroleum industries on burrowing owls and other prairie species (Scobie and Faminow, 2000) may be used as a template for future mitigation guidelines (Holroyd et al. 2001). Scobie and Faminow (2000) developed guidelines for activities around occupied burrowing owl nests recommending buffers around low, medium, and high disturbance activities, respectively (see below). Recommended restricted activity dates and setback distances by level of disturbance for burrowing owls (Scobie and Faminow 2000). Level of Disturbance Location Time of Year Low Med High Nesting sites April 1-Aug 15 200 m* 500 m 500 m Nesting sites Aug 16-Oct 15 200 m 200 m 500 m Nesting sites Oct 16-Mar 31 50 m 100 m 500 m * meters (m) Based on existing vegetation, human development, and land uses in an area, resource managers may decide to allow human development or resource extraction closer to these area/sites than recommended above. However, if it is decided to allow activities closer than 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 10 the setback distances recommended, a broad-scale, long-term, scientifically-rigorous monitoring program ensures that burrowing owls are not detrimentally affected by alternative approaches. Other minimization measures include eliminating actions that reduce burrowing owl forage and burrowing surrogates (e.g. ground squirrel), or introduce/facilitate burrowing owl predators. Actions that could influence these factors include reducing livestock grazing rates and/or changing the timing or duration of grazing or vegetation management that could result in less suitable habitat. Burrow exclusion and closure. Burrow exclusion is a technique of installing one-way doors in burrow openings during the non-breeding season to temporarily exclude burrowing owls, or permanently exclude burrowing owls and close burrows after verifying burrows are empty by site monitoring and scoping. Exclusion in and of itself is not a take avoidance, minimization or mitigation method. Eviction of burrowing owls is a potentially significant impact under CEQA. The long-term demographic consequences of these techniques have not been thoroughly evaluated, and the fate of evicted or excluded burrowing owls has not been systematically studied. Because burrowing owls are dependent on burrows at all times of the year for survival and/or reproduction, evicting them from nesting, roosting, and satellite burrows may lead to indirect impacts or take. Temporary or permanent closure of burrows may result in significant loss of burrows and habitat for reproduction and other life history requirements. Depending on the proximity and availability of alternate habitat, loss of access to burrows will likely result in varying levels of increased stress on burrowing owls and could depress reproduction, increase predation, increase energetic costs, and introduce risks posed by having to find and compete for available burrows. Therefore, exclusion and burrow closure are not recommended where they can be avoided. The current scientific literature indicates consideration of all possible avoidance and minimization measures before temporary or permanent exclusion and closure of burrows is implemented, in order to avoid take. The results of a study by Trulio (1995) in California showed that burrowing owls passively displaced from their burrows were quickly attracted to adjacent artificial burrows at five of six passive relocation sites. The successful sites were all within 75 meters (m) of the destroyed burrow, a distance generally within a pair's territory. This researcher discouraged using passive relocation to artificial burrows as a mitigation measure for lost burrows without protection of adjacent foraging habitat. The study results indicated artificial burrows were used by evicted burrowing owls when they were approximately 50-100 m from the natural burrow (Thomsen 1971, Haug and Oliphant 1990). Locating artificial or natural burrows more than 100 m from the eviction burrow may greatly reduce the chances that new burrows will be used. Ideally, exclusion and burrow closure is employed only where there are adjacent natural burrows and non-impacted, sufficient habitat for burrowing owls to occupy with permanent protection mechanisms in place. Any new burrowing owl colonizing the project site after the CEQA document has been adopted may constitute changed circumstances that should be addressed in a re-circulated CEQA document. The current scientific literature indicates that burrow exclusion should only be conducted by qualified biologists (meeting the Biologist’s Qualifications above) during the non-breeding 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 11 season, before breeding behavior is exhibited and after the burrow is confirmed empty by site surveillance and/or scoping. The literature also indicates that when temporary or permanent burrow exclusion and/or burrow closure is implemented, burrowing owls should not be excluded from burrows unless or until: A Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan (see Appendix E) is developed and approved by the applicable local DFG office; Permanent loss of occupied burrow(s) and habitat is mitigated in accordance with the Mitigating Impacts sections below. Temporary exclusion is mitigated in accordance with the item #1 under Mitigating Impacts below. Site monitoring is conducted prior to, during, and after exclusion of burrowing owls from their burrows sufficient to ensure take is avoided. Conduct daily monitoring for one week to confirm young of the year have fledged if the exclusion will occur immediately after the end of the breeding season. Excluded burrowing owls are documented using artificial or natural burrows on an adjoining mitigation site (if able to confirm by band re-sight). Translocation (Active relocation offsite >100 meters). At this time, there is little published information regarding the efficacy of translocating burrowing owls, and additional research is needed to determine subsequent survival and breeding success (Klute et al. 2003, Holroyd et al. 2001). Study results for translocation in Florida implied that hatching success may be decreased for populations of burrowing owls that undergo translocation (Nixon 2006). At this time, the Department is unable to authorize the capture and relocation of burrowing owls except within the context of scientific research (FGC §1002) or a NCCP conservation strategy. Mitigating impacts. Habitat loss and degradation from rapid urbanization of farmland in the core areas of the Central and Imperial valleys is the greatest of many threats to burrowing owls in California (Shuford and Gardali, 2008). At a minimum, if burrowing owls have been documented to occupy burrows (see Definitions, Appendix B) at the project site in recent years, the current scientific literature supports the conclusion that the site should be considered occupied and mitigation should be required by the CEQA lead agency to address project-specific significant and cumulative impacts. Other site-specific and regionally significant and cumulative impacts may warrant mitigation. The current scientific literature indicates the following to be best practices. If these best practices cannot be implemented, the lead agency or lead investigator may consult with the Department to develop effective mitigation alternatives. The Department is also available to assist in the identification of suitable mitigation lands. 1. Where habitat will be temporarily disturbed, restore the disturbed area to pre-project condition including decompacting soil and revegetating. Permanent habitat protection may be warranted if there is the potential that the temporary impacts may render a nesting site (nesting burrow and satellite burrows) unsustainable or unavailable depending on the time frame, resulting in reduced survival or abandonment. For the latter potential impact, see the permanent impact measures below. 2. Mitigate for permanent impacts to nesting, occupied and satellite burrows and/or burrowing owl habitat such that the habitat acreage, number of burrows and burrowing owls impacted are replaced based on the information provided in Appendix A. Note: A 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 12 minimum habitat replacement recommendation is not provided here as it has been shown to serve as a default, replacing any site-specific analysis and discounting the wide variation in natal area, home range, foraging area, and other factors influencing burrowing owls and burrowing owl population persistence in a particular area. 3. Mitigate for permanent impacts to nesting, occupied and satellite burrows and burrowing owl habitat with (a) permanent conservation of similar vegetation communities (grassland, scrublands, desert, urban, and agriculture) to provide for burrowing owl nesting, foraging, wintering, and dispersal (i.e., during breeding and non-breeding seasons) comparable to or better than that of the impact area, and (b) sufficiently large acreage, and presence of fossorial mammals. The mitigation lands may require habitat enhancements including enhancement or expansion of burrows for breeding, shelter and dispersal opportunity, and removal or control of population stressors. If the mitigation lands are located adjacent to the impacted burrow site, ensure the nearest neighbor artificial or natural burrow clusters are at least within 210 meters (Fisher et al. 2007). 4. Permanently protect mitigation land through a conservation easement deeded to a non- profit conservation organization or public agency with a conservation mission, for the purpose of conserving burrowing owl habitat and prohibiting activities incompatible with burrowing owl use. If the project is located within the service area of a Department- approved burrowing owl conservation bank, the project proponent may purchase available burrowing owl conservation bank credits. 5. Develop and implement a mitigation land management plan to address long-term ecological sustainability and maintenance of the site for burrowing owls (see Management Plan and Artificial Burrow sections below, if applicable). 6. Fund the maintenance and management of mitigation land through the establishment of a long-term funding mechanism such as an endowment. 7. Habitat should not be altered or destroyed, and burrowing owls should not be excluded from burrows, until mitigation lands have been legally secured, are managed for the benefit of burrowing owls according to Department-approved management, monitoring and reporting plans, and the endowment or other long-term funding mechanism is in place or security is provided until these measures are completed. 8. Mitigation lands should be on, adjacent or proximate to the impact site where possible and where habitat is sufficient to support burrowing owls present. 9. Where there is insufficient habitat on, adjacent to, or near project sites where burrowing owls will be excluded, acquire mitigation lands with burrowing owl habitat away from the project site. The selection of mitigation lands should then focus on consolidating and enlarging conservation areas located outside of urban and planned growth areas, within foraging distance of other conserved lands. If mitigation lands are not available adjacent to other conserved lands, increase the mitigation land acreage requirement to ensure a selected site is of sufficient size. Offsite mitigation may not adequately offset the biological and habitat values impacted on a one to one basis. Consult with the Department when determining offsite mitigation acreages. 10. Evaluate and select suitable mitigation lands based on a comparison of the habitat attributes of the impacted and conserved lands, including but not limited to: type and structure of habitat being impacted or conserved; density of burrowing owls in impacted and conserved habitat; and significance of impacted or conserved habitat to the species range-wide. Mitigate for the highest quality burrowing owl habitat impacted first and foremost when identifying mitigation lands, even if a mitigation site is located outside of 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 13 a lead agency’s jurisdictional boundary, particularly if the lead agency is a city or special district. 11. Select mitigation lands taking into account the potential human and wildlife conflicts or incompatibility, including but not limited to, human foot and vehicle traffic, and predation by cats, loose dogs and urban-adapted wildlife, and incompatible species management (i.e., snowy plover). 12. Where a burrowing owl population appears to be highly adapted to heavily altered habitats such as golf courses, airports, athletic fields, and business complexes, permanently protecting the land, augmenting the site with artificial burrows, and enhancing and maintaining those areas may enhance sustainability of the burrowing owl population onsite. Maintenance includes keeping lands grazed or mowed with weed- eaters or push mowers, free from trees and shrubs, and preventing excessive human and human-related disturbance (e.g., walking, jogging, off-road activity, dog-walking) and loose and feral pets (chasing and, presumably, preying upon owls) that make the environment uninhabitable for burrowing owls (Wesemann and Rowe 1985, Millsap and Bear 2000, Lincer and Bloom 2007). Items 4, 5 and 6 also still apply to this mitigation approach. 13. If there are no other feasible mitigation options available and a lead agency is willing to establish and oversee a Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Conservation Fund that funds on a competitive basis acquisition and permanent habitat conservation, the project proponent may participate in the lead agency’s program. Artificial burrows. Artificial burrows have been used to replace natural burrows either temporarily or long-term and their long-term success is unclear. Artificial burrows may be an effective addition to in-perpetuity habitat mitigation if they are augmenting natural burrows, the burrows are regularly maintained (i.e., no less than annual, with biennial maintenance recommended), and surrounding habitat patches are carefully maintained. There may be some circumstances, for example at airports, where squirrels will not be allowed to persist and create a dynamic burrow system, where artificial burrows may provide some support to an owl population. Many variables may contribute to the successful use of artificial burrows by burrowing owls, including pre-existence of burrowing owls in the area, availability of food, predators, surrounding vegetation and proximity, number of natural burrows in proximity, type of materials used to build the burrow, size of the burrow and entrance, direction in which the burrow entrance is facing, slope of the entrance, number of burrow entrances per burrow, depth of the burrow, type and height of perches, and annual maintenance needs (Belthoff and King 2002, Smith et al. 2005, Barclay et al. 2011). Refer to Barclay (2008) and (2011) and to Johnson et al. 2010 (unpublished report) for guidance on installing artificial burrows including recommendations for placement, installation and maintenance. Any long-term reliance on artificial burrows as natural burrow replacements must include semi-annual to annual cleaning and maintenance and/or replacement (Barclay et al. 2011, Smith and Conway 2005, Alexander et al. 2005) as an ongoing management practice. Alexander et al. (2005), in a study of the use of artificial burrows found that all of 20 artificial burrows needed some annual cleaning and maintenance. Burrows were either excavated by predators, blocked by soil or vegetation, or experienced substrate erosion forming a space beneath the tubing that prevented nestlings from re-entering the burrow. 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 14 Mitigation lands management plan. Develop a Mitigation Lands Management Plan for projects that require off-site or on-site mitigation habitat protection to ensure compliance with and effectiveness of identified management actions for the mitigation lands. A suggested outline and related vegetation management goals and monitoring success criteria can be found in Appendix E. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Verify the compliance with required mitigation measures, the accuracy of predictions, and ensure the effectiveness of all mitigation measures for burrowing owls by conducting follow- up monitoring, and implementing midcourse corrections, if necessary, to protect burrowing owls. Refer to CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 and the CEQA Guidelines for additional guidance on mitigation, monitoring and reporting. Monitoring is qualitatively different from site surveillance; monitoring normally has a specific purpose and its outputs and outcomes will usually allow a comparison with some baseline condition of the site before the mitigation (including avoidance and minimization) was undertaken. Ideally, monitoring should be based on the Before-After Control-Impact (BACI) principle (McDonald et al. 2000) that requires knowledge of the pre-mitigation state to provide a reference point for the state and change in state after the project and mitigation have been implemented. 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 15 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank Jack Barclay, Jeff Lincer, David Plumpton, Jeff Kidd, Carol Roberts and other reviewers for their valuable comments on this report. We also want to acknowledge all the hard work of the Department team, especially T. Bartlett, K. Riesz, S. Wilson, D. Gifford, D. Mayer, J. Gan, L. Connolly, D. Mayer, A. Donlan, L. Bauer, L. Comrack, D. Lancaster, E. Burkett, B. Johnson, D. Johnston, A. Gonzales, S. Morey and K. Hunting. REFERENCES Alexander, A. K., M. R. Sackschewsky, and C. A. Duberstein. 2005. Use of artificial burrows by burrowing owls (athene cunicularia) at the HAMMER Facility on the U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site. Pacific Northwest National Lab-15414. U.S. Department of Energy, DE-AC05-76RL01830, Richland, Washington, USA. BIOS. California Department of Fish and Game. The Biogeographic Information Observation System (http://bios.dfg.ca.gov/) Barclay, J. H. 2008. A simple artificial burrow design for burrowing owls. Journal of Raptor Research. 42: 53-57. Barclay, J. H. 2012. Albion Environmental, Inc, personal communication. Barclay, J. H., K. W. Hunting, J. L. Lincer, J. Linthicum, and T. A. Roberts, editors. 2007. Proceedings of the California Burrowing Owl Symposium, 11-12 November 2003, Sacramento, California, USA. Bird Populations Monographs No. 1. The Institute for Bird Populations and Albion Environmental, Inc., Point Reyes Station, CA. Barclay, J. H., N. Korfanta, and M. Kauffman. 2011. Long-term population dynamics of a managed burrowing owl colony. Journal of Wildlife Management 75: 1295–1306. Belthoff, J R., R. A. King. 2002. Nest-site characteristics of burrowing owls (athene cunicularia) in the Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area, Idaho, and applications to artificial burrow installation. Western North American Naturalist 62: 112- 119. Botelho, E. S. 1996. Behavioral ecology and parental care of breeding western burrowing owls (Speotyto cunicularia hupugaea) in southern New Mexico, USA. Dissertation, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA. Burkett, E. E., and B. S. Johnson. 2007. Development of a conservation strategy for burrowing owls in California. Pages 165-168 in J. H. Barclay, K. W. Hunting, J. L. Lincer, J. Linthicum, and T. A. Roberts, editors. Proceedings of the California Burrowing Owl Symposium, 11-12 November 2003, Sacramento, California, USA. Bird Populations Monographs No. 1. The Institute for Bird Populations and Albion Environmental, Inc., Point Reyes Station, CA. CBOC (California Burrowing Owl Consortium). 1997. Burrowing owl survey protocol and mitigation guidelines. Pages 171-177 in Lincer, J. L. and K. Steenhof (editors). 1997. The burrowing owl, its biology and management. Raptor Research Report Number 9. CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 1995. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. Unpublished report. Sacramento, California, USA. CNDDB. California Department of Fish and Game. The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/), Sacramento, California, USA. Catlin, D. H. 2004. Factors affecting within-season and between-season breeding dispersal of Burrowing Owls in California. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 16 Catlin, D. H., and D. K. Rosenberg. 2006. Nest destruction increases mortality and dispersal of Burrowing Owls in the Imperial Valley, California. Southwest Naturalist 51: 406–409. Catlin, D. H., D. K. Rosenberg, and K. L. Haley. 2005. The effects of nesting success and mate fidelity on breeding dispersal in burrowing owls. Canadian Journal of Zoology 83:1574–1580. Conway, C. J., and J. Simon. 2003. Comparison of detection probability associated with burrowing owl survey methods. Journal of Wildlife Management 67: 501-511. Conway, C. J., V. Garcia, M. D., and K. Hughes. 2008. Factors affecting detection of burrowing owl nests during standardized surveys. Journal of Wildlife Management 72: 688-696. Coulombe, H. N. 1971. Behavior and population ecology of the burrowing owl, Speotyto cunicularia, in the Imperial Valley of California. Condor 73: 162–176. Dechant, J. A., M. L. Sondreal, D. H. Johnson, L. D. Igl, C. M. Goldade, P. A. Rabie, and B. R. Euliss. 2003. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: burrowing owl. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, North Dakota. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. <http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/buow/buow.htm>. DeSante, D. F., E. D Ruhlen, and R. Scalf. 2007. The distribution and relative abundance of burrowing owls in California during 1991–1993: Evidence for a declining population and thoughts on its conservation. Pages 1-41 in J. H. Barclay, K. W. Hunting, J. L. Lincer, J. Linthicum, and T. A. Roberts, editors. Proceedings of the California Burrowing Owl Symposium, 11-12 November 2003 Sacramento, California, USA. Bird Populations Monographs No. 1. The Institute for Bird Populations and Albion Environmental, Inc., Point Reyes Station, CA. Desmond, M. J., and J. A. Savidge. 1998. Burrowing Owl conservation in the Great Plains. Proceedings of the Second International Burrowing Owl Symposium, 29-30 September 1999, Ogden, Utah, USA. Desmond, M. J., and J. A. Savidge. 1999. Satellite burrow use by burrowing owl chicks and its influence on nest fate. Pages 128-130 in P. D. Vickery and J. R. Herkert, editors. Ecology and conservation of grassland birds of the western hemisphere. Studies in Avian Biology 19. Emlen, J. T. 1977. Estimating breeding season bird densities from transects counts. Auk 94: 455-468. Fisher, J. B., L. A. Trulio, G. S. Biging, and D. Chromczack. 2007. An analysis of spatial clustering and implications for wildlife management: a burrowing owl example. Environmental Management 39: 403-11. Gervais, J. A., D. K. Rosenberg, and L. A. Comrack. Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) in Shuford, W.D. and T. Gardali, editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California, USA. Gervais, J. A., D. K. Rosenberg, R. G. Anthony. 2003. Space use and pesticide exposure risk of male burrowing owls in an agricultural landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 67: 155-164. Green, G.A.; Anthony, R.G. 1989. Nesting success and habitat relationships of burrowing owls in the Columbia Basin, Oregon. The Condor 91: 347-354. Haug, E. A. 1985. Observations on the breeding ecology of burrowing owls in Saskatchewan. 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 17 Thesis, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. Haug, E. A., B. A. Millsap, and M. S. Martell. 1993. Burrowing owl (Speotyto cunicularia), in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The Birds of North America, The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C., USA. Haug, E. A., and L. W. Oliphant. 1990. Movements, activity patterns, and habitat use of burrowing owls in Saskatchewan. Journal of Wildlife Management 54: 27-35. Holroyd, G. L., R. Rodriguez-Estrella, and S. R. Sheffield. 2001. Conservation of the burrowing owl in western North America: issues, challenges, and recommendations. Journal of Raptor Research 35: 399-407. James, P. C., T. J. Ethier, and M. K. Toutloff. 1997. Parameters of a declining burrowing owl population in Saskatchewan. Pages 34-37. in J. L. Lincer, and K. Steenhof, editors. The burrowing owl, its biology and management: including the proceedings of the first international symposium. 13-14 November 1992, Bellevue, WA, USA. Raptor Research Report Number 9. Johnson, D. H., D. C. Gillis, M. A. Gregg, J. L.Rebholz, J. L. Lincer, and J. R. Belthoff. 2010. Users guide to installation of artificial burrows for burrowing owls. Unpublished report. Tree Top Inc., Selah, Washington, USA. Klute, D. S., A. W. Ayers, M. T. Green, W. H. Howe, S. L Jones, J. A. Shaffer, S. R. Sheffield, and T. S. Zimmerman. 2003. Status assessment and conservation plan for the western burrowing owl in the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Technical Publication FWS/BTP-R6001-2003, Washington, D.C, USA. Koenig, W. D., D. D. Van Vuren, and P. N. Hooge. 1996. Detectability, philopatry, and the distribution of dispersal distances in vertebrates. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11: 514–517. LaFever, D. H., K. E. LaFever, D. H. Catlin, and D. K. Rosenberg. 2008. Diurnal time budget of burrowing owls in a resident population during the non-breeding season. Southwestern Naturalist 53: 29-33. Lincer, J. L., and P. W. Bloom. 2007. The status of the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) in San Diego County, CA. Pages 90-102 in Proceedings of the California Burrowing Owl Symposium, 11-12 November 2003, Sacramento, California, USA. Bird Populations Monographs No. 1. The Institute for Bird Populations and Albion Environmental, Inc., Point Reyes Station, CA. Lutz, R. S. and D. L. Plumpton. 1999. Philopatry and nest site reuse by burrowing owls: implications for management. Journal of Raptor Research 33: 149-153. MacCracken, J. G., D. W. Uresk, and R. M. Hansen. 1985a. Vegetation and soils of burrowing owl nest sites in Conata Basin, South Dakota. Condor 87: 152-154. Manning, J. A., and R. S. A. Kaler. 2011. Effects of survey methods on burrowing owl behaviors. Journal of Wildlife Management 75: 525-30. McDonald, T. L., W. P. Erickson, and L. L. McDonald. 2000. Analysis of count data from before-after control-impact studies. Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics 5: 262-279. Millsap, B. A., and C. Bear. 2000. Density and reproduction of burrowing owls along an urban development gradient. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:33-41. Nixon, P A. 2006. Effects of translocation on the Florida burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia floridana). Thesis. University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA. Noss, R. F., M. A. O’Connell, and D. D. Murphy. 1997. The science of conservation planning: 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 18 habitat conservation under the Endangered Species Act. Island Press, Washington D.C., USA. Postovit, H. R., and B. C. Postovit. 1987. Impacts and mitigation techniques. Pages 183-213 in Raptor management techniques manual scientific technical series number 10, National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D. C., USA Remsen, J. V., Jr. 1978. Bird species of special concern in California: An annotated list of declining or vulnerable bird species. California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Wildlife. Investigations, Wildlife Management Branch Administrative Report 78-1, Sacramento, California, USA. Rich, T. 1984. Monitoring burrowing owl populations: implications of burrow re-use. Wildlife Society Bulletin 12: 178-189. Richardson, C. T. and C. K. Miller. 1997. Recommendations for protecting raptors from human disturbance: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25: 634-38. Ronan, N. A. 2002. Habitat selection, reproductive success, and site fidelity of burrowing owls in a grassland ecosystem. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA. Rosenberg, D., 2009 Oregon State University, Corvallis, personal communication. Rosenberg, D. K., J. A. Gervais, D. F. DeSante, and H. Ober. 2009. An updated adaptive management plan for the burrowing owl population at NAS Lemoore. The Oregon Wildlife Institute, Corvallis, OR and The Institute for Bird Populations, Point Reyes Station, CA. OWI Contribution No. 201 and IBP Contribution No. 375. Rosenberg, D. K., J. A. Gervais, H. Ober, and D. F. DeSante. 1998. An adaptive management plan for the burrowing owl population at Naval Air Station Lemoore, California, USA. Publication 95, Institute for Bird Populations, P.O. Box 1346, Pt. Reyes Station, CA 94956. Rosenberg, D. K., and K. L. Haley. 2004. The ecology of burrowing owls in the agroecosystem of the Imperial Valley, California. Studies in Avian Biology 27:120-135. Rosenberg, D. K., L. A. Trulio, D. H. Catlin, D. Chromczack, J. A. Gervais, N. Ronan, and K. A. Haley. 2007. The ecology of the burrowing owl in California, unpublished report to Bureau of Land Management. Rosier, J. R., N. A., Ronan, and D. K. Rosenberg. 2006. Post-breeding dispersal of burrowing owls in an extensive California grassland. American Midland Naturalist 155: 162–167. Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. M. Evens. 2009. A manual of California vegetation, Second edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California, USA. Scobie, D., and C. Faminow. 2000. Development of standardized guidelines for petroleum industry activities that affect COSEWIC Prairie and Northern Region vertebrate species at risk. Environment Canada, Prairie and Northern Region, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Shuford, W. D. and T. Gardali, editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Gervais, J. A., D. K. Rosenberg, and L. Comrack. 2008. Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia). Smith, M. D., C. J. Conway, and L. A. Ellis. 2005. Burrowing owl nesting productivity: a comparison between artificial and natural burrows on and off golf courses. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33: 454-462. Thelander, C. G., K. S. Smallwood, and L. Rugge. 2003. Bird risk behaviors and fatalities at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, period of performance: March 1998– 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 19 December 2000. U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado, USA. Thomsen, L. 1971. Behavior and ecology of burrowing owls on the Oakland Municipal Airport. Condor 73: 177-192. Thompson, C. D. 1984. Selected aspects of burrowing owl ecology in central Wyoming. Thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, USA. Trulio, L. 1995. Passive relocation: A method to preserve burrowing owls on disturbed sites. Journal of Field Ornithology 66: 99–106. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Birds of conservation concern 2002. U.S. Department of Interior, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia, USA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. U.S. Department of Interior, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia, USA. Wesemann, T. and M. Rowe. 1985. Factors influencing the distribution and abundance of burrowing owls in Cape Coral, Florida. Pages 129-137 in L. W. Adams and D. L. Leedy, editors. Integrating Man and Nature in the Metropolitan Environment. Proceedings National Symposium. on Urban Wildlife, 4-7 November 1986, Chevy Chase, Maryland, USA. Wilkerson, R. L. and R. B. Siegel. 2010. Assessing changes in the distribution and abundance of burrowing owls in California, 1993-2007. Bird Populations 10: 1-36. Zarn, M. 1974. Burrowing owl. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Technical Note T-N-250, Denver, Colorado, USA. 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 20 Appendix A. Burrowing Owl Natural History and Threats Diet Burrowing owl diet includes arthropods, small rodents, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and carrion (Haug et al. 1993). Breeding In California, the breeding season for the burrowing owl typically occurs between 1 February and 31 August although breeding in December has been documented (Thompson 1971, Gervais et al. 2008); breeding behavior includes nest site selection by the male, pair formation, copulation, egg laying, hatching, fledging, and post-fledging care of young by the parents. The peak of the breeding season occurs between 15 April and 15 July and is the period when most burrowing owls have active nests (eggs or young). The incubation period lasts 29 days (Coulombe 1971) and young fledge after 44 days (Haug et al. 1993). Note that the timing of nesting activities may vary with latitude and climatic conditions. Burrowing owls may change burrows several times during the breeding season, starting when nestlings are about three weeks old (Haug et al. 1993). Dispersal The following discussion is an excerpt from Gervais et al (2008): “The burrowing owl is often considered a sedentary species (e.g., Thomsen 1971). A large proportion of adults show strong fidelity to their nest site from year to year, especially where resident, as in Florida (74% for females, 83% for males; Millsap and Bear 1997). In California, nest-site fidelity rates were 32%–50% in a large grassland and 57% in an agricultural environment (Ronan 2002, Catlin 2004, Catlin et al. 2005). Differences in these rates among sites may reflect differences in nest predation rates (Catlin 2004, Catlin et al. 2005). Despite the high nest fidelity rates, dispersal distances may be considerable for both juveniles (natal dispersal) and adults (postbreeding dispersal), but this also varied with location (Catlin 2004, Rosier et al. 2006). Distances of 53 km to roughly 150 km have been observed in California for adult and natal dispersal, respectively (D. K. Rosenberg and J. A. Gervais, unpublished data), despite the difficulty in detecting movements beyond the immediate study area (Koenig et al. 1996).” Habitat The burrowing owl is a small, long-legged, ground-dwelling bird species, well-adapted to open, relatively flat expanses. In California, preferred habitat is generally typified by short, sparse vegetation with few shrubs, level to gentle topography and well-drained soils (Haug et al. 1993). Grassland, shrub steppe, and desert are naturally occurring habitat types used by the species. In addition, burrowing owls may occur in some agricultural areas, ruderal grassy fields, vacant lots and pastures if the vegetation structure is suitable and there are useable burrows and foraging habitat in proximity (Gervais et al 2008). Unique amongst North 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 21 American raptors, the burrowing owl requires underground burrows or other cavities for nesting during the breeding season and for roosting and cover, year round. Burrows used by the owls are usually dug by other species termed host burrowers. In California, California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) and round-tailed ground squirrel (Citellus tereticaudus) burrows are frequently used by burrowing owls but they may use dens or holes dug by other fossorial species including badger (Taxidea taxus), coyote (Canis latrans), and fox (e.g., San Joaquin kit fox, Vulpes macrotis mutica; Ronan 2002). In some instances, owls have been known to excavate their own burrows (Thompson 1971, Barclay 2007). Natural rock cavities, debris piles, culverts, and pipes also are used for nesting and roosting (Rosenberg et al. 1998). Burrowing owls have been documented using artificial burrows for nesting and cover (Smith and Belthoff, 2003). Foraging habitat. Foraging habitat is essential to burrowing owls. The following discussion is an excerpt from Gervais et al. (2008): “Useful as a rough guide to evaluating project impacts and appropriate mitigation for burrowing owls, adult male burrowing owls home ranges have been documented (calculated by minimum convex polygon) to comprise anywhere from 280 acres in intensively irrigated agroecosystems in Imperial Valley (Rosenberg and Haley 2004) to 450 acres in mixed agricultural lands at Lemoore Naval Air Station, CA (Gervais et al. 2003), to 600 acres in pasture in Saskatchewan, Canada (Haug and Oliphant 1990). But owl home ranges may be much larger, perhaps by an order of magnitude, in non-irrigated grasslands such as at Carrizo Plain, California (Gervais et al. 2008), based on telemetry studies and distribution of nests. Foraging occurs primarily within 600 m of their nests (within approximately 300 acres, based on a circle with a 600 m radius) during the breeding season.” Importance of burrows and adjacent habitat. Burrows and the associated surrounding habitat are essential ecological requisites for burrowing owls throughout the year and especially during the breeding season. During the non-breeding season, burrowing owls remain closely associated with burrows, as they continue to use them as refuge from predators, shelter from weather and roost sites. Resident populations will remain near the previous season’s nest burrow at least some of the time (Coulombe 1971, Thomsen 1971, Botelho 1996, LaFever et al. 2008). In a study by Lutz and Plumpton (1999) adult males and females nested in formerly used sites at similar rates (75% and 63%, respectively) (Lutz and Plumpton 1999). Burrow fidelity has been reported in some areas; however, more frequently, burrowing owls reuse traditional nesting areas without necessarily using the same burrow (Haug et al. 1993, Dechant et al. 1999). Burrow and nest sites are re-used at a higher rate if the burrowing owl has reproduced successfully during the previous year (Haug et al. 1993) and if the number of burrows isn’t limiting nesting opportunity. Burrowing owls may use “satellite” or non-nesting burrows, moving young at 10-14 days, presumably to reduce risk of predation (Desmond and Savidge 1998) and possibly to avoid nest parasites (Dechant et al. 1999). Successful nests in Nebraska had more active satellite burrows within 75 m of the nest burrow than unsuccessful nests (Desmond and Savidge 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 22 1999). Several studies have documented the number of satellite burrows used by young and adult burrowing owls during the breeding season as between one and 11 burrows with an average use of approximately five burrows (Thompsen 1984, Haug 1985, Haug and Oliphant 1990). Supporting the notion of selecting for nest sites near potential satellite burrows, Ronan (2002) found burrowing owl families would move away from a nest site if their satellite burrows were experimentally removed through blocking their entrance. Habitat adjacent to burrows has been documented to be important to burrowing owls. Gervais et al. (2003) found that home range sizes of male burrowing owls during the nesting season were highly variable within but not between years. Their results also suggested that owls concentrate foraging efforts within 600 meters of the nest burrow, as was observed in Canada (Haug and Oliphant 1990) and southern California (Rosenberg and Haley 2004). James et al. (1997), reported habitat modification factors causing local burrowing owl declines included habitat fragmentation and loss of connectivity. In conclusion, the best available science indicates that essential habitat for the burrowing owl in California must include suitable year-round habitat, primarily for breeding, foraging, wintering and dispersal habitat consisting of short or sparse vegetation (at least at some time of year), presence of burrows, burrow surrogates or presence of fossorial mammal dens, well-drained soils, and abundant and available prey within close proximity to the burrow. Threats to Burrowing Owls in California Habitat loss. Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation are the greatest threats to burrowing owls in California. According to DeSante et al. (2007), “the vast majority of burrowing owls [now] occur in the wide, flat lowland valleys and basins of the Imperial Valley and Great Central Valley [where] for the most part,...the highest rates of residential and commercial development in California are occurring.” Habitat loss from the State’s long history of urbanization in coastal counties has already resulted in either extirpation or drastic reduction of burrowing owl populations there (Gervais et al. 2008). Further, loss of agricultural and other open lands (such as grazed landscapes) also negatively affect owl populations. Because of their need for open habitat with low vegetation, burrowing owls are unlikely to persist in agricultural lands dominated by vineyards and orchards (Gervais et al. 2008). Control of burrowing rodents. According to Klute et al. (2003), the elimination of burrowing rodents through control programs is a primary factor in the recent and historical decline of burrowing owl populations nationwide. In California, ground squirrel burrows are most often used by burrowing owls for nesting and cover; thus, ground squirrel control programs may affect owl numbers in local areas by eliminating a necessary resource. Direct mortality. Burrowing owls suffer direct losses from a number of sources. Vehicle collisions are a significant source of mortality especially in the urban interface and where owls nest alongside roads (Haug et al. 1993, Gervais et al. 2008). Road and ditch maintenance, modification of water conveyance structures (Imperial Valley) and discing to control weeds in fallow fields may destroy burrows (Rosenberg and Haley 2004, Catlin and Rosenberg 2006) which may trap or crush owls. Wind turbines at Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area are known to cause direct burrowing owl mortality (Thelander et al. 2003). Exposure to 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 23 pesticides may pose a threat to the species but is poorly understood (Klute et al. 2003, Gervais et al. 2008). 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 24 Appendix B. Definitions Some key terms that appear in this document are defined below. Adjacent habitat means burrowing owl habitat that abuts the area where habitat and burrows will be impacted and rendered non-suitable for occupancy. Breeding (nesting) season begins as early as 1 February and continues through 31 August (Thomsen 1971, Zarn 1974). The timing of breeding activities may vary with latitude and climatic conditions. The breeding season includes pairing, egg-laying and incubation, and nestling and fledging stages. Burrow exclusion is a technique of installing one-way doors in burrow openings during the non-breeding season to temporarily exclude burrowing owls or permanently exclude burrowing owls and excavate and close burrows after confirming burrows are empty. Burrowing owl habitat generally includes, but is not limited to, short or sparse vegetation (at least at some time of year), presence of burrows, burrow surrogates or presence of fossorial mammal dens, well-drained soils, and abundant and available prey. Burrow surrogates include culverts, piles of concrete rubble, piles of soil, burrows created along soft banks of ditches and canals, pipes, and similar structures. Civil twilight - Morning civil twilight begins when the geometric center of the sun is 6 degrees below the horizon (civil dawn) and ends at sunrise. Evening civil twilight begins at sunset and ends when the geometric center of the sun reaches 6 degrees below the horizon (civil dusk). During this period there is enough light from the sun that artificial sources of light may not be needed to carry on outdoor activities. This concept is sometimes enshrined in laws, for example, when drivers of automobiles must turn on their headlights (called lighting-up time in the UK); when pilots may exercise the rights to fly aircraft. Civil twilight can also be described as the limit at which twilight illumination is sufficient, under clear weather conditions, for terrestrial objects to be clearly distinguished; at the beginning of morning civil twilight, or end of evening civil twilight, the horizon is clearly defined and the brightest stars are visible under clear atmospheric conditions. Conservation for burrowing owls may include but may not be limited to protecting remaining breeding pairs or providing for population expansion, protecting and enhancing breeding and essential habitat, and amending or augmenting land use plans to stabilize populations and other specific actions to avoid the need to list the species pursuant to California or federal Endangered Species Acts. Contiguous means connected together so as to form an uninterrupted expanse in space. Essential habitat includes nesting, foraging, wintering, and dispersal habitat. Foraging habitat is habitat within the estimated home range of an occupied burrow, supports suitable prey base, and allows for effective hunting. 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 25 Host burrowers include ground squirrels, badgers, foxes, coyotes, gophers etc. Locally significant species is a species that is not rare from a statewide perspective but is rare or uncommon in a local context such as within a county or region (CEQA §15125 (c)) or is so designated in local or regional plans, policies, or ordinances (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G). Examples include a species at the outer limits of its known range or occurring in a unique habitat type. Non-breeding season is the period of time when nesting activity is not occurring, generally September 1 through January 31, but may vary with latitude and climatic conditions. Occupied site or occupancy means a site that is assumed occupied if at least one burrowing owl has been observed occupying a burrow within the last three years (Rich 1984). Occupancy of suitable burrowing owl habitat may also be indicated by owl sign including its molted feathers, cast pellets, prey remains, eggshell fragments, or excrement at or near a burrow entrance or perch site. Other impacting activities may include but may not be limited to agricultural practices, vegetation management and fire control, pest management, conversion of habitat from rangeland or natural lands to more intensive agricultural uses that could result in “take”. These impacting activities may not meet the definition of a project under CEQA. Passive relocation is a technique of installing one-way doors in burrow openings to temporarily or permanently evict burrowing owls and prevent burrow re-occupation. Peak of the breeding season is between 15 April and 15 July. Sign includes its tracks, molted feathers, cast pellets (defined as 1-2” long brown to black regurgitated pellets consisting of non-digestible portions of the owls’ diet, such as fur, bones, claws, beetle elytra, or feathers), prey remains, egg shell fragments, owl white wash, nest burrow decoration materials (e.g., paper, foil, plastic items, livestock or other animal manure, etc.), possible owl perches, or other items. 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 26 Appendix C. Habitat Assessment and Reporting Details Habitat Assessment Data Collection and Reporting Current scientific literature indicates that it would be most effective to gather the data in the manner described below when conducting project scoping, conducting a habitat assessment site visit and preparing a habitat assessment report: 1. Conduct at least one visit covering the entire potential project/activity area including areas that will be directly or indirectly impacted by the project. Survey adjoining areas within 150 m (Thomsen 1971, Martin 1973), or more where direct or indirect effects could potentially extend offsite. If lawful access cannot be achieved to adjacent areas, surveys can be performed with a spotting scope or other methods. 2. Prior to the site visit, compile relevant biological information for the site and surrounding area to provide a local and regional context. 3. Check all available sources for burrowing owl occurrence information regionally prior to a field inspection. The CNDDB and BIOS (see References cited) may be consulted for known occurrences of burrowing owls. Other sources of information include, but are not limited to, the Proceedings of the California Burrowing Owl Symposium (Barclay et al. 2007), county bird atlas projects, Breeding Bird Survey records, eBIRD (http://ebird.org), Gervais et al. (2008), local reports or experts, museum records, and other site-specific relevant information. 4. Identify vegetation and habitat types potentially supporting burrowing owls in the project area and vicinity. 5. Record and report on the following information: a. A full description of the proposed project, including but not limited to, expected work periods, daily work schedules, equipment used, activities performed (such as drilling, construction, excavation, etc.) and whether the expected activities will vary in location or intensity over the project’s timeline; b. A regional setting map, showing the general project location relative to major roads and other recognizable features; c. A detailed map (preferably a USGS topo 7.5’ quad base map) of the site and proposed project, including the footprint of proposed land and/or vegetation-altering activities, base map source, identifying topography, landscape features, a north arrow, bar scale, and legend; d. A written description of the biological setting, including location (Section, Township, Range, baseline and meridian), acreage, topography, soils, geographic and hydrologic characteristics, land use and management history on and adjoining the site (i.e., whether it is urban, semi-urban or rural; whether there is any evidence of past or current livestock grazing, mowing, disking, or other vegetation management activities); e. An analysis of any relevant, historical information concerning burrowing owl use or occupancy (breeding, foraging, over-wintering) on site or in the assessment area; f. Vegetation type and structure (using Sawyer et al. 2009), vegetation height, habitat types and features in the surrounding area plus a reasonably sized (as supported with logical justification) assessment area; (Note: use caution in discounting habitat based on grass height as it can be a temporary condition variable by season and conditions (such as current grazing regime) or may be distributed as a mosaic). 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 27 g. The presence of burrowing owl individuals or pairs or sign (see Appendix B); h. The presence of suitable burrows and/or burrow surrogates (>11 cm in diameter (height and width) and >150 cm in depth) (Johnson et al. 2010), regardless of a lack of any burrowing owl sign and/or burrow surrogates; and burrowing owls and/or their sign that have recently or historically (within the last 3 years) been identified on or adjacent to the site. 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 28 Appendix D. Breeding and Non-breeding Season Surveys and Reports Current scientific literature indicates that it is most effective to conduct breeding and non-breeding season surveys and report in the manner that follows: Breeding Season Surveys Number of visits and timing. Conduct 4 survey visits: 1) at least one site visit between 15 February and 15 April, and 2) a minimum of three survey visits, at least three weeks apart, between 15 April and 15 July, with at least one visit after 15 June. Note: many burrowing owl migrants are still present in southwestern California during mid-March, therefore, exercise caution in assuming breeding occupancy early in the breeding season. Survey method. Rosenberg et al. (2007) confirmed walking line transects were most effective in smaller habitat patches. Conduct surveys in all portions of the project site that were identified in the Habitat Assessment and fit the description of habitat in Appendix A. Conduct surveys by walking straight-line transects spaced 7 m to 20 m apart, adjusting for vegetation height and density (Rosenberg et al. 2007). At the start of each transect and, at least, every 100 m, scan the entire visible project area for burrowing owls using binoculars. During walking surveys, record all potential burrows used by burrowing owls as determined by the presence of one or more burrowing owls, pellets, prey remains, whitewash, or decoration. Some burrowing owls may be detected by their calls, so observers should also listen for burrowing owls while conducting the survey. Care should be taken to minimize disturbance near occupied burrows during all seasons and not to “flush” burrowing owls especially if predators are present to reduce any potential for needless energy expenditure or burrowing owl mortality. Burrowing owls may flush if approached by pedestrians within 50 m (Conway et al. 2003). If raptors or other predators are present that may suppress burrowing owl activity, return at another time or later date for a follow-up survey. Check all burrowing owls detected for bands and/or color bands and report band combinations to the Bird Banding Laboratory (BBL). Some site-specific variations to survey methods discussed below may be developed in coordination with species experts and Department staff. Weather conditions. Poor weather may affect the surveyor’s ability to detect burrowing owls, therefore, avoid conducting surveys when wind speed is >20 km/hr, and there is precipitation or dense fog. Surveys have greater detection probability if conducted when ambient temperatures are >20º C, <12 km/hr winds, and cloud cover is <75% (Conway et al. 2008). Time of day. Daily timing of surveys varies according to the literature, latitude, and survey method. However, surveys between morning civil twilight and 10:00 AM and two hours before sunset until evening civil twilight provide the highest detection probabilities (Barclay pers. comm. 2012, Conway et al. 2008). 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 29 Alternate methods. If the project site is large enough to warrant an alternate method, consult current literature for generally accepted survey methods and consult with the Department on the proposed survey approach. Additional breeding season site visits. Additional breeding season site visits may be necessary, especially if non-breeding season exclusion methods are contemplated. Detailed information, such as approximate home ranges of each individual or of family units, as well as foraging areas as related to the proposed project, will be important to document for evaluating impacts, planning avoidance measure implementation and for mitigation measure performance monitoring. Adverse conditions may prevent investigators from determining presence or occupancy. Disease, predation, drought, high rainfall or site disturbance may preclude presence of burrowing owls in any given year. Any such conditions should be identified and discussed in the survey report. Visits to the site in more than one year may increase the likelihood of detection. Also, visits to adjacent known occupied habitat may help determine appropriate survey timing. Given the high site fidelity shown by burrowing owls (see Appendix A, Importance of burrows), conducting surveys over several years may be necessary when project activities are ongoing, occur annually, or start and stop seasonally. (See Negative surveys). Non-breeding Season Surveys If conducting non-breeding season surveys, follow the methods described above for breeding season surveys, but conduct at least four (4) visits, spread evenly, throughout the non- breeding season. Burrowing owl experts and local Department staff are available to assist with interpreting results. Negative Surveys Adverse conditions may prevent investigators from documenting presence or occupancy. Disease, predation, drought, high rainfall or site disturbance may preclude presence of burrowing owl in any given year. Discuss such conditions in the Survey Report. Visits to the site in more than one year increase the likelihood of detection and failure to locate burrowing owls during one field season does not constitute evidence that the site is no longer occupied, particularly if adverse conditions influenced the survey results. Visits to other nearby known occupied sites can affirm whether the survey timing is appropriate. Take Avoidance Surveys Field experience from 1995 to present supports the conclusion that it would be effective to complete an initial take avoidance survey no less than 14 days prior to initiating ground disturbance activities using the recommended methods described in the Detection Surveys section above. Implementation of avoidance and minimization measures would be triggered by positive owl presence on the site where project activities will occur. The development of avoidance and minimization approaches would be informed by monitoring the burrowing owls. 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 30 Burrowing owls may re-colonize a site after only a few days. Time lapses between project activities trigger subsequent take avoidance surveys including but not limited to a final survey conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance. Survey Reports Report on the survey methods used and results including the information described in the Summary Report and include the reports within the CEQA documentation: 1. Date, start and end time of surveys including weather conditions (ambient temperature, wind speed, percent cloud cover, precipitation and visibility); 2. Name(s) of surveyor(s) and qualifications; 3. A discussion of how the timing of the survey affected the comprehensiveness and detection probability; 4. A description of survey methods used including transect spacing, point count dispersal and duration, and any calls used; 5. A description and justification of the area surveyed relative to the project area; 6. A description that includes: number of owls or nesting pairs at each location (by nestlings, juveniles, adults, and those of an unknown age), number of burrows being used by owls, and burrowing owl sign at burrows. Include a description of individual markers, such as bands (numbers and colors), transmitters, or unique natural identifying features. If any owls are banded, request documentation from the BBL and bander to report on the details regarding the known history of the banded burrowing owl(s) (age, sex, origins, whether it was previously relocated) and provide with the report if available; 7. A description of the behavior of burrowing owls during the surveys, including feeding, resting, courtship, alarm, territorial defense, and those indicative of parents or juveniles; 8. A list of possible burrowing owl predators present and documentation of any evidence of predation of owls; 9. A detailed map (1:24,000 or closer to show details) showing locations of all burrowing owls, potential burrows, occupied burrows, areas of concentrated burrows, and burrowing owl sign. Locations documented by use of global positioning system (GPS) coordinates must include the datum in which they were collected. The map should include a title, north arrow, bar scale and legend; 10. Signed field forms, photos, etc., as appendices to the field survey report; 11. Recent color photographs of the proposed project or activity site; and 12. Original CNDDB Field Survey Forms should be sent directly to the Department’s CNDDB office, and copies should be included in the environmental document as an appendix. (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/bdb/html/cnddb.html ). 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 31 Appendix E. Example Components for Burrowing Owl Artificial Burrow and Exclusion Plans Whereas the Department does not recommend exclusion and burrow closure, current scientific literature and experience from 1995 to present, indicate that the following example components for burrowing owl artificial burrow and exclusion plans, combined with consultation with the Department to further develop these plans, would be effective. Artificial Burrow Location If a burrow is confirmed occupied on-site, artificial burrow locations should be appropriately located and their use should be documented taking into consideration: 1. A brief description of the project and project site pre-construction; 2. The mitigation measures that will be implemented; 3. Potential conflicting site uses or encumbrances; 4. A comparison of the occupied burrow site(s) and the artificial burrow site(s) (e.g., vegetation, habitat types, fossorial species use in the area, and other features); 5. Artificial burrow(s) proximity to the project activities, roads and drainages; 6. Artificial burrow(s) proximity to other burrows and entrance exposure; 7. Photographs of the site of the occupied burrow(s) and the artificial burrows; 8. Map of the project area that identifies the burrow(s) to be excluded as well as the proposed sites for the artificial burrows; 9. A brief description of the artificial burrow design; 10. Description of the monitoring that will take place during and after project implementation including information that will be provided in a monitoring report. 11. A description of the frequency and type of burrow maintenance. Exclusion Plan An Exclusion Plan addresses the following including but not limited to: 1. Confirm by site surveillance that the burrow(s) is empty of burrowing owls and other species preceding burrow scoping; 2. Type of scope and appropriate timing of scoping to avoid impacts; 3. Occupancy factors to look for and what will guide determination of vacancy and excavation timing (one-way doors should be left in place 48 hours to ensure burrowing owls have left the burrow before excavation, visited twice daily and monitored for evidence that owls are inside and can’t escape i.e., look for sign immediately inside the door). 4. How the burrow(s) will be excavated. Excavation using hand tools with refilling to prevent reoccupation is preferable whenever possible (may include using piping to stabilize the burrow to prevent collapsing until the entire burrow has been excavated and it can be determined that no owls reside inside the burrow); 5. Removal of other potential owl burrow surrogates or refugia on site; 6. Photographing the excavation and closure of the burrow to demonstrate success and sufficiency; 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 32 7. Monitoring of the site to evaluate success and, if needed, to implement remedial measures to prevent subsequent owl use to avoid take; 8. How the impacted site will continually be made inhospitable to burrowing owls and fossorial mammals (e.g., by allowing vegetation to grow tall, heavy disking, or immediate and continuous grading) until development is complete. 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 33 Appendix F. Mitigation Management Plan and Vegetation Management Goals Mitigation Management Plan A mitigation site management plan will help ensure the appropriate implementation and maintenance for the mitigation site and persistence of the burrowing owls on the site. For an example to review, refer to Rosenberg et al. (2009). The current scientific literature and field experience from 1995 to present indicate that an effective management plan includes the following: 1. Mitigation objectives; 2. Site selection factors (including a comparison of the attributes of the impacted and conserved lands) and baseline assessment; 3. Enhancement of the conserved lands (enhancement of reproductive capacity, enhancement of breeding areas and dispersal opportunities, and removal or control of population stressors); 4. Site protection method and prohibited uses; 5. Site manager roles and responsibilities; 6. Habitat management goals and objectives: a. Vegetation management goals, i. Vegetation management tools: 1. Grazing 2. Mowing 3. Burning 4. Other b. Management of ground squirrels and other fossorial mammals, c. Semi-annual and annual artificial burrow cleaning and maintenance, d. Non-natives control – weeds and wildlife, e. Trash removal; 7. Financial assurances: a. Property analysis record or other financial analysis to determine long-term management funding, b. Funding schedule; 8. Performance standards and success criteria; 9. Monitoring, surveys and adaptive management; 10. Maps; 11. Annual reports. Vegetation Management Goals Manage vegetation height and density (especially in immediate proximity to burrows). Suitable vegetation structure varies across sites and vegetation types, but should generally be at the average effective vegetation height of 4.7 cm (Green and Anthony 1989) and <13 cm average effective vegetation height (MacCracken et al. 1985a). Employ experimental prescribed fires (controlled, at a small scale) to manage vegetation structure; 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 34 Vegetation reduction or ground disturbance timing, extent, and configuration should avoid take. While local ordinances may require fire prevention through vegetation management, activities like disking, mowing, and grading during the breeding season can result in take of burrowing owls and collapse of burrows, causing nest destruction. Consult the take avoidance surveys section above for pre-management avoidance survey recommendations; Promote natural prey distribution and abundance, especially in proximity to occupied burrows; and Promote self-sustaining populations of host burrowers by limiting or prohibiting lethal rodent control measures and by ensuring food availability for host burrowers through vegetation management. Refer to Rosenberg et al. (2009) for a good discussion of managing grasslands for burrowing owls. Mitigation Site Success Criteria In order to evaluate the success of mitigation and management strategies for burrowing owls, monitoring is required that is specific to the burrowing owl management plan. Given limited resources, Barclay et al. (2011) suggests managers focus on accurately estimating annual adult owl populations rather than devoting time to estimating reproduction, which shows high annual variation and is difficult to accurately estimate. Therefore, the key objective will be to determine accurately the number of adult burrowing owls and pairs, and if the numbers are maintained. A frequency of 5-10 years for surveys to estimate population size may suffice if there are no changes in the management of the nesting and foraging habitat of the owls. Effective monitoring and evaluation of off-site and on-site mitigation management success for burrowing owls includes (Barclay, pers. comm.): Site tenacity; Number of adult owls present and reproducing; Colonization by burrowing owls from elsewhere (by band re-sight); Evidence and causes of mortality; Changes in distribution; and Trends in stressors.