The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutA6380 - CENTER FOR NATURAL LANDS MANAGEMENTBOGERT WASH PRESERVE COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND FUNDING AGREEMENT This BOGERT WASH PRESERVE COMPLIANCE MONITORING,t4ND FUNDING AGREEMENT ("Agreement') is made and entered into this '4 day of 2013 ("Effective Date") by and between City of Palm Springs, a California charter city and municipal corporation ("City') and Center for Natural Lands Management, a California nonprofit corporation ("CNLM"), each a "Party' or together, the "Parties", as set forth below. RECITALS A. City is the sole owner of approximately 4.29 acres ("Property"), being a portion of designated APN 512-190-027, in the County of Riverside ("County"), State of California ("State"), as further described in Exhibit A(Legal Descrigtion) and as depicted on Exhibit B (Map), both attached hereto. The City will grant to CNLM a conservation easement ("Conservation Easement') over Property to offset impacts from the Bogert Bridge Trail Rehabilitation Project ("Project'). The Project is within the Casey's June beetle (Dinacoma caseyf) 2011 Critical Habitat ("Critical Habitat'), and will impact approximately 0.93 acre of Critical Habitat. Critical Habitat was proposed in 2009 with the final designation made in 2011. It is the intention of the Parties that the Property become the Bogert Wash Preserve ("Preserve'). B. CNLM is a tax-exempt non-profit organization qualified under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and qualified to do business in the State of California. CNLM has as its primary purpose the management of land in an environmentally and biologically beneficial manner consistent with state and federal environmental laws. CNLM is authorized to hold conservation easements pursuant to California Civil Code Section 815.3. CNLM has been authorized by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife ("CDFW"), based upon the information provided pursuant to Government Code Section 65965, to hold both conservation easements pursuant to Civil Code Section 815.3 and Government Code section 65967 and management endowments for properties subject to conservation easements. CNLM is qualified for and committed to the protection of wetlands, wildlife, and wildlife habitat. C. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("FWS"), an agency within the United States Department of the Interior, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, restoration, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and the habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of these species within the United States pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. §§1531, et seq. ("ESA"), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. §§661-666c, the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. §§742(f), et seq., and other provisions of federal law. Bogert Wash Preserve COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND FUNDING AGREEMENT Page 1 of 11 D. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("ACOE") is the federal agency charged with regulatory authority over discharges of dredged and fill material in waters of the United States pursuant to §404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq. E. INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK F. Preserve will provide mitigation for certain impacts of the Project pursuant to requirements of: 1. ACOE Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit SPL-2010-00138-SCH May 18, 2011, as revised on December 7, 2011, and as re-verified on June 4, 2013) ("404 Permit"), attached as Exhibit C-1 (404 Permit). 2. FWS Conference Opinion No. FWS-ERIV-1 1 B0021-11 FC0344 May 18, 2011) and adopted as the Biological Opinion (October 20, 2011) ("CO"), both attached as Exhibit C-2 (Conference Opinion). Collectively, Recitals F.1 and F.2 and the referenced attachments are referred to as the Agency Approvals." G. The Preserve provides habitat for Casey's June beetle (Dinacoma caseyi)—an endangered species under the ESA—and is located within the 2011 Critical Habitat. The Preserve is intended to be perpetually conserved, managed, and preserved for the protection of its "Conservation Values," as that term is defined in the Conservation Easement, to wit: Conservation Values of the Preserve include (currently occupied) habitat within 2011 designated critical habitat for the federal endangered Casey's June beetle (Dinacoma caseyi) and possible habitat for other special- status species including the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), the Palm Springs round-tailed ground squirrel (Xerospermophilus tereticaudus chlorus), Le Conte's thrasher(Toxostoma lecontei), and crissal thrasher Toxostoma crissali). Conservation values also include provision of suitable foraging habitat for raptors and service as a corridor to connect populations of these and additional mammal and bird species, in particular. Further, Conservation Values also include the habitat and services provided by the intermittent water feature of this desert wash habitat." H. City intends to grant to CNLM concurrently with this Agreement, and CNLM intends to accept, the Conservation Easement (with third-party beneficiary enforcement rights to FWS and ACOE) over the Property, to be the Preserve as referenced above. The Conservation Easement requires that CNLM monitor for Bogert Wash Preserve COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND FUNDING AGREEMENT Page 2 of 11 compliance and enforce and defend only and does not obligate CNLM to conduct any biological monitoring, management, or maintenance activities on the Preserve. I.CNLM complies with accounting practices established by the Financial Accounting Standard Board ("FASB") which through Accounting Standards Codification Section 958-210-45-15 "Reporting Endowment Funds - Net Assets of an Endowment" establishes principles for the classification of assets based on donor-imposed restrictions. In conformance with this Standard, the principal in the CE Endowment Fund created and managed under the terms of this Agreement will be classified as permanently restricted" and income derived from it will be classified as "temporarily restricted." J. City and CNLM desire to enter into this Agreement to (1) establish CNLM's obligation to conduct compliance monitoring, enforcement, and defense of the Conservation Easement, and (2) establish an endowment to financially support CNLM's compliance monitoring, enforcement, and defense of the Conservation Easement in perpetuity. K. This Agreement does not govern or address any matters relating to conserved habitat management, operations, stewardship expenses, or conservation policies; mitigation compliance; the application for or use of grants; the creation, recording, or implementation of conservation easements; biological monitoring; property management; and stewardship, or any similar undertaking. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Conditions Precedent. CNLM's obligations under this Agreement shall become absolute with respect to Preserve only upon transfers or documentation of the following to CNLM: a. Recordation of the Conservation Easement in a form acceptable to CNLM over the Preserve; and b. Non-refundable Payment as described and defined below in Section 3. 2. Site Visit and Baseline Documentation. Prior to the Effective Date, representatives of the Parties have conducted walk-through inspections of Preserve. CNLM shall document site conditions pursuant to a Land Trust Alliance-compliant baseline report, with attachments, documenting Preserve conditions ("Conservation Bogert Wash Preserve COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND FUNDING AGREEMENT Page 3 of 11 Easement Baseline Documentation") contemporaneous with the recording of the Conservation Easement, and shall provide the City and escrow copies of such documents. 3. Payment. In consideration of CNLM's agreement to assume the obligation to monitor Preserve for compliance with the Conservation Easement in perpetuity, City shall deliver to CNLM One Hundred Thirty-two Thousand One Hundred and Thirteen Dollars ($132,113.00), of which Twenty-one Thousand Fifty Three Dollars ($21,053.00) shall be the temporarily restricted "Initial and Capital Fund" and the remainder, One Hundred and Eleven Thousand Sixty Dollars ($111,060.00) shall be the permanently restricted "Endowment Fund" or"Endowment" for the CNLM's administration and Conservation Easement compliance monitoring, enforcement, and defense. The Initial and Capital Fund and Endowment collectively are referred to as the "Payment." City shall have no obligation to provide additional funding to CNLM, except to the extent otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement. The Payment amount was established Property Analysis Record© "PAR" attached as Exhibit D-1 PAR andutilizingCNLM's ope y y PAR") PAR Letter) and as modified pursuant to the Adjustment Letter attached as Exhibit D-2 Final Funding Amounts Letter) 4. Management of Funds by CNLM. CNLM has a fiduciary duty to ensure that the Endowment held by it is properly managed. CNLM shall deposit investment income from the Endowment into the Endowment Fund to be held as temporarily restricted assets unless reclassified as permanently restricted assets. The following principles of fiduciary duty shall apply: a. Accounting. CNLM shall maintain an accurate accounting of funds in the Endowment Fund including at minimum an annual balance sheet and income statement and such accounting will be separate from all other accounting of funds held by or managed by CNLM. Funds in the Endowment Fund may be pooled with other funds held by or managed by CNLM for investment purposes. b. Duty of loyalty. CNLM shall have a duty of loyalty and shall not use funds in the Endowment Fund for its own benefit (except for those administrative fees due CNLM as provided by this Agreement). C. Prudent investor. CNLM shall act as a prudent investor of the Endowment Fund subject to the Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act California Probate Code Sections 18500 et seq.), and shall account for Endowment Funds under General Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"). d. Auditing. CNLM shall have an annual audit of the Endowment Fund using GAAP performed by a qualified, independent accounting organization. CNLM shall submit the auditor's written report to City, FWS, and/or ACOE upon request. The results of such audits will include, at a minimum, a record of the beginning Bogert Wash Preserve COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND FUNDING AGREEMENT Page 4 of 11 and ending fund balance, all deposits and withdrawals, and a record of the income and expense of the Endowment Fund. 5. Access to Preserve. CNLM shall have the right of access to the Preserve as provided by the Conservation Easement. 6. Preserve Management. a. Management Responsibilities. City, its successors and assigns will own and manage the Preserve in accordance with the Conservation Easement and the CO. CNLM shall have no responsibilities for biological monitoring, management, or maintenance of the Preserve. Specifically, the City is responsible for the CO requirement of weeding the Preserve (alien plants removed with native plants retained) for ecological enhancement twice annually for five years from the date of recordation of the Conservation Easement. City is also responsible for posting signs, within three months of recordation of the Conservation Easement, to identify the Preserve as protected. CNLM's obligation to provide compliance monitoring of the Preserve shall be in accordance with the Conservation Easement. b. Cooperation. City and CNLM, and their respective successors and assigns, will use reasonable efforts to coordinate their work and the discharge of their respective responsibilities under the Conservation Easement and this Agreement, and as otherwise required by law, such that the activities of one party (or its contractors, consultants, agents, representatives and assigns) do not impede the obligations or activities of the other. C. City's Responsibilities and Obligations. City, its successors and assigns, contractors, and subcontractors shall, with respect to its obligations under this Agreement: 1) Cooperate with CNLM in good faith in its discharge of CNLM's Conservation Easement compliance monitoring obligations under this Agreement; 2) Reasonably ensure that CNLM has unimpeded and adequate pedestrian and vehicular access in perpetuity to the Preserve through public rights of way or property owned or controlled by City or its successors and assigns, to the extent provided for and pursuant to the terms and conditions contained in the Conservation Easement; 3) Promptly provide CNLM with any and all revisions to Agency Approvals or any other habitat management/stewardship plan required by FWS, ACOE, or other government agency; and Bogert Wash Preserve COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND FUNDING AGREEMENT Page 5 of 11 4) Survey and mark legal boundaries of Preserve in a manner acceptable to CNLM; 5) Provide notice to CNLM a minimum of ninety (90) days prior to the initiation of any restoration and/or enhancement activities by the City at the Preserve. 6) If required by Agency Approvals, FWS, and/or ACOE, and in consultation with CNLM, maintain in perpetuity and in good and effective condition all fencing and conservation signage on Preserve. 7. CNLM Rights and Obligations Relating to the Preserve. With respect to Preserve, CNLM shall: a. Conduct general inspections and otherwise monitor Preserve for compliance with the Conservation Easement and as set forth in this Agreement. b. Submit annual reports to City, FWS, and ACOE regarding the Conservation Easement compliance status of Preserve. C. Cooperate in good faith and as necessary with City, and its successors and assigns, and FWS to ensure that the Preserve's Conservation Values are maintained. 8. Interpretation and Headings. a. The language in all parts of this Agreement shall in all cases be simply construed according to its fair meaning, and not strictly for or against any party. Headings of the paragraphs of this Agreement are for the purposes of convenience only and the words contained in such headings shall in no way be held to explain, modify, amplify, or aid in the interpretation, construction, or meaning of the provisions of this Agreement. b. In the event of any direct contradiction or conflict among the terms of this Agreement and the Conservation Easement, the terms of the Conservation Easement shall control. In all other cases, the terms of this Agreement and the terms of the Conservation Easement shall be interpreted to be supplementary to each other. 9. Modification. This Agreement is not subject to modification except in a writing signed by both parties, and any attempted modification not in compliance with this requirement shall be void. 10. Notices. All notices, demands, or requests from one organization to another may be personally delivered, sent by facsimile, sent by recognized overnight delivery service, or sent by mail, certified or registered, postage prepaid, to the persons Bogert Wash Preserve COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND FUNDING AGREEMENT Page 6 of 11 set forth below or shall be deemed given five days after deposit in the United States mail, certified and postage prepaid, return receipt requested, and addressed as follows or at such other address as any organization may from time to time specify to the other organizations in writing, and shall be effective at the time of personal delivery, facsimile transmission, or mailing. CNLM Center for Natural Lands Management Attention: President/ Executive Director 27258 Via Industria, Suite B Temecula, CA 92590 Telephone: 760-731-7790 City City of Palm Springs Attn: Director of Public Works 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Telephone: 760-323-8299 With a copy to:U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Palm Springs Fish and Wildlife Office 777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 208 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Telephone: 760-322-2070 U.S. Department of the Army Los Angeles District Corps of Engineers Attention: Regulatory Division 915 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: 213-452-3409 Any of the above-listed agencies or organizations may change the address to which such notices, payments, or other communications may be sent by giving the other organizations written notice of such change. Facsimile transmitted signed documents are acceptable, as if such documents bore original signatures. Each Party agrees to provide to the other Party within seventy-two (72) hours after transmission, such documents bearing the original signatures. 11. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement and each of its covenants and conditions shall be binding on, and shall inure to, the benefit of the Parties and their respective successors and assigns. CNLM shall not assign this Agreement to another party without the prior written consent of City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. CNLM agrees that it shall be reasonable for City to withhold consent if such assignment is to an entity that is not a recognized non-profit conservation organization, or to an entity that has not assumed all of the rights and obligations of CNLM, as Bogert Wash Preserve COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND FUNDING AGREEMENT Page 7 of 11 Grantee, under the Conservation Easement. A Party's rights and obligations under this Agreement terminate on the transfer of the Party's interest in Preserve, except for liability for acts or omissions occurring prior to transfer, which shall survive transfer. Notwithstanding the foregoing, City shall have the right to transfer its interest in Preserve in accordance with the Conservation Easement, and in connection therewith City shall have the right to assign its rights and obligations under this Agreement to City's successor without obtaining the consent of Grantee so long as such transfer is made in accordance with the Conservation Easement. 12. Exhibits. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement are attached to this Agreement and are incorporated herein by this reference. 13. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed by the Parties in counterparts, both of which shall be deemed to be an original executed document. 14. Indemnification. Each Party (the "first Party") does hereby agree to the maximum extent permitted by law, at its sole cost and expense, to protect, defend (by counsel approved by the first Party), indemnify, and hold harmless the other Party (the second Party") and any of the second Party's parent corporations, subsidiaries, and affiliates, and their respective officers, managers, directors, representatives, employees, contractors, agents, transferees, successors and assigns, from any and all liabilities, damages (both actual and consequential), losses, costs, expenses, claims, actions or proceedings, including, without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees and expert fees, that are caused by or arise or are connected with: (a) the negligence, errors, omissions, recklessness or intentional misconduct of the first Party or the employees or agents of the first Party in the performance of this Agreement or(b) a default in the first Party's performance or failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement. Each Party shall comply, at its sole cost and expense, with all laws and regulations applicable to the Party's obligation under this Agreement. 15. No Partnerships. This Agreement shall not make, or be deemed to make, either Party to this Agreement an agent for or the partner of the other Party. 16. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the internal laws of the State of California. Any litigation or arbitration regarding this Agreement will be brought in Riverside County Superior Court or conducted in County of Riverside. 17. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement, or the application thereof to any person or circumstances, is found to be invalid, the remainder of the provisions of this Agreement, or the application of such provision to person or circumstances other than those as to which it is found to be invalid, as the case may be, shall not be affected thereby. Bogert Wash Preserve COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND FUNDING AGREEMENT Page 8 of 11 18. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated only upon (a) default by CNLM of any provisions under this Agreement or the Conservation Easement, where such default is not cured within the time periods set forth in this Agreement or the Conservation Easement, (b) extinguishment of the Conservation Easements, or (c) the Parties enter into a replacement agreement, i.e., a compliance monitoring and funding agreement ("CMFA") whereby City funds a Preserve stewardship endowment and CNLM assumes perpetual stewardship responsibilities for the Preserve. In the event of termination by reason of CNLM default, any and all monies remaining in the Initial Capital Fund and the Endowment Fund established pursuant to Section 3 of this Agreement shall be transferred by CNLM to the replacement Conservation Easement compliance monitor of Preserve designated and approved by FWS, ACOE, and the City, except for committed expenses (which shall be paid by CNLM) and costs of the transfer. In the event of termination by reason of Conservation Easement extinguishment, any and all monies remaining in the Initial Capital Fund and the Endowment Fund established pursuant to Section 3 of this Agreement shall be transferred by CNLM as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, except for committed expenses (which shall be paid by CNLM) and costs of the transfer. In the event of termination by reason of the Parties entering into a replacement agreement, any and all monies remaining in the Initial Capital Fund (temporarily restricted funds) and the permanently restricted Endowment Fund established pursuant to Section 3 of this Agreement shall be transferred within CNLM, with FWS, and ACOE concurrence, into a stewardship endowment to be held by CNLM in perpetuity. 19 •Insurance. CNLM shall maintain, at its sole cost and expense, the insurance coverages covering activities performed under, and obligations undertaken in, this Agreement as described and defined in Exhibit E (Insurance), attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.' EXECUTED this 0-day of-4 2013. SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE Bogert Wash Preserve COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND FUNDING AGREEMENT Page 9 of 11 CENTER FOR NATURAL LANDS MANAGEMENT By:/ ' :` vDai R runner, PFresidenU Execute Direc r Date: Z zc7 r 3 APPROVED BY COUNSEL bfl . Mo p- eA David A. Monroe General Counsel C" OF PALM SPRINGS Name:1l WNAGER 7City AS TOFORMATitle: Attorney Date: tleln APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL. ATTEST: ity Clerk Bogert Wash Preserve COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND FUNDING AGREEMENT Page 10 of 11 TABLE OF EXHIBITS Exhibits A: Legal Description Exhibits B: Map Exhibit C-1: ACOE 404 permit Exhibit C-2: FWS Conference Opinion Exhibit D-1: PAR and PAR Letter, dated December 16, 2011 Exhibit D-2: Final Funding Amounts Letter, dated May 2, 2013 Exhibit E: Insurance Bogert Wash Preserve COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND FUNDING AGREEMENT Page 11 of 11 Source: USFWS 2009; GlobalXplorer 06/07/2009; ESRI 2008; Dokken Engineering 06/04/2010; Created By: K. Smith Bogert Trail Bridge Rehabilitation Project Location South Palm Canyon Drive Bridge Project Location Belardo Road and Bridge Roadway Project Location Tahquitz WashTahquitz Wash !"111 Ramon Rd FarrellDrPalm Canyon Dr SunriseWayElCieloRdTahquitz Canyon Way IndianCanyonDrPalmCanyonDrTahquitz Canyon Way v:\1715_SPalmCanyon\Cultural\PS_ProCH_06-04-10.mxd2009 Proposed Casey's June Beetle (Dinacoma caseyi) Critical Habitat Unit, Riverside County, California Biological StudyArea Critical Habitat Roads Water Course 0 1 Miles ! 08-RIV-City of Palm Springs Federal Project No. BR-NBIL (502) South Palm Canyon Drive Bridge Project Palm Springs, Riverside County, California PROJECT IMPACTSBogert Trail Bridge RehabilitationCity of Palm Springs, CA!Source: GlobeXplorer 2008; Dokken 3/17/2010; Created by: K.Smith0125250375500FeetV:\1703_Bogert\CH_soils_05/27/10.mxdRiverWash (RA)Permanent Impacts to RATemporary Impacts to RACarsitas gravelly sand, 0 to 9% slopes (CdC)Permanent Impacts to CdCTemporary Impacts to CdCProject FeaturesConstruction AreaBogert Trail Bridge Rehabilitation ProjectExisiting Hardscape, RA; Exisiting Hardscape, CdCExisting Feature, RA; Existing Feature, CdCCasey's June Beetle Critical HabitatProject Impacts to Critical HabitatPermanent 0.20 acresTemporary 0.76 acres Bogert TrlPalmCanyonDrAdelaarRdPerlaDrGoldenrodLndgRioSecoDrSierraMadreLussoPavoCirAzaleaCirRobertaAndreas Pal DogwoodCirPalm Canyon WashPalm Canyon WashPROPOSED CONSERVATION EASMENTBogert Trail Bridge Rehabilitation & South Palm Canyon Drive BridgeCity of Palm Springs, CA!Source: Riverside County 2009; GlobeXplorer 2008; Dokken 6/7/2010; Created by: K.Smith05001,0001,5002,000FeetV:\1703_Bogert\easment_CH_06/07/10.mxdSouth PalmCanyon Drive BridgeProject LocationBogert Trail BridgeRehabilitation Project LocationSoilsCcCCdCChCRAROConservation Easement AreaCasey's June Beetle 2009 Proposed Critical HabitatRiverside County Parcels5.13Acres Enclosure 1: NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBER(S) NWP 14 Linear Transportation Projects. TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. Nationwide Permit(s) NWP 14 Linear Transportation Projects. Terms: Your activity is authorized under Nationwide Permit Number(s) NWP 14 Linear Transportation Projects. subject to the following terms: 14. Linear Transportation Projects. Activities required for the construction, expansion, modification, or improvement of linear transportation projects (e.g., roads, highways, railways, trails, airport runways, and taxiways) in waters of the United States. For linear transportation projects in non-tidal waters, the discharge cannot cause the loss of greater than 1/2-acre of waters of the United States. For linear transportation projects in tidal waters, the discharge cannot cause the loss of greater than 1/3-acre of waters of the United States. Any stream channel modification, including bank stabilization, is limited to the minimum necessary to construct or protect the linear transportation project; such modifications must be in the immediate vicinity of the project. This NWP also authorizes temporary structures, fills, and work necessary to construct the linear transportation project. Appropriate measures must be taken to maintain normal downstream flows and minimize flooding to the maximum extent practicable, when temporary structures, work, and discharges, including cofferdams, are necessary for construction activities, access fills, or dewatering of construction sites. Temporary fills must consist of materials, and be placed in a manner, that will not be eroded by expected high flows. Temporary fills must be removed in their entirety and the affected areas returned to pre-construction elevations. The areas affected by temporary fills must be revegetated, as appropriate. This NWP cannot be used to authorize non- linear features commonly associated with transportation projects, such as vehicle maintenance or storage buildings, parking lots, train stations, or aircraft hangars. Notification: The permittee must submit a pre- construction notification to the district engineer prior to commencing the activity if: (1) the loss of waters of the United States exceeds 1/10 acre; or (2) there is a discharge in a special aquatic site, including wetlands. (See general condition 27.) (Sections 10 and 404) Note: Some discharges for the construction of farm roads or forest roads, or temporary roads for moving mining equipment, may qualify for an exemption under Section 404(f) of the Clean Water Act (see 33 CFR 323.4). Note: To qualify for NWP authorization, the prospective permittee must comply with the following general conditions, as appropriate, in addition to any regional or case-specific conditions imposed by the division engineer or district engineer. Prospective permittees should contact the appropriate Corps district office to determine if regional conditions have been imposed on an NWP. Prospective permittees should also contact the appropriate Corps district office to determine the status of Clean Water Act Section 401 water quality certification and/or Coastal Zone Management Act consistency for an NWP. 2. Nationwide Permit General Conditions: The following general conditions must be followed in order for any authorization by an NWP to be valid: 1. 1. Navigation. (a) No activity may cause more than a minimal adverse effect on navigation. (b) Any safety lights and signals prescribed by the U.S. Coast Guard, through regulations or otherwise, must be installed and maintained at the permittee's expense on authorized facilities in navigable waters of the United States. (c) The permittee understands and agrees that, if future operations by the United States require the removal, relocation, or other alteration, of the structure or work herein authorized, or if, in the opinion of the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative, said structure or work shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of the navigable waters, the permittee will be required, upon due notice from the Corps of Engineers, to remove, relocate, or alter the structural work or obstructions caused thereby, without expense to the United States. No claim shall be made against the United States on account of any such removal or alteration. 2. Aquatic Life Movements. No activity may substantially disrupt the necessary life cycle movements of those species of aquatic life indigenous to the waterbody, including those species that normally migrate through the area, unless the activity's primary purpose is to impound water. All permanent and temporary crossings of waterbodies shall be suitably culverted, bridged, or otherwise designed and constructed to maintain low flows to sustain the movement of those aquatic species. 3. Spawning Areas. Activities in spawning areas during spawning seasons must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. Activities that result in the physical destruction (e.g., through excavation, fill, or downstream smothering by substantial turbidity) of an important spawning area are not authorized. 4. Migratory Bird Breeding Areas. Activities in waters of the United States that serve as breeding areas for migratory birds must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. 5. Shellfish Beds. No activity may occur in areas of concentrated shellfish populations, unless the activity is directly related to a shellfish harvesting activity authorized by NWPs 4 and 48, or is a shellfish seeding or habitat restoration activity authorized by NWP 27. 6. Suitable Material. No activity may use unsuitable material (e.g., trash, debris, car bodies, asphalt, etc.). Material used for construction or discharged must be free from toxic pollutants in toxic amounts (see Section 307 of the Clean Water Act). 7. Water Supply Intakes. No activity may occur in the proximity of a public water supply intake, except where the activity is for the repair or improvement of public water supply intake structures or adjacent bank stabilization. 8. Adverse Effects From Impoundments. If the activity creates an impoundment of water, adverse effects to the aquatic system due to accelerating the passage of water, and/or restricting its flow must be minimized to the maximum extent practicable. 9. Management of Water Flows. To the maximum extent practicable, the pre-construction course, condition, capacity, and location of open waters must be maintained for each activity, including stream channelization and storm water management activities, except as provided below. The activity must be constructed to withstand expected high flows. The activity must not restrict or impede the passage of normal or high flows, unless the primary purpose of the activity is to impound water or manage high flows. The activity may alter the pre-construction course, condition, capacity, and location of open waters if it benefits the aquatic environment (e.g., stream restoration or relocation activities). 10. Fills Within 100-Year Floodplains. The activity must comply with applicable FEMA-approved state or local floodplain management requirements. 11. Equipment. Heavy equipment working in wetlands or mudflats must be placed on mats, or other measures must be taken to minimize soil disturbance. 12. Soil Erosion and Sediment Controls. Appropriate soil erosion and sediment controls must be used and maintained in effective operating condition during construction, and all exposed soil and other fills, as well as any work below the ordinary high water mark or high tide line, must be permanently stabilized at the earliest practicable date. Permittees are encouraged to perform work within waters of the United States during periods of low-flow or no-flow. 13. Removal of Temporary Fills. Temporary fills must be removed in their entirety and the affected areas returned to pre-construction elevations. The affected areas must be revegetated, as appropriate. 14. Proper Maintenance. Any authorized structure or fill shall be properly maintained, including maintenance to ensure public safety and compliance with applicable NWP general conditions, as well as any activity-specific conditions added by the district engineer to an NWP authorization. 15. Single and Complete Project. The activity must be a single and complete project. The same NWP cannot be used more than once for the same single and complete project. 16. Wild and Scenic Rivers. No activity may occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System, or in a river officially designated by Congress as a “study river” for possible inclusion in the system while the river is in an official study status, unless the appropriate Federal agency with direct management responsibility for such river, has determined in writing that the proposed activity will not adversely affect the Wild and Scenic River designation or study status. Information on Wild and Scenic Rivers may be obtained from the appropriate Federal land management agency responsible for the designated Wild and Scenic River or study river (e.g., National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 17. Tribal Rights. No activity or its operation may impair reserved tribal rights, including, but not limited to, reserved water rights and treaty fishing and hunting rights. 18. Endangered Species. (a) No activity is authorized under any NWP which is likely to directly or indirectly jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species or a species proposed for such designation, as identified under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), or which will directly or indirectly destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat of such species. No activity is authorized under any NWP which “may affect” a listed species or critical habitat, unless Section 7 consultation addressing the effects of the proposed activity has been completed. (b) Federal agencies should follow their own procedures for complying with the requirements of the ESA. Federal permittees must provide the district engineer with the appropriate documentation to demonstrate compliance with those requirements. The district engineer will review the documentation and determine whether it is sufficient to address ESA compliance for the NWP activity, or whether additional ESA consultation is necessary. (c) Non-federal permittees must submit a pre-construction notification to the district engineer if any listed species or designated critical habitat might be affected or is in the vicinity of the project, or if the project is located in designated critical habitat, and shall not begin work on the activity until notified by the district engineer that the requirements of the ESA have been satisfied and that the activity is authorized. For activities that might affect Federally-listed endangered or threatened species or designated critical habitat, the pre-construction notification must include the name(s) of the endangered or threatened species that might be affected by the proposed work or that utilize the designated critical habitat that might be affected by the proposed work. The district engineer will determine whether the proposed activity “may affect” or will have “no effect” to listed species and designated critical habitat and will notify the non-Federal applicant of the Corps’ determination within 45 days of receipt of a complete pre-construction notification. In cases where the non-Federal applicant has identified listed species or critical habitat that might be affected or is in the vicinity of the project, and has so notified the Corps, the applicant shall not begin work until the Corps has provided notification the proposed activities will have “no effect” on listed species or critical habitat, or until Section 7 consultation has been completed. If the non-Federal applicant has not heard back from the Corps within 45 days, the applicant must still wait for notification from the Corps. (d) As a result of formal or informal consultation with the FWS or NMFS the district engineer may add species-specific regional endangered species conditions to the NWPs. (e) Authorization of an activity by a NWP does not authorize the “take” of a threatened or endangered species as defined under the ESA. In the absence of separate authorization (e.g., an ESA Section 10 Permit, a Biological Opinion with “incidental take” provisions, etc.) from the U.S. FWS or the NMFS, The Endangered Species Act prohibits any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take a listed species, where "take" means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. The word “harm” in the definition of “take'' means an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such an act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering. (f) Information on the location of threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat can be obtained directly from the offices of the U.S. FWS and NMFS or their world wide web pages at http://www.fws.gov/ or http://www.fws.gov/ipac and http://www.noaa.gov/fisheries.html respectively. 19. Migratory Birds and Bald and Golden Eagles. The permittee is responsible for obtaining any “take” permits required under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s regulations governing compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The permittee should contact the appropriate local office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine if such “take” permits are required for a particular activity. 20. Historic Properties. (a) In cases where the district engineer determines that the activity may affect properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places, the activity is not authorized, until the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) have been satisfied. (b) Federal permittees should follow their own procedures for complying with the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Federal permittees must provide the district engineer with the appropriate documentation to demonstrate compliance with those requirements. The district engineer will review the documentation and determine whether it is sufficient to address section 106 compliance for the NWP activity, or whether additional section 106 consultation is necessary. (c) Non-federal permittees must submit a pre-construction notification to the district engineer if the authorized activity may have the potential to cause effects to any historic properties listed on, determined to be eligible for listing on, or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, including previously unidentified properties. For such activities, the pre-construction notification must state which historic properties may be affected by the proposed work or include a vicinity map indicating the location of the historic properties or the potential for the presence of historic properties. Assistance regarding information on the location of or potential for the presence of historic resources can be sought from the State Historic Preservation Officer or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, as appropriate, and the National Register of Historic Places (see 33 CFR 330.4(g)). When reviewing pre-construction notifications, district engineers will comply with the current procedures for addressing the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The district engineer shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to carry out appropriate identification efforts, which may include background research, consultation, oral history interviews, sample field investigation, and field survey. Based on the information submitted and these efforts, the district engineer shall determine whether the proposed activity has the potential to cause an effect on the historic properties. Where the non-Federal applicant has identified historic properties on which the activity may have the potential to cause effects and so notified the Corps, the non-Federal applicant shall not begin the activity until notified by the district engineer either that the activity has no potential to cause effects or that consultation under Section 106 of the NHPA has been completed. (d) The district engineer will notify the prospective permittee within 45 days of receipt of a complete pre-construction notification whether NHPA Section 106 consultation is required. Section 106 consultation is not required when the Corps determines that the activity does not have the potential to cause effects on historic properties (see 36 CFR §800.3(a)). If NHPA section 106 consultation is required and will occur, the district engineer will notify the non-Federal applicant that he or she cannot begin work until Section 106 consultation is completed. If the non-Federal applicant has not heard back from the Corps within 45 days, the applicant must still wait for notification from the Corps. (e) Prospective permittees should be aware that section 110k of the NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470h-2(k)) prevents the Corps from granting a permit or other assistance to an applicant who, with intent to avoid the requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA, has intentionally significantly adversely affected a historic property to which the permit would relate, or having legal power to prevent it, allowed such significant adverse effect to occur, unless the Corps, after consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), determines that circumstances justify granting such assistance despite the adverse effect created or permitted by the applicant. If circumstances justify granting the assistance, the Corps is required to notify the ACHP and provide documentation specifying the circumstances, the degree of damage to the integrity of any historic properties affected, and proposed mitigation. This documentation must include any views obtained from the applicant, SHPO/THPO, appropriate Indian tribes if the undertaking occurs on or affects historic properties on tribal lands or affects properties of interest to those tribes, and other parties known to have a legitimate interest in the impacts to the permitted activity on historic properties. 21. Discovery of Previously Unknown Remains and Artifacts. If you discover any previously unknown historic, cultural or archeological remains and artifacts while accomplishing the activity authorized by this permit, you must immediately notify the district engineer of what you have found, and to the maximum extent practicable, avoid construction activities that may affect the remains and artifacts until the required coordination has been completed. The district engineer will initiate the Federal, Tribal and state coordination required to determine if the items or remains warrant a recovery effort or if the site is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 22. Designated Critical Resource Waters. Critical resource waters include, NOAA-managed marine sanctuaries and marine monuments, and National Estuarine Research Reserves. The district engineer may designate, after notice and opportunity for public comment, additional waters officially designated by a state as having particular environmental or ecological significance, such as outstanding national resource waters or state natural heritage sites. The district engineer may also designate additional critical resource waters after notice and opportunity for public comment. (a) Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States are not authorized by NWPs 7, 12, 14, 16, 17, 21, 29, 31, 35, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 49, 50, 51, and 52 for any activity within, or directly affecting, critical resource waters, including wetlands adjacent to such waters. (b) For NWPs 3, 8, 10, 13, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, and 38, notification is required in accordance with general condition 31, for any activity proposed in the designated critical resource waters including wetlands adjacent to those waters. The district engineer may authorize activities under these NWPs only after it is determined that the impacts to the critical resource waters will be no more than minimal. 23. Mitigation. The district engineer will consider the following factors when determining appropriate and practicable mitigation necessary to ensure that adverse effects on the aquatic environment are minimal: (a) The activity must be designed and constructed to avoid and minimize adverse effects, both temporary and permanent, to waters of the United States to the maximum extent practicable at the project site (i.e., on site). (b) Mitigation in all its forms (avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, reducing, or compensating for resource losses) will be required to the extent necessary to ensure that the adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. (c) Compensatory mitigation at a minimum one-for-one ratio will be required for all wetland losses that exceed 1/10-acre and require pre-construction notification, unless the district engineer determines in writing that either some other form of mitigation would be more environmentally appropriate or the adverse effects of the proposed activity are minimal, and provides a project-specific waiver of this requirement. For wetland losses of 1/10-acre or less that require pre-construction notification, the district engineer may determine on a case-by-case basis that compensatory mitigation is required to ensure that the activity results in minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment. Compensatory mitigation projects provided to offset losses of aquatic resources must comply with the applicable provisions of 33 CFR part 332. (1) The prospective permittee is responsible for proposing an appropriate compensatory mitigation option if compensatory mitigation is necessary to ensure that the activity results in minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment. (2) Since the likelihood of success is greater and the impacts to potentially valuable uplands are reduced, wetland restoration should be the first compensatory mitigation option considered. (3) If permittee-responsible mitigation is the proposed option, the prospective permittee is responsible for submitting a mitigation plan. A conceptual or detailed mitigation plan may be used by the district engineer to make the decision on the NWP verification request, but a final mitigation plan that addresses the applicable requirements of 33 CFR 332.4(c)(2) – (14) must be approved by the district engineer before the permittee begins work in waters of the United States, unless the district engineer determines that prior approval of the final mitigation plan is not practicable or not necessary to ensure timely completion of the required compensatory mitigation (see 33 CFR 332.3(k)(3)). (4) If mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program credits are the proposed option, the mitigation plan only needs to address the baseline conditions at the impact site and the number of credits to be provided. (5) Compensatory mitigation requirements (e.g., resource type and amount to be provided as compensatory mitigation, site protection, ecological performance standards, monitoring requirements) may be addressed through conditions added to the NWP authorization, instead of components of a compensatory mitigation plan. (d) For losses of streams or other open waters that require pre-construction notification, the district engineer may require compensatory mitigation, such as stream rehabilitation, enhancement, or preservation, to ensure that the activity results in minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment. (e) Compensatory mitigation will not be used to increase the acreage losses allowed by the acreage limits of the NWPs. For example, if an NWP has an acreage limit of 1/2-acre, it cannot be used to authorize any project resulting in the loss of greater than 1/2-acre of waters of the United States, even if compensatory mitigation is provided that replaces or restores some of the lost waters. However, compensatory mitigation can and should be used, as necessary, to ensure that a project already meeting the established acreage limits also satisfies the minimal impact requirement associated with the NWPs. (f) Compensatory mitigation plans for projects in or near streams or other open waters will normally include a requirement for the restoration or establishment, maintenance, and legal protection (e.g., conservation easements) of riparian areas next to open waters. In some cases, riparian areas may be the only compensatory mitigation required. Riparian areas should consist of native species. The width of the required riparian area will address documented water quality or aquatic habitat loss concerns. Normally, the riparian area will be 25 to 50 feet wide on each side of the stream, but the district engineer may require slightly wider riparian areas to address documented water quality or habitat loss concerns. If it is not possible to establish a riparian area on both sides of a stream, or if the waterbody is a lake or coastal waters, then restoring or establishing a riparian area along a single bank or shoreline may be sufficient. Where both wetlands and open waters exist on the project site, the district engineer will determine the appropriate compensatory mitigation (e.g., riparian areas and/or wetlands compensation) based on what is best for the aquatic environment on a watershed basis. In cases where riparian areas are determined to be the most appropriate form of compensatory mitigation, the district engineer may waive or reduce the requirement to provide wetland compensatory mitigation for wetland losses. (g) Permittees may propose the use of mitigation banks, in-lieu fee programs, or separate permittee- responsible mitigation. For activities resulting in the loss of marine or estuarine resources, permittee- responsible compensatory mitigation may be environmentally preferable if there are no mitigation banks or in-lieu fee programs in the area that have marine or estuarine credits available for sale or transfer to the permittee. For permittee-responsible mitigation, the special conditions of the NWP verification must clearly indicate the party or parties responsible for the implementation and performance of the compensatory mitigation project, and, if required, its long-term management. (h) Where certain functions and services of waters of the United States are permanently adversely affected, such as the conversion of a forested or scrub-shrub wetland to a herbaceous wetland in a permanently maintained utility line right-of-way, mitigation may be required to reduce the adverse effects of the project to the minimal level. 24. Safety of Impoundment Structures. To ensure that all impoundment structures are safely designed, the district engineer may require non-Federal applicants to demonstrate that the structures comply with established state dam safety criteria or have been designed by qualified persons. The district engineer may also require documentation that the design has been independently reviewed by similarly qualified persons, and appropriate modifications made to ensure safety. 25. Water Quality. Where States and authorized Tribes, or EPA where applicable, have not previously certified compliance of an NWP with CWA Section 401, individual 401 Water Quality Certification must be obtained or waived (see 33 CFR 330.4(c)). The district engineer or State or Tribe may require additional water quality management measures to ensure that the authorized activity does not result in more than minimal degradation of water quality. 26. Coastal Zone Management. In coastal states where an NWP has not previously received a state coastal zone management consistency concurrence, an individual state coastal zone management consistency concurrence must be obtained, or a presumption of concurrence must occur (see 33 CFR 330.4(d)). The district engineer or a State may require additional measures to ensure that the authorized activity is consistent with state coastal zone management requirements. 27. Regional and Case-By-Case Conditions. The activity must comply with any regional conditions that may have been added by the Division Engineer (see 33 CFR 330.4(e)) and with any case specific conditions added by the Corps or by the state, Indian Tribe, or U.S. EPA in its section 401 Water Quality Certification, or by the state in its Coastal Zone Management Act consistency determination. 28. Use of Multiple Nationwide Permits. The use of more than one NWP for a single and complete project is prohibited, except when the acreage loss of waters of the United States authorized by the NWPs does not exceed the acreage limit of the NWP with the highest specified acreage limit. For example, if a road crossing over tidal waters is constructed under NWP 14, with associated bank stabilization authorized by NWP 13, the maximum acreage loss of waters of the United States for the total project cannot exceed 1/3-acre. 29. Transfer of Nationwide Permit Verifications. If the permittee sells the property associated with a nationwide permit verification, the permittee may transfer the nationwide permit verification to the new owner by submitting a letter to the appropriate Corps district office to validate the transfer. A copy of the nationwide permit verification must be attached to the letter, and the letter must contain the following statement and signature: “When the structures or work authorized by this nationwide permit are still in existence at the time the property is transferred, the terms and conditions of this nationwide permit, including any special conditions, will continue to be binding on the new owner(s) of the property. To validate the transfer of this nationwide permit and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions, have the transferee sign and date below.” ___________________________________________ (Transferee) _____________________________________________ (Date) 30. Compliance Certification. Each permittee who receives an NWP verification letter from the Corps must provide a signed certification documenting completion of the authorized activity and any required compensatory mitigation. The success of any required permittee-responsible mitigation, including the achievement of ecological performance standards, will be addressed separately by the district engineer. The Corps will provide the permittee the certification document with the NWP verification letter. The certification document will include: (a) A statement that the authorized work was done in accordance with the NWP authorization, including any general, regional, or activity-specific conditions; (b) A statement that the implementation of any required compensatory mitigation was completed in accordance with the permit conditions. If credits from a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program are used to satisfy the compensatory mitigation requirements, the certification must include the documentation required by 33 CFR 332.3(l)(3) to confirm that the permittee secured the appropriate number and resource type of credits; and (c) The signature of the permittee certifying the completion of the work and mitigation. 31. Pre-Construction Notification. (a) Timing. Where required by the terms of the NWP, the prospective permittee must notify the district engineer by submitting a pre-construction notification (PCN) as early as possible. The district engineer must determine if the PCN is complete within 30 calendar days of the date of receipt and, if the PCN is determined to be incomplete, notify the prospective permittee within that 30 day period to request the additional information necessary to make the PCN complete. The request must specify the information needed to make the PCN complete. As a general rule, district engineers will request additional information necessary to make the PCN complete only once. However, if the prospective permittee does not provide all of the requested information, then the district engineer will notify the prospective permittee that the PCN is still incomplete and the PCN review process will not commence until all of the requested information has been received by the district engineer. The prospective permittee shall not begin the activity until either: (1) He or she is notified in writing by the district engineer that the activity may proceed under the NWP with any special conditions imposed by the district or division engineer; or (2) 45 calendar days have passed from the district engineer’s receipt of the complete PCN and the prospective permittee has not received written notice from the district or division engineer. However, if the permittee was required to notify the Corps pursuant to general condition 18 that listed species or critical habitat might be affected or in the vicinity of the project, or to notify the Corps pursuant to general condition 20 that the activity may have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, the permittee cannot begin the activity until receiving written notification from the Corps that there is “no effect” on listed species or “no potential to cause effects” on historic properties, or that any consultation required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (see 33 CFR 330.4(f)) and/or Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation (see 33 CFR 330.4(g)) has been completed. Also, work cannot begin under NWPs 21, 49, or 50 until the permittee has received written approval from the Corps. If the proposed activity requires a written waiver to exceed specified limits of an NWP, the permittee may not begin the activity until the district engineer issues the waiver. If the district or division engineer notifies the permittee in writing that an individual permit is required within 45 calendar days of receipt of a complete PCN, the permittee cannot begin the activity until an individual permit has been obtained. Subsequently, the permittee’s right to proceed under the NWP may be modified, suspended, or revoked only in accordance with the procedure set forth in 33 CFR 330.5(d)(2). (b) Contents of Pre-Construction Notification: The PCN must be in writing and include the following information: (1) Name, address and telephone numbers of the prospective permittee; (2) Location of the proposed project; (3) A description of the proposed project; the project’s purpose; direct and indirect adverse environmental effects the project would cause, including the anticipated amount of loss of water of the United States expected to result from the NWP activity, in acres, linear feet, or other appropriate unit of measure; any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s), or individual permit(s) used or intended to be used to authorize any part of the proposed project or any related activity. The description should be sufficiently detailed to allow the district engineer to determine that the adverse effects of the project will be minimal and to determine the need for compensatory mitigation. Sketches should be provided when necessary to show that the activity complies with the terms of the NWP. (Sketches usually clarify the project and when provided results in a quicker decision. Sketches should contain sufficient detail to provide an illustrative description of the proposed activity (e.g., a conceptual plan), but do not need to be detailed engineering plans); (4) The PCN must include a delineation of wetlands, other special aquatic sites, and other waters, such as lakes and ponds, and perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams, on the project site. Wetland delineations must be prepared in accordance with the current method required by the Corps. The permittee may ask the Corps to delineate the special aquatic sites and other waters on the project site, but there may be a delay if the Corps does the delineation, especially if the project site is large or contains many waters of the United States. Furthermore, the 45 day period will not start until the delineation has been submitted to or completed by the Corps, as appropriate; (5) If the proposed activity will result in the loss of greater than 1/10-acre of wetlands and a PCN is required, the prospective permittee must submit a statement describing how the mitigation requirement will be satisfied, or explaining why the adverse effects are minimal and why compensatory mitigation should not be required. As an alternative, the prospective permittee may submit a conceptual or detailed mitigation plan. (6) If any listed species or designated critical habitat might be affected or is in the vicinity of the project, or if the project is located in designated critical habitat, for non-Federal applicants the PCN must include the name(s) of those endangered or threatened species that might be affected by the proposed work or utilize the designated critical habitat that may be affected by the proposed work. Federal applicants must provide documentation demonstrating compliance with the Endangered Species Act; and (7) For an activity that may affect a historic property listed on, determined to be eligible for listing on, or potentially eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic Places, for non-Federal applicants the PCN must state which historic property may be affected by the proposed work or include a vicinity map indicating the location of the historic property. Federal applicants must provide documentation demonstrating compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. (c) Form of Pre-Construction Notification: The standard individual permit application form (Form ENG 4345) may be used, but the completed application form must clearly indicate that it is a PCN and must include all of the information required in paragraphs (b)(1) through (7) of this general condition. A letter containing the required information may also be used. (d) Agency Coordination: (1) The district engineer will consider any comments from Federal and state agencies concerning the proposed activity’s compliance with the terms and conditions of the NWPs and the need for mitigation to reduce the project’s adverse environmental effects to a minimal level. (2) For all NWP activities that require pre-construction notification and result in the loss of greater than 1/2-acre of waters of the United States, for NWP 21, 29, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 50, 51, and 52 activities that require pre-construction notification and will result in the loss of greater than 300 linear feet of intermittent and ephemeral stream bed, and for all NWP 48 activities that require pre- construction notification, the district engineer will immediately provide (e.g., via e-mail, facsimile transmission, overnight mail, or other expeditious manner) a copy of the complete PCN to the appropriate Federal or state offices (U.S. FWS, state natural resource or water quality agency, EPA, State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) or Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO), and, if appropriate, the NMFS). With the exception of NWP 37, these agencies will have 10 calendar days from the date the material is transmitted to telephone or fax the district engineer notice that they intend to provide substantive, site-specific comments. The comments must explain why the agency believes the adverse effects will be more than minimal. If so contacted by an agency, the district engineer will wait an additional 15 calendar days before making a decision on the pre-construction notification. The district engineer will fully consider agency comments received within the specified time frame concerning the proposed activity’s compliance with the terms and conditions of the NWPs, including the need for mitigation to ensure the net adverse environmental effects to the aquatic environment of the proposed activity are minimal. The district engineer will provide no response to the resource agency, except as provided below. The district engineer will indicate in the administrative record associated with each pre-construction notification that the resource agencies’ concerns were considered. For NWP 37, the emergency watershed protection and rehabilitation activity may proceed immediately in cases where there is an unacceptable hazard to life or a significant loss of property or economic hardship will occur. The district engineer will consider any comments received to decide whether the NWP 37 authorization should be modified, suspended, or revoked in accordance with the procedures at 33 CFR 330.5. (3) In cases of where the prospective permittee is not a Federal agency, the district engineer will provide a response to NMFS within 30 calendar days of receipt of any Essential Fish Habitat conservation recommendations, as required by Section 305(b)(4)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. (4) Applicants are encouraged to provide the Corps with either electronic files or multiple copies of pre-construction notifications to expedite agency coordination. 3. Regional Conditions for the Los Angeles District: In accordance with General Condition Number 27, "Regional and Case-by-Case Conditions," the following Regional Conditions, as added by the Division Engineer, must be met in order for an authorization by any Nationwide to be valid: 1. For all activities in waters of the U.S. that are suitable habitat for federally listed fish species, the permittee shall design all road crossings to ensure that the passage and/or spawning of fish is not hindered. In these areas, the permittee shall employ bridge designs that span the stream or river, including pier- or pile-supported spans, or designs that use a bottomless arch culvert with a natural stream bed, unless determined to be impracticable by the Corps. 2. Nationwide Permits (NWP) 3, 7, 12-15, 17-19, 21, 23, 25, 29, 35, 36, or 39-46, 48-52 cannot be used to authorize structures, work, and/or the discharge of dredged or fill material that would result in the "loss" of wetlands, mudflats, vegetated shallows or riffle and pool complexes as defined at 40 CFR Part 230.40-45. The definition of "loss" for this regional condition is the same as the definition of "loss of waters of the United States" used for the Nationwide Permit Program. Furthermore, this regional condition applies only within the State of Arizona and within the Mojave and Sonoran (Colorado) desert regions of California. The desert regions in California are limited to four USGS Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) accounting units (Lower Colorado -150301, Northern Mojave-180902, Southern Mojave- 181001, and Salton Sea-181002). 3. When a pre-construction notification (PCN) is required, the appropriate U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) District shall be notified in accordance with General Condition 31 using either the South Pacific Division PCN Checklist or a signed application form (ENG Form 4345) with an attachment providing information on compliance with all of the General and Regional Conditions. The PCN Checklist and application form are available at: http://www.spl.usace.army.mil/regulatory. In addition, the PCN shall include: a. A written statement describing how the activity has been designed to avoid and minimize adverse effects, both temporary and permanent, to waters of the United States; b. Drawings, including plan and cross-section views, clearly depicting the location, size and dimensions of the proposed activity as well as the location of delineated waters of the U.S. on the site. The drawings shall contain a title block, legend and scale, amount (in cubic yards) and area (in acres) of fill in Corps jurisdiction, including both permanent and temporary fills/structures. The ordinary high water mark or, if tidal waters, the mean high water mark and high tide line, should be shown (in feet), based on National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) or other appropriate referenced elevation. All drawings for projects located within the boundaries of the Los Angeles District shall comply with the most current version of the Map and Drawing Standards for the Los Angeles District Regulatory Division (available on the Los Angeles District Regulatory Division website at: www.spl.usace.army.mil/regulatory/); and c. Numbered and dated pre-project color photographs showing a representative sample of waters proposed to be impacted on the project site, and all waters proposed to be avoided on and immediately adjacent to the project site. The compass angle and position of each photograph shall be documented on the plan-view drawing required in subpart b of this regional condition. 4. Submission of a PCN pursuant to General Condition 31 and Regional Condition 3 shall be required for all regulated activities in the following locations: a. All perennial waterbodies and special aquatic sites within the State of Arizona and within the Mojave and Sonoran (Colorado) desert regions of California, excluding the Colorado River in Arizona from Davis Dam to River Mile 261 (northern boundary of the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe Reservation). The desert region in California is limited to four USGS HUC accounting units (Lower Colorado -150301, Northern Mojave-180902, Southern Mojave-181001, and Salton Sea-181002). b. All areas designated as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (i.e., all tidally influenced areas - Federal Register dated March 12, 2007 (72 FR 11092)), in which case the PCN shall include an EFH assessment and extent of proposed impacts to EFH. Examples of EFH habitat assessments can be found at: http://www.swr.noaa.gov/efh.htm. c. All watersheds in the Santa Monica Mountains in Los Angeles and Ventura counties bounded by Calleguas Creek on the west, by Highway 101 on the north and east, and by Sunset Boulevard and Pacific Ocean on the south. d. The Santa Clara River watershed in Los Angeles and Ventura counties, including but not limited to Aliso Canyon, Agua Dulce Canyon, Sand Canyon, Bouquet Canyon, Mint Canyon, South Fork of the Santa Clara River, San Francisquito Canyon, Castaic Creek, Piru Creek, Sespe Creek and the main-stem of the Santa Clara River. 5. Individual Permits shall be required for all discharges of fill material in jurisdictional vernal pools, with the exception that discharges for the purpose of restoration, enhancement, management or scientific study of vernal pools may be authorized under NWPs 5, 6, and 27 with the submission of a PCN in accordance with General Condition 31 and Regional Condition 3. 6. Individual Permits shall be required in Murrieta Creek and Temecula Creek watersheds in Riverside County for new permanent fills in perennial and intermittent watercourses otherwise authorized under NWPs 29, 39, 42 and 43, and in ephemeral watercourses for these NWPs for projects that impact greater than 0.1 acre of waters of the United States. In addition, when NWP 14 is used in conjunction with residential, commercial, or industrial developments the 0.1 acre limit would also apply. 7. Individual Permits (Standard Individual Permit or 404 Letter of Permission) shall be required in San Luis Obispo Creek and Santa Rosa Creek in San Luis Obispo County for bank stabilization projects, and in Gaviota Creek, Mission Creek and Carpinteria Creek in Santa Barbara County for bank stabilization projects and grade control structures. 8. In conjunction with the Los Angeles District's Special Area Management Plans (SAMPs) for the San Diego Creek Watershed and San Juan Creek/Western San Mateo Creek Watersheds in Orange County, California, the Corps' Division Engineer, through his discretionary authority has revoked the use of the following 26 selected NWPs within these SAMP watersheds: 03, 07, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 49, and 50. Consequently, these NWPs are no longer available in those watersheds to authorize impacts to waters of the United States from discharges of dredged or fill material under the Corps' Clean Water Act section 404 authority. 9. Any requests to waive the 300 linear foot limitation for intermittent and ephemeral streams for NWPs 29, 39, 40 and 42, 43, 44, 51 and 52 or to waive the 500 linear foot limitation along the bank for NWP 13, must include the following: a. A narrative description of the stream. This should include known information on: volume and duration of flow; the approximate length, width, and depth of the waterbody and characters observed associated with an Ordinary High Water Mark (e.g. bed and bank, wrack line, or scour marks); a description of the adjacent vegetation community and a statement regarding the wetland status of the associated vegetation community (i.e. wetland, non-wetland); surrounding land use; water quality; issues related to cumulative impacts in the watershed, and; any other relevant information. b. An analysis of the proposed impacts to the waterbody in accordance with General Condition 31 and Regional Condition 3; c. Measures taken to avoid and minimize losses, including other methods of constructing the proposed project; and d. A compensatory mitigation plan describing how the unavoidable losses are proposed to be compensated, in accordance with 33 CFR Part 332. 10. The permittee shall complete the construction of any compensatory mitigation required by special condition(s) of the NWP verification before or concurrent with commencement of construction of the authorized activity, except when specifically determined to be impracticable by the Corps. When mitigation involves use of a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program, the permittee shall submit proof of payment to the Corps prior to commencement of construction of the authorized activity. 4. Further information: 1. Congressional Authorities: You have been authorized to undertake the activity described above pursuant to: ( ) Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403). (X) Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). ( ) Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1413). 2. Limits of this authorization. (a) This permit does not obviate the need to obtain other Federal, state, or local authorizations required by law. (b) This permit does not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges. (c) This permit does not authorize any injury to the property or rights of others. (d) This permit does not authorize interference with any existing or proposed Federal project. 3. Limits of Federal Liability. In issuing this permit, the Federal Government does not assume any liability for the following: (a) Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of other permitted or unpermitted activities or from natural causes. (b) Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of current or future activities undertaken by or on behalf of the United States in the public interest. (c) Damages to persons, property, or to other permitted or unpermitted activities or structures caused by the activity authorized by this permit. (d) Design or construction deficiencies associated with the permitted work. (e) Damage claims associated with any future modification, suspension, or revocation of this permit. 4. Reliance on Applicant's Data: The determination of this office that issuance of this permit is not contrary to the public interest was made in reliance on the information you provided. 5. Reevaluation of Permit Decision. This office may reevaluate its decision on this permit at any time the circumstances warrant. Circumstances that could require a reevaluation include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) You fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit. (b) The information provided by you in support of your permit application proves to have been false, incomplete, or inaccurate (See 4 above). (c) Significant new information surfaces which this office did not consider in reaching the original public interest decision. Such a reevaluation may result in a determination that it is appropriate to use the suspension, modification, and revocation procedures contained in 33 CFR 330.5 or enforcement procedures such as those contained in 33 CFR 326.4 and 326.5. The referenced enforcement procedures provide for the issuance of an administrative order requiring you to comply with the terms and conditions of your permit and for the initiation of legal action where appropriate. You will be required to pay for any corrective measure ordered by this office, and if you fail to comply with such directive, this office may in certain situations (such as those specified in 33 CFR 209.170) accomplish the corrective measures by contract or otherwise and bill you for the cost. 6. This letter of verification is valid for a period not to exceed two years unless the nationwide permit is modified, reissued, revoked, or expires before that time. 7. You must maintain the activity authorized by this permit in good condition and in conformance with the terms and conditions of this permit. You are not relieved of this requirement if you abandon the permitted activity, although you may make a good faith transfer to a third party in compliance with General Condition H below. Should you wish to cease to maintain the authorized activity or should you desire to abandon it without a good faith transfer, you must obtain a modification of this permit from this office, which may require restoration of the area. 8. You must allow representatives from this office to inspect the authorized activity at any time deemed necessary to ensure that it is being or has been accomplished with the terms and conditions of your permit. United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ecological Services Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 6010 Hidden Valley Road,Suite 101 Carlsbad,California 92011 In Reply Refer To: FWS-ERIV-IIB0021-11FC0344 MAY 18 2011 Colonel R.Mark Toy,District Commander u.S.Army Corps of Engineers,Los Angeles District 915 Wilshire Blvd.,Suite 1101 Los Angeles,California 90017 Mr.Craig Wentworth,Office Chief Biological Studies and Permits California Department of Transportation,District 8 464 W.Fourth Street,6th Floor San Bernardino,California 92401-1400 Attention:Sophia Huynh,Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch; Juan Lopez-Torres,California Department of Transportation Subject:Conference Opinion on the Proposed Bogert Trail Bridge Rehabilitation Project, Riverside County,California Dear Colonel Toy and Mr.Wentworth: This document transmits the u.S.Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service)conference opinion based on our review of the application from the City of Palm Springs (City)for funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),and for a permit pursuant to section 404 of the Clean Water Act to the u.s.Army Corps of Engineers (Corps),in association with the proposed Bogert Trail Bridge Rehabilitation Project,Riverside County,California (Project).The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)is the non-Federal representative for FHWA and is the lead agency for the conference on this action.The City is the Applicant for the Project. Pursuant to a request for initiation of formal conference,Caltrans has determined the proposed Project would likely adversely affect both the Casey's (Palm Springs)June beetle (Dinacoma caseyi;Federal proposed species)and its proposed critical habitat,pursuant to 50 CFR §402 and section 7(a)(2)of the Endangered Species Act (Act)of 1973,as amended (16 U.S.C.1531 et seq.).Caltrans'request for initiation of formal conference dated October 1,2010,which was received and initiated by the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (CFWO)that same day. The action area for the proposed action is occupied by Casey's June beetle and includes proposed critical habitat for the species.No other designated or proposed critical habitat for any species occurs within this action area,thus no other designated or proposed critical habitat likely would be affected by the proposed action.No other listed or proposed species has substantial Colonel R. Mark Toy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Craig Wentworth, Caltrans (FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344) 2 potential to occur within the action area, thus other listed species likely would not be affected by the proposed Project. As such, potential impacts from the proposed action to other critical habitat or other listed species are not discussed further herein. Conference is a process that involves informal discussions between a Federal agency and the Service under section 7(a)(4) of the Act regarding the potential impacts of an action on proposed species and/or proposed critical habitat and recommendations to minimize or avoid the adverse effects. If requested by the Federal action agency and deemed appropriate by the Service, the conference may be conducted in accordance with the procedures for formal consultation in 50 CFR § 402.14. A conference opinion issued at the conclusion of the conference may be adopted as the biological opinion when the species is listed or critical habitat is designated if no significant new information is developed (including that developed during the rulemaking process on the proposed listing or critical habitat designation) and no significant changes to the Federal action are made that would alter the content of the opinion. An incidental take statement provided with a conference opinion does not become effective unless the Service adopts the opinion once the listing is final. This conference opinion is based on information in: a Palm Springs City Council Staff Report entitled “Approval of the Bridge Aesthetic Design Concept for the Bogert Trail Bridge Rehabilitation, City Project No. 07-03”, dated May 5, 2010; a Conference Assessment (CA) for the proposed Project, prepared by Dokken Engineering for the Applicant, dated September 2010; a letter from Caltrans to the Service on the proposed action dated October 1, 2010; and various written, telephone, and electronic mail correspondence during the conference time period. A complete administrative record of this conference is on file at CFWO. The Project falls wholly within the reservation boundary of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (Tribe) and within the city limits of Palm Springs, in the Coachella Valley of Riverside County in southern California (Figures 1 and 2). While the Project site and action area is generally within the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) boundary, Tribal reservation lands were not covered under the CVMSHCP. Moreover, Casey’s June beetle is not a “covered species” under the CVMSHCP and, thus, incidental take of the beetle is not covered under this plan. The City and Tribe retain land-use jurisdiction over the Project. CONFERENCE HISTORY Between March and October 2010, informal conference occurred between the Corps, Caltrans, City, City’s consultant, and Service regarding the proposed Project. On October 1, 2010, the Service received a letter from the Caltrans dated October 1, 2010, requesting initiation of formal conference on the proposed Project. Enclosed with this letter was a CA dated September 2010 prepared by the City’s consultant. This letter and CA included the minimum information required for initiation of formal conference, pursuant to the requirements specified in 50 CFR § 402.10 and 14(c). On January 26 and 27, 2011, the Service received additional Project Colonel R. Mark Toy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Craig Wentworth, Caltrans (FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344) 3 information, notably information on proposed pile driving and a digital shapefile map of the proposed Project footprint from the Applicant’s consultant. On February 17, 2011, we received additional maps and figures delineating proposed Project features and area resources. CONFERENCE OPINION This conference opinion does not rely on the regulatory definition of “destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat” at 50 CFR § 402.02. Instead, we relied upon the statutory provisions of the Act to complete the following analysis with respect to critical habitat. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION Pursuant to the implementing regulations for the Act, “action” means all activities or programs of any kind authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in part, by Federal agencies in the United States or upon the high seas. Examples include, but are not limited to: (a) actions intended to conserve listed species or their habitats; (b) the promulgation of regulations; (c) the granting of licenses, contracts, leases, easements, rights-of-way, permits, or grants-in-aid; or (d) actions directly or indirectly causing modifications to the land, water, or air (50 CFR § 402.02). Proposed Federal Permit Pursuant to a permit application, the Corps proposes to issue to the Applicant, the City, a permit in association with the proposed Bogert Trail Bridge Rehabilitation, City Project No. 07-03. The Applicant has applied for a Clean Water Act section 404 permit from the Corps for impacts to waters of the U.S. The proposed Project would result in permanent or temporary direct impacts to a total of approximately 0.14 hectare (ha) (0.35 acre (ac)) of Corps’ jurisdictional “waters of the U.S.” Proposed bridge construction/rehabilitation activities of the Project would impact Palm Canyon Wash, a desert wash that runs through the Project site and under the subject bridge. A permit application for these impacts has been submitted to the Corps Regulatory Branch. This proposed Corps permit would be necessary to proceed with the proposed Project; as such, the Corps has discretionary Federal involvement and control over the construction of the Project by its permit decision action. Proposed Federal Funding Caltrans is the non-Federal representative for FHWA for this action. Pursuant to an application for funding, FHWA and Caltrans propose to provide funding for the rehabilitation/construction of the proposed Project under the Federal Highway Bridge Program Fund. Caltrans has approved the City’s funding request and awarded the City Federal funding for this Project. With an estimated cost of $4.9 million, the Federal Highway Bridge Program would provide the Project with 88.5 percent of the needed funding – or over $4.3 million. This proposed FHWA/Caltrans funding would likely be necessary to proceed with the proposed Project; as Colonel R. Mark Toy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Craig Wentworth, Caltrans (FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344) 4 such, FHWA and Caltrans have discretionary Federal involvement and control over the construction of the Project by its funding decision action. General Project Features The purpose of the proposed Project is to rehabilitate the existing Bogert Trail Bridge over Palm Canyon Wash within the City to upgrade and maintain the current bridge. The existing bridge was built in 1982 by the developer of the nearby residential neighborhood (east of the bridge) that the subject bridge and associated roadway serves. The existing bridge was locally approved and constructed with a sidewalk on only the south side; the current bridge reportedly does not provide traffic lanes and shoulders that are consistent with City’s road standards. The City, in cooperation with Caltrans, proposes to upgrade the “functionally obsolete” Bogert Trail bridge because of the narrow width and a “low sufficiency rating of 62.8” of the bridge. The proposed Project would consist of construction activities occurring on a total of approximately 0.83 ha (2.05 ac) of direct activity/disturbance footprint. The boundary of this footprint is defined as the area within which all Project activities (e.g., cut slopes, fill areas, temporary access roads, construction staging areas) may occur, which includes a buffer. Some of this footprint overlaps with the existing roadway and area development. The existing Bogert Trail Bridge is a four span precast-pre-stressed concrete I-girder bridge approximately 99 meters (m) (326 feet (ft)) long and 10 m (33 ft) wide with reinforced concrete pier walls supported on concrete piles. The rehabilitated bridge would provide full standard traffic lanes and shoulders which would match the current roadway width to both the east and the west of the bridge. The bridge rehabilitation would: • Widen the existing bridge on both sides from 10 m (33 ft) to a new total width of 16 m (52 ft); • Taper the existing roadway approaches from the full roadway width to the existing bridge width for distances of approximately 76 m (250 ft) to the west and 46 m (150 ft) to the east, and bring the approach roadway tapers up to the full road width and conforming to the improved bridge; and, • Replace the abutment seals and bearing pads to accommodate the movement rating for the bridge, and include various crack and spall repairs. In addition, appropriate flood scour countermeasures are included within the Project design and will be constructed to avoid any negative impacts to the bridge due to scour. These countermeasures include providing sufficiently deep footings under the existing and new bridge piers. The Project would require pile driving; 66 piles would need to be driven and the pile driving work would require approximately 4 weeks. Colonel R. Mark Toy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Craig Wentworth, Caltrans (FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344) 5 The Project would result in temporary changes in local traffic patterns due to the required constriction of local traffic to one lane over the bridge during construction. The proposed Project is balanced with regard to borrow and export of fill, and therefore, borrow and disposal sites would be minimal and would be selected at environmentally compliant locations by the contractor prior to breaking ground for construction. Although utility plans have reportedly not yet been finalized, all utility construction would occur within the Project footprint. Project Conservation Measures Minimization Measures and Onsite Restoration of Casey’s June Beetle Habitat A minimum of 0.29 ha (0.72 ac) of restoration of Casey’s June beetle habitat would be performed on the Project site within Palm Canyon Wash in areas that would be temporarily affected by the Project. These activities would include the following measures: • To reduce potential temporary effects to animals (including Casey’s June beetle) during construction, work will only be conducted during daylight hours; • To minimize potential impacts to Casey’s June beetle within the Project action area, no roadway lighting will be installed. Construction work would not be conducted at night. The project will not generate any new permanent light sources; • Standard construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be utilized for construction in Palm Canyon Wash; • The Project boundaries that are located in the wash will be clearly marked by silt fencing, stakes, or some equivalent such as what Caltrans refers to as “ESA fencing”; • Soil disturbance and compaction will be minimized as feasible in the wash; • A qualified bio monitor will be selected and will be present during substantial construction activities in the wash; • A conceptual restoration plan will be developed for the temporary disturbance area. The plan will be reviewed and approved by the Service prior to initiation of construction; • Native woody shrubs, located in the Project footprint in the wash, that are taller than 1.2 m (4 ft) will be salvaged. The “rootball” of these plants will be maintained and they will immediately be planted at the edge of the Project site in the wash in a similar location (e.g., floodplain terrace). Replanted shrubs will be irrigated once a month for 3 months; Colonel R. Mark Toy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Craig Wentworth, Caltrans (FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344) 6 • Debris/waste material (e.g., old bridge deck bearing materials) will be kept out of the wash; • Excavated fill (e.g., pier construction) will be placed on flexible mats or plates to reduce disturbance of local soils; • Vehicles and equipment will be washed of potential invasive plant propagules (i.e., weed seed in dried mud removed) before entering the Project site area. The biomonitor will inspect the washed equipment prior to entry onto the Project site; • The Applicant will assure that any imported fill or rock is free of potential invasive plant propagules (e.g., utilize weed-free borrow material and washed rip rap). The biomonitor will inspect the imported fill and/or rock prior to transport onto the Project site; • Minimal clearing, grubbing, grading, or development of access roads (compaction) will be performed in the wash. The biomonitor will administer these activities; • Vehicles/equipment will be parked or serviced (i.e., fluids) outside the wash only; • The entire Project site footprint will be weeded (alien plants removed) for 5 years twice annually following the completion of construction; and, • Permanent signage will be installed in the site area regarding illegality of off highway vehicle (OHV) use in the wash (e.g., sign at flood control ramp down to wash). Offsite Conservation Enhancement and Protection of Casey’s June Beetle Habitat A minimum of 1.74-ha (4.29-ac) would be acquired and legally protected with a conservation easement consistent with California Civil Code 815 et seq. This parcel(s) would also be ecologically enhanced. These activities would include the following measures: • A conservation easement will be granted to an agency or organization subject to approval of the Service. Easement wording will be consistent with CCC 815 et seq.; • This conservation easement will be recorded on a parcel (or portion of a parcel [e.g., Applicant has suggested parcel APN 512-190-027]) in Palm Canyon Wash, in proposed critical habitat (see Figure 3 Proposed Conservation Easement). The 1.74 ha area to be protected with a conservation easement (whole or portion of a parcel) will be on Casey’s June beetle habitat areas of soft-bottom of Palm Canyon Wash that are more than 91 m (300 ft) from the artificial levee that currently exists along sections on the west side of the wash. A title report for the parcel will be provided to the Service for review, and approval by the Service of the conservation easement to be granted across Colonel R. Mark Toy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Craig Wentworth, Caltrans (FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344) 7 the parcel will be obtained prior to recordation. The conservation easement will be recorded within 3 months of initiation of Project construction; • Within 3 months of recordation of the conservation easement, Carsonite or equivalent signage will be placed along the conservation easement edge every 46 m (150 ft) indicating “Sensitive Ecological Area – Please do not disturb” or similar wording subject to approval of the Service; and, • Upon recordation of a conservation easement, the entire easement will be weeded (alien plants removed with native plants retained) for ecological enhancement, repeating twice annually for 5 years from the date of recordation of the conservation easement. Action Area The implementing regulations for section 7(a)(2) of the Act describe the action area to be all areas affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR § 402.02). The action area is the area of potential direct or indirect effects of the proposed action and any interrelated or interdependent human activities; the direct and indirect effects of these activities include associated general physical, chemical, and/or biological effects of considerable likelihood (Service and NMFS 1998). Indirect effects are those that are caused by the proposed action and are later in time, but are still reasonably certain to occur. Subsequent analyses of potentially-affected species or critical habitat (e.g., species lists), environmental baseline, effects of the action, and the impacts of the incidental taking of the action, are based upon the action area as determined by the Service (Service and NMFS 1998). For the purposes of this conference, we consider the action area to be the area within 200 m (650 ft) of the Project footprint, and the residential area to the east served by the subject bridge (service area). STATUS OF THE SPECIES Legal/Listing Status On July 9, 2009, the Casey’s June beetle was proposed for Federal listing as an endangered species due to threats posed by the development of its habitat, and habitat fragmentation and degradation (74 FR 32857). The proposed listing followed our “warranted but precluded” 12- month finding that was published on July 5, 2007 (72 FR 36635). The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) does not provide protection for insect species, Casey’s June beetle does not have any CESA listing status. Proposed concurrently with the listing in 2009, proposed critical habitat for Casey’s June beetle consists of about 314 ha (777 ac) in the south Palm Springs area of the Coachella Valley (74 FR 32857). The proposed Project action area and direct footprint are within the area that was proposed for designation as critical habitat. Colonel R. Mark Toy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Craig Wentworth, Caltrans (FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344) 8 Species Description Casey’s June beetle was first collected in 1916 in Palm Springs, and later described by Blaisdell based on male specimens (Blaisdell 1930; 74 FR 32857). The genus Dinacoma and approximately 90 other genera constitute the New World members of the subfamily Melolonthinae (i.e., May beetles, June beetles, and chafers) of the scarab beetle family (Scarabaeidae) (Evans 2005). Despite past references to potentially new species or subspecies of Dinacoma (Blaisdell 1930, pp. 173-174; La Rue pers. comm., 2006), Casey’s June beetle, Dinacoma caseyi Blaisdell, and D. marginata (Casey) Casey remain the only described taxonomic entities in the genus (Evans and Smith 2009). Casey’s June beetles are medium-sized June beetles, 1.4 to 1.8 centimeters (cm) (0.55 to 0.71 inches (in)) in length, dusty brown or whitish in color with appearance of brown and whitish longitudinal stripes on the elytra (wing covers). Most of the body has a covering of whitish scales, supplemented on much of the head, thorax, and ventral surfaces with fine, white hairs. Their reddish-brown antennae are clubbed, as is common to scarab beetles. The clubbed ends consist of a series of leaf-like plates that can be held together or fanned out to detect scents. Females display an accentuated sexual dimorphism1 characterized by an enlarged abdomen, reduced legs and antennae, and metathoracic wing reduction (reduction in flight wing size in adults). Casey’s (Palm Springs) June Beetle (Dinacoma caseyi) Distribution The known current distribution of Casey’s June beetle is confined to an area of less than 324 ha (800 ac) in southern Palm Springs, California. Known extant occurrences of Casey's June beetles are restricted to locations within or near the historic Palm Canyon Wash alluvial2 1 Sexual dimorphism relates to the differences in appearance between males and females of the same species, as in color, shape, structure, etc. 2 Alluvial refers or relates to sediments deposited by flowing water, such as in a riverbed. Colonel R. Mark Toy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Craig Wentworth, Caltrans (FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344) 9 floodplain, and an area east and south of Palm Canyon Wash, associated with a tributary alluvial fan3 near East Palm Canyon Drive. Casey's June beetle is part of a family of beetles that have naturally restricted ranges (LaRue pers. comm. 2006). This beetle is adapted to specialized habitat and soil types found in the Palm Canyon Wash area of Palm Springs, California. We do not know the exact historical range of Casey’s June beetle due to general location descriptions from early collection records (see discussions in the 90-day finding; 71 FR 44962). Based on this anecdotal information, we used soils data as the principle component to estimate that 97 percent of the historical range of Casey’s June beetle has been converted to development. Almost all remaining known extant habitat is within the boundaries of proposed critical habitat; areas of habitat also exist outside (along) the edges of the critical habitat boundary. About 45 percent of proposed critical habitat for the species is on the Tribe’s reservation. Of the 314 ha (777 ac) of land proposed for critical habitat (essentially all of this area was known to remain as extant habitat as of 2009), 140 ha (345 ac) are within the Tribal reservation and 175 ha (432 ac) are outside reservation boundaries (Service GIS analysis 2011). The 175 ha (432.25 ac) of proposed critical habitat outside of the Tribe’s reservation consists of about 125 ha (309 ac) of private lands, and about 49 ha (122 ac) owned or controlled by local governments or agencies (e.g., City, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District), Desert Water Agency, road rights of way). Most of the private parcels (or portions thereof within proposed critical habitat) outside the Tribe’s reservation are less than 1 ha (2.4 ac) in size, and the largest single landowner is Smoke Tree Inc. (Service GIS analysis 2011). Habitat Affinities LaRue (pers. comm. 2006) stated that all Dinacoma species populations are ecologically associated with alluvial sediments. Casey's June beetle habitat is typically associated with broad, gently sloping, flood depositional surfaces that form at the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains in the dry Coachella Valley region by the overlapping or converging of individual alluvial fans (bajada) (Bates and Jackson 1987). Casey's June beetle is most commonly associated with the Carsitas gravelly sand soil series (CdC), described as gravelly sand on 0 to 9 percent slopes (NRCS 2000). This soil series is associated with alluvial fans, rather than areas of aeolian or windblown sand deposits. Hovore (2003) described soils where Casey’s June beetle occurs or occurred historically as, “almost entirely carsitas series, of a CdC type, typically gravelly sand, single grain, slightly effervescent, moderately alkaline (pH 8.4), loose, non-sticky, non-plastic, deposited on 0 to 9 percent slopes. On alluvial terraces and where they occur within washes, these soils show light braiding and some organic deposition, but [most years] do not receive scouring surface flows.” Although 3 An alluvial fan is a typically fan-shaped deposit of flood-borne sediments, where a flowing stream flattens, slows, and spreads, typically at the exit of a canyon onto a flatter plain. Colonel R. Mark Toy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Craig Wentworth, Caltrans (FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344) 10 Casey’s June beetles have primarily been found on CdC soils, the beetles are also associated with Riverwash (RA), and possibly Carsitas cobbly sand (ChC), soils in the Palm Canyon Wash area (Anderson and Love 2007). Their burrowing habits would suggest that Casey’s June beetle require substrates that form in a relatively narrow alluvial/fluvial zone of the Coachella Valley floor that are not composed predominately of larger rocks, compacted soils, heavy silts or clays, or soils that otherwise are too difficult to burrow into. Casey's June beetle is typically associated with the natural community type of Sonoran (Coloradan) desert scrub (Sonora mixed woody and succulent scrub) located on the limited area of alluvial fans and bajadas noted above. The Sonoran desert scrub community is characterized as scattered assemblages of broad-leaved microphyll shrubs with an open canopy (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988). This microphyll scrub occurs in areas where soil water availability is somewhat higher than surrounding plains occupied by creosote bush. The open canopy of this community provides space for male beetles to fly in search of females and fulfill normal life- history activities. This scrub community type also provides the micro-habitat space inhabited by Casey’s June beetle. Individual shrubs provide refugia for the underground stage of the beetle's life history; during recent decades these plants protect emergence holes from most anthropogenic disturbance where the community otherwise remains intact. Individual shrubs also provide the subterranean space required for egg-laying and larval development. Most of Casey’s June beetle habitat historically underwent some level of episodic natural disturbance. Palm Canyon Wash experiences a substantial flooding and scouring/deposition event on average of once every 10 years (Cornett 2004), with flows of a magnitude that can excavate sand in some portions of the wash where the species occurs (Wright 2003). These events are likely to extirpate Casey’s June beetle from some locations within the wash (depending on the magnitude of the flood flow); however, these areas are likely subsequently recolonized by beetles from surrounding upland areas or intact local floodplain terrace refugia (when and where they exist). The alluvial fans surrounding Palm Canyon Wash that support habitat are/were also subject to periodic flood disturbance, but on substantially less frequent timescales (i.e., see Parsons and Abrahams 2009). The benefits of such flood events to habitat function for this species are not well understood (i.e., maintaining conditions of soil matrix, organic matter, moisture, and vegetation), but such dynamism of natural flow regimes is likely important to sustaining and conserving native species diversity and ecological integrity in washes, rivers, and many other ecosystems (Holling and Meffe 1996; Hughes 1994; Pickett et al. 1992; Stanford et al. 1996). Casey’s June beetle habitat likely depends upon natural flood flow regimes to maintain functions in the long-term. Much of the wash may serve as a sink4 area for Casey’s June beetle during flood events (Cornett 2004), but wash habitat may also serves as a source5 area when population densities are high during extended periods between larger flood events. If correct, these concepts 4 A sink is an area of very low function habitat that (at particular times or generally) on its own would not be able to support a population. 5 A source is an area of high function habitat that, on average or periodically, allows a population to increase. Colonel R. Mark Toy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Craig Wentworth, Caltrans (FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344) 11 indicate the high importance of both upland (as the continuously occupied refuge for the population) and wash habitats (supporting high densities during typically long inter-flood periods) to the species. It is undetermined if upland habitat areas now isolated from infrequent natural (alluvial fan) flood flows will sustain the species in the long term without artificial management. Please see the proposed listing rule (74 FR 32857) for additional information on habitat affinities. Climate Associations and Predictions The Coachella Valley where Casey’s June beetle lives has a subtropical desert climate. Mean annual rainfall is very low from the desert floor into the foothills, ranging from 10-15 cm (4 to 6 in) per year (MSWD 2008). In some years no measurable rainfall has been reported within the range of the species. Summer daytime temperatures can occasionally exceed 52 degrees Celsius (125 degrees Fahrenheit), and winter temperatures seldom fall below freezing (MSWD 2008). The surrounding mountain slopes generally receive rainfall that increases with elevation. Most of the rainfall occurs during the cooler months of November through March, but occasional high- intensity thunderstorms and tropical storms occur in late summer and early fall. A general consensus exists among researchers that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations over the next century will result in higher temperatures in the Sonoran Desert ecoregion (PRBO 2011). In the Sonoran Desert, regional climate models project mean annual temperature increases of 1.8 to 2.4 degrees Celsius (3 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2070 (PRBO 2011). For the same time period mean diurnal temperature range is projected to increase by 0 to 0.2 degrees Celsius (0 to 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit) based on two regional climate models presented in Stralberg et al. 2009. High temperature events will likely become more common in the future. Given the already high temperatures throughout the Sonoran Desert, this increase in temperature may exceed the thermal tolerance of or impose severe water stress on Casey’s June beetle and other species associated with the ecosystem that the Casey’s June beetle depends upon, as has been demonstrated in other arid systems for birds and lizards (i.e., McKechnie and Wolf 2010; Sinervo et al. 2010). In the Sonoran Desert, regional climate models project a change in mean annual rainfall that ranges from an increase of 3 millimeters (mm) (0.1 in) to a decrease of 55 mm (2.2 in) by 2070, a range of plus 3 percent to minus 45 percent (PRBO 2011). By most models, the streams in the region are predicted to have less surface water flow overall, with a general increase in winter flows and system “flashiness” (increased frequency of intense precipitation/flow events and flash floods) and a decrease in non-winter flows (i.e., PRBO 2011; Maurer and Duffy 2005; IPCC 2007), which will likely reduce Casey’s June beetle habitat function. This prediction is largely due to increased frequency of scour events in the wash, particularly when combined with the effects of the channelization that has already occurred in the wash (described below in Current Threats). While the current projections suggest that changes in precipitation and flood flows in the area may be relatively modest, even relatively small changes may have substantial ecological consequences given the extreme aridity of this region. Colonel R. Mark Toy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Craig Wentworth, Caltrans (FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344) 12 Proposed Critical Habitat Primary Constituent Elements Pursuant to section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and the proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the species (74 FR 32857), the following Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs within the boundaries of proposed critical habitat are considered essential to the conservation of the Casey’s June beetle and may require special management considerations or protection: 1. Soils (regardless of disturbance status) of the Carsitas (CdC) gravelly sand soil series, soils of Riverwash (RA) and Carsitas cobbly sand (ChC) series adjacent and contiguous with CdC soil, and small inclusions of Myoma (MaB) and Coachella (CpA) fine sands adjacent to CdC soil, at or below 195 m (640 ft) in elevation associated with washes and alluvial fans deposited on 0 to 9 percent slopes providing space for population growth and reproduction, moisture, and food sources. 2. Predominantly native desert vegetation to provide shelter from traffic-related mortality and food for the species (Hawks pers. comm. 2009). Within the proposed rule for designation of critical habitat, we defined the physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species through the identification of the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement of the PCEs necessary to support the life- history functions of the species. Because not all life-history functions require all the PCEs, areas within the critical habitat unit likely exist that do not (or will not in the future) contain all of the PCEs, yet are proposed critical habitat. Lands within the proposed critical habitat boundary that have the ground surface covered by buildings, pavement, and other structures (because such lands lack essential features for Casey’s June beetle), are excluded from proposed critical habitat by the text in the proposed rule. Please see the proposed listing rule for additional information on proposed critical habitat Primary Constituent Elements. Life History Casey’s June beetle adults emerge from underground burrows to mate in late March through June, with above-ground abundance peaks generally occurring in April and May (Duff 1990). Females are more rarely seen than males, have always been reported on the ground and are considered flightless (Duff 1990; Hovore 1995, 2003). It is unknown how far females can disperse, or if they may disperse by other means than terrestrial crawling. Flightless adult female June beetles are not likely to be dispersed by the wind or other animals. It is likely adult or larval females are occasionally moved downstream by stream flows in wash areas, although it is unclear what their survival rate is under such circumstances. During the active flight season, males emerge from the ground and usually begin flying about an hour before dusk (Hovore 2003). The males fly swiftly over the ground until shortly after dark, sometimes in an apparent pattern, searching for females. Males are reported to crawl on the ground near where a female beetle has been detected (Duff 1990). Colonel R. Mark Toy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Craig Wentworth, Caltrans (FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344) 13 Females emerge from the ground near dusk and either remain at the end of their burrows or crawl over the ground. As dusk progresses, females turn downward in the burrow entrance and extend the tip of their abdomen slightly above the burrow opening, presumably exuding a pheromone that the males use to find them. After mating, the female retreats down her emergence hole or digs a new burrow, and deposits eggs within damp sand at varying depths, commonly 5 to 20 cm (2 to 8 in) or more below the dry sand/wet sand interface. The damp sand at depth provides consistent temperatures and humidity that prevents desiccation of eggs and larvae. Excavations of adult emergence burrows revealed pupal exuviae (casings) at depths ranging from approximately 10 to 16 cm (4 to 6 in) below ground (Hovore 1995). The larval cycle for the species is likely completed in 1 year, based on the absence of larvae (grubs) in burrows observed during the adult flight season (La Rue pers. comm. 2004). The food source for Casey’s June beetle larvae while underground is unknown, but other species of June beetles are known to eat “plant roots or plant detritus and associated decaying organisms” (Hovore 2003). Vegetation, soil, moisture, and climate contribute to the nutritional and physiological requirements of Casey’s June beetle. Observations of adult Casey’s June beetle feeding underground have not yet occurred; however, the accumulation of leaves around desert shrubs contributes to surface litter and subsurface detritus. Additionally, annual plants and grasses co- occur with these shrubs and also contribute to surface litter and likely provide an additional food source as radiculum (plant rootlets) (LaRue pers. comm. 2004). Recent flood flow sediment depositions typically also contain buried organic detritus. Although Casey’s June beetle distribution is not likely correlated with the distribution of a specific plant host, proximity of observed emergence holes to native desert vegetation indicate some of these plants may be important as a direct or indirect food source (Wright 2004). Please see the proposed listing rule (74 FR 32857) for more information on life history. Population Trends We consider all known occurrences of Casey’s June beetle to constitute a single population based on currently available data. Casey's June beetle population status is currently represented by a small population that has exhibited a significant decline in its available habitat and a substantially reduced distribution. No empirical information is available to determine the finite rate of population change for Casey’s June beetle, outside of the closely related rate of loss of available habitat over the last several decades. Population size has very likely been declining, concomitant with the loss of habitat to development (see Current Threats below). Hovore (2003) indicated natural population movement is likely “slow and indirect,” and suggested the population structure for Casey’s June beetle in any given area could be described as multiple mini-colonies or “clusters of individuals around areas of repeated female emergence.” Females located in habitat edge patches may be most at-risk due to their placement in the landscape. Such a pattern would, in Hovore’s (2003) assessment, make the species Colonel R. Mark Toy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Craig Wentworth, Caltrans (FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344) 14 “susceptible to extirpation resulting from land use changes that would remove or alter surface features” and isolate colonies into non-contiguous patches. Although the current level of fragmentation of habitat within the population still allows mixing of genes by male flight (where patches are effectively close enough to each other), it would likely preclude recolonization of a site should all flightless female individuals be eliminated (Driscoll and Wier 2005). Current Threats The most common threat facing imperiled species in the U.S. are habitat degradation/loss and the concomitant loss of carrying capacity needed to support the species in the long term (Wilcove et al. 1998). Casey’s June beetle falls into this same category; the main threats to the species are habitat destruction, degradation, and fragmentation due to urban and recreational development and flood damage reduction activities. Other likely threats include ground/vegetation disturbance, the attraction effect of artificial lighting, hydrology changes within habitat areas, and small/declining population size. Most of the remaining lands depended upon by Casey’s June beetle are at risk of development or development-related disturbance. An estimated 97 percent of the historical range of Casey’s June beetle has been converted to development (74 FR 32857). Palm Springs is predicted to grow by 25 percent between 2000 and 2020 (SCAG 2004). Growth in Palm Springs places substantial development pressure on vacant properties that support Casey’s June beetle habitat (74 FR 32857). Almost all Casey’s June beetle habitat within upland areas is considered desirable for development, as it is on the floor of the Coachella Valley, relatively flat, and adjacent to already developed areas. Approximately 405 ha (1,001 ac) of habitat for the species was likely extant in 1991 (Hovore 2003). Our analysis shows that Casey’s June beetle has experienced an approximately 22 percent reduction in habitat from that available in 1991 to the 314 ha (777 ac) present in 2008. Extant habitat estimations include wash habitat where Casey’s June beetle may not be able to maintain occupancy during a period following relatively severe flood events (Cornett 2004, Hovore 2003). Of the total 314 ha (777 ac) estimated remaining habitat, about 212 ha (523 ac) is upland habitat out of Palm Canyon Wash. Land use projections (Riverside County 2005) indicate that almost all of the 212 ha (523 ac) of remaining upland Casey’s June beetle habitat (where the species would not be exposed to scouring floods in larger flood events) could be eliminated by development. Development threats are not limited to upland terrace habitat. For example, entire sections of Palm Canyon Wash east of occupied habitat near Gene Autry Trail have been converted to golf course landscaping (Anderson and Love 2007). Past development on Palm Canyon Wash terraces, channelization of the wash to reduce flood damage and provide sites for development, and construction and protection of associated flood-control levees have all likely caused and likely will continue to cause an increase in Casey’s June beetle mortality during flood events. Colonel R. Mark Toy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Craig Wentworth, Caltrans (FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344) 15 Urban development of former channels and floodplains along washes (with concomitant fill and levee construction) concentrates stream flow in the remaining wash by constraining channel width and removing floodplain area, thereby increasing the speed and depth of water flowing past a channel location in any given flood event (i.e., see Mount 1995, Poff et al. 1997). Adjacent development also includes significant hard structures (rooftops, driveways, etc.), which cause a greater proportion of rain to run off upland developed sites into the wash during flood events, rather than percolate into the ground. Therefore, scouring events occur more frequently than would have occurred prior to the development/channelization that has occurred along/within Palm Canyon Wash. Scouring events likely temporarily eliminate Casey’s June beetles within portions of Palm Canyon Wash (Hovore 2003). After scouring events, the wash normally would be expected to be repopulated over time by females from neighboring occupied habitat outside the wash (for example, Smoke Tree Ranch) or from remaining refugia (i.e., floodplain terraces) within the wash. However, if scouring flood events continue to increase in frequency (with further channelization of the wash) and/or additional refugia are lost, a point likely exists when the ability of, and time needed for, females to emigrate from surrounding occupied habitat or higher- elevation refugia into the wash will be longer than the scouring frequency. We do not know how far or how fast females can emigrate from upland or terrace refugia; however, we expect that travel across land would be relatively slow and occur over short distances. If this point is reached, Casey’s June beetles may become extirpated from all or portions of Palm Canyon Wash (74 FR 32857). Flood damage reduction activities in 2010 by District disturbed roughly 12 ha (30 ac) of suitable habitat (proposed critical habitat) in the wash. This activity largely involved removing sediments (that had been deposited by past flood flows) from much of the channel bottom along more than 2.4 kilometers (1.5 miles) of the wash length; this work occurred in the area from upstream of the Araby Drive crossing of the wash to the area downstream of the South Gene Autry Trail bridge. Much of this area was likely occupied by the species at relatively high densities based on past survey results and observed habitat conditions. Some or most of this area will probably become reoccupied by females moving into the area (from adjacent occupied habitat remnants), if it remains undisturbed for an extended period of years allowing wash vegetation the opportunity to become reestablished. In addition to the threat of direct conversion of remaining habitat, repeated field visits by Service staff to Palm Canyon Wash indicate numerous land-disturbance activities affecting occupied wash areas, including road maintenance (Araby Drive), flood damage reduction activities (as noted above), and OHV disturbance (Jon Avery, Fish and Wildlife biologist, pers. observ. 2005- 2010, Service analysis of aerial photos 2008 to 2011). OHV disturbance is evident off of Araby Drive, and both upstream and downstream of the Bogert Trail bridge over the wash, with multiple (open) vehicle access points to the wash upstream and downstream of the bridge. Off- road vehicles impact desert soils and associated biota by increasing erosion (Snyder et al. 1976, Rowlands 1980), crushing plants, reducing both plant and vertebrate diversity (Bury et al. 1977, Colonel R. Mark Toy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Craig Wentworth, Caltrans (FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344) 16 Rowlands 1980, Lathrop 1983, Cornett 2004), and changing soil density through compaction and disruption, which may also influence soil water retention capacity (Lathrop and Rowlands 1983, Webb 1983, Adams et al. 1982). Indirect evidence suggests that such land disturbance can impact Casey’s June beetle’s burrows, as well as larvae that occur in the soil and flightless females when they rest at the top of the burrows (Cornett 2004). Adult male Casey’s June beetles are readily attracted to artificial outdoor lights, which may interfere with survival and mating (Wright 2004; CVAG 2007; 74 FR 32857). Insect surveys using light traps have recorded male Casey’s June beetles traveling up to 100 m (328 ft) to artificial light sources during surveys (ibid.). As males fly in search of female pheromone plumes, they may become distracted by light sources that attract them to sites that are out of suitable habitat for this species where they are preyed upon or to local swimming pools where they often drown. If large numbers of male Casey’s June beetles are lost to these indirect effects of development, there could be reduced genetic diversity in males available for mating. Casey's June beetle habitat in Palm Springs has been increasingly fragmented by development in recent years, which compromises the ability of many species to disperse and establish new, or augment declining, populations/occurrences (Collinge 2000, Freemark et al. 2002, Driscoll and Weir 2005) and can isolate segments of a population (Picket and White 1986). Casey’s June beetle is especially affected by habitat fragmentation because females are flightless and very likely unable to move between fragmented patches (Hovore 1995). Degradation of habitat can also affect future connectivity of, disjunct or disconnected areas that now support Casey’s June beetle. If these peripheral and disjunct areas of occupied habitat are functionally (genetically) cut off from other areas of the Casey’s June beetle population, these areas become more vulnerable to extirpation/extinction due to demographic, genetic, and environmental stochastic events and natural catastrophes. Genetic stochastic events can further negatively influence population demography via inbreeding depression and genetic drift. The single remaining known population of the species may already have been reduced to the point where it is not naturally sustainable and will require substantial artificial management of remaining occupied habitat and restoration/increases in available habitat to maintain mid-term survival, and population augmentation to prevent extinction (74 FR 32857). Please see the proposed listing rule for more information on threats. Existing Conservation Little habitat for Casey’s June beetle is legally or otherwise protected from development or related impacts. An approximately 65 to 77-ha (160 to 190-ac) portion of Smoke Tree Ranch is legally protected from development by a conservation easement(s) in perpetuity (CNLM 2010, Service GIS analysis 2011).6 Roughly 38 to 40 ha (95 to 100 ac) of this easement area are suitable habitat for the species, with the balance largely made up of natural upland slope/hillside 6 The wide range of acreages provided herein reflects discrepancies between mapped and reported boundaries for the easement. Colonel R. Mark Toy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Craig Wentworth, Caltrans (FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344) 17 and a smaller area consisting of concrete levee, residences, and roads (Service GIS analysis 2011). This conservation easement is granted to the Center for Natural Lands Management, which monitors the easement area. It is undetermined if underlying access easements or rights- of-way (e.g., for the District along Palm Canyon Wash, utilities) exist in the conservation easement area. We are unaware of any other habitat areas for the species that are protected anywhere across the potential range of the species, or any other appreciable current conservation measures for the species. Anticipated Future Conservation We are unaware of any commitments for future additional conservation of the species. If the species is listed, it is expected that future consultations and local discretionary approvals would result in conservation measures being implemented for the species. It is possible that the CVMSHCP may be amended by its permittees to include conservation measures for the species. Conservation Needs A recovery outline or plan for the Casey’s June beetle has not been developed. However, Casey’s June beetle needs an effective means of protection and conservation of sufficient habitat to maintain a self-sustaining population of the species in the long-term. The most immediate conservation needs for the species likely will include: 1) avoidance/minimization of future habitat losses, both temporary and permanent; 2) long-term and on-the-ground (e.g., fencing, enforcement) protection of the remaining habitat fragments; 3) minimization of habitat degradation; 4) minimization of habitat fragmentation; 5) maintenance of habitat function rangewide; 6) enhancement of the carrying capacity of remaining habitat fragments. The mid-term conservation needs for Casey’s June beetle likely will include: 1) effective combined planning for species conservation and flood damage reduction needs along Palm Canyon Wash; 2) survey of all remaining potential habitat within the historic range of the species for potential occupancy; 3) comprehensive conservation planning across the range of the species; 4) enhancement of extant habitat; 5) restoration of habitat in suitable areas; 6) protection of ecosystem processes that maintain habitat (e.g., soil hydrology, flood/fluvial dynamics); and 7) minimization of nighttime lighting and swimming pool related impacts. Synopsis of Status The Casey’s June beetle is endemic to the Palm Springs area of the Coachella Valley. Most of the historic habitat for the species has been lost due to development. Once-contiguous habitat areas across portions of the Valley floor near Palm Springs have largely been lost, with the remaining habitat having been fragmented into an artificial patchwork of small habitat areas within a mostly developed landscape. The distribution of the species is now restricted to an Colonel R. Mark Toy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Craig Wentworth, Caltrans (FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344) 18 artificially much-reduced range and amount of suitable habitat. The species’ status has continued to decline over the last couple decades, commensurate with losses of habitat and interruptions of ecosystem processes, and the threats facing the species have increased in magnitude. While likely never large, the remaining population of the Casey’s June beetle likely now has an artificially small effective population size. The past and continued loss of habitat through conversion to other uses and disturbance by human activities increases the need for protection, management, and enhancement efforts. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE The regulations implementing the Act (50 CFR § 402.02) define the environmental baseline as the past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private actions and other human activities in the action area. Also included in the environmental baseline are the anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already undergone section 7 consultation, and the impacts of State or private actions which are contemporaneous with the conference/consultation in progress. Action Area and Project Site Action Area and Surrounding Land Uses The action area is located on the western side of the Coachella Valley of Riverside County, within Palm Springs. Part of the Sonoran Desert, the Coachella Valley region is an extensive outwash alluvial plain, ringed by hills and steep mountains. Topographic relief in the area surrounding the action area ranges from the gently sloping desert floor which makes up the majority of the Coachella Valley, to steep mountain slopes to the east and west on either side of Palm Canyon Wash. The action area is surrounded by the San Jacinto Mountains to the west, the Santa Rosa Mountains to the southeast, and largely developed desert valley to north. Natural communities found in the action area include: Sonoran desert scrub (Sonoran mixed and succulent scrub) and Sonoran creosote bush scrub located on/along the Palm Canyon wash. The remainder of the action area is essentially suburban or ruderal. Based on the Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey, Carsitas Gravelly Sand (CdC) and Riverwash (RA) soil types occur within the action area (NRCS 2010). The action area portion of Palm Canyon Wash is located in Palm Springs. The wash extends from Andreas and Murray Canyons to the south, which drain the east slope of Mount San Jacinto into Palm Canyon, downstream to the Whitewater River (which ultimately flows into the Salton Sea) in the north. The wash is typical of desert washes in that it is an ephemeral stream (typically dry on the surface most of the year) with a steep grade and subject to flash floods. The action area portion of the wash is downstream of Andreas Canyon and upstream of Smoke Tree Ranch, on both sides of and including Bogert Trail. The action area also includes the area served by the subject bridge. Colonel R. Mark Toy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Craig Wentworth, Caltrans (FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344) 19 The Bogert Trail bridge was built in 1982, and beginning in 1983, development substantially altered Palm Canyon Wash upstream of Bogert Trail (Schulte et al. 1999). The east bank of the channel of the wash was filled and lined with concrete to protect nearby housing and development lots (Schulte et al. 1999). The natural grade of the channel was lowered 1.2 to 1.5 m (4 to 5 ft) and its width constricted to 84 m (275 ft) (Schulte et al. 1999). Soon afterwards, the channel was observed to be down-cutting and threatening the integrity of the stream and structures in the area (Schulte et al. 1999). Surveys revealed that the channel bottom was 1.2 to 1.8 m (4 to 6 ft) lower than elevations on approved construction plans for the area (Schulte et al. 1999). Anecdotal information apparently indicated that the channel might have been used as an impromptu sand mine during development of the area (Schulte et al. 1999). The District installed a stabilizing drop structure (energy dissipater) at the upstream limit of the housing development 1.2 km (0.8 mi) upstream of the bridge in an attempt to correct the problem in 1991 (Schulte et al. 1999). In January of 1993, a storm flow washed away most of the rip-rap protecting the toe of the stabilizing drop structure (Schulte et al. 1999). The District repaired the toe protection soon afterwards (Schulte et al. 1999). A consulting firm to the District determined that scour and stability problems on the wash were threatening the structural integrity of the drop structure upstream of the Bogert Trail bridge (Schulte et al. 1999). An incised channel had developed below the drop structure within the constructed watercourse of the wash, extending downstream of the bridge, and threatening the bridge as well (Schulte et al. 1999). It was concluded that the stream was seeking a new equilibrium, resulting in an incised channel within the wash (Schulte et al. 1999). Installation of a second drop structure downstream of the Bogert Trail bridge was proposed (Shulte et al. 1999). Between 1996 and 2002, a second drop structure was constructed across about the middle half of the wash channel, approximately 60 m (200 ft) downstream of the Bogert Trail bridge. Subsequently this drop structure was expanded to the full channel width (Service analysis of aerial photos, 2011). The action area is interdigitated with artificial features, including houses and other structures, paved and dirt roads, fencing, and a channelized wash. Between 1982 and present day, much of the area surrounding the Bogert Trail bridge has been developed with housing. For example, the Monte Sereno project, just northwest of the bridge and adjacent/west of Palm Canyon Wash, eliminated approximately 16 ha (39 ac) of occupied habitat (74 FR 32857) in the 2004/2005 time frame. This project also continued the channelization and narrowing of Palm Canyon Wash, with construction and rip-rap slope protection of a levee on the west side of the wash between 90 and 500 m (300 and 1650 ft) downstream of the bridge (Service analysis of aerial photos 2011). At the Bogert Trail bridge crossing, the wash currently has rip-rap slope protected levees on both sides of the channel. This artificial levee and slope protection extends for approximately 200 m (650 ft) upstream and 500 m (1,650 ft) downstream on the west side of the channel and approximately 1.2 km (0.8 mi) upstream and 90 m (300 ft) downstream of the bridge on east side of the channel. Below the slope protection downstream, the east side of the channel is natural for Colonel R. Mark Toy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Craig Wentworth, Caltrans (FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344) 20 the next 3 km (1.9 mi); this side of this portion of the wash is largely against a relatively steep natural slope. Evidence of OHV use and concentrated equestrian trails is apparent in the soft bottom of the wash in the action area; an open vehicle access road down to the wash from Bogert Trail, controlled by the District, exists at the bridge. (Jon Avery, Fish and Wildlife biologist, pers. observ. 2005-2010, Service analysis of aerial photos 2011). Surrounding the Project site are large single family homes with relatively complete irrigated exotic landscaping to the east and west, intermixed with several undeveloped graded lots, and a somewhat natural wash bottom upstream and downstream. Areas potentially occupied by Casey’s June beetle occur within, upstream, and downstream of the Project site in the wash, in adjacent remaining undeveloped floodplain terrace areas, in vacant lots to the west and northwest, and in remaining flat open areas to the southwest of the site. The action area occurs on fee title lands within the Tribal reservation. The closest Federal lands, managed by BLM, occur about 350 m (1,150 ft) east of the subject bridge and about 100 m (330 ft) east of the City- owned proposed conservation easement parcel. Project Site The Project site is in the western Coachella Valley in Riverside County in the southern portion of the Palm Springs. More specifically, the proposed Project site is located at the southwestern end of the Palm Springs suburban core, at the edge of the Coachella Valley floor alluvial plain against the toe of the foothills. It is located within Section 35 of Township 4 South, Range 4 East on the Palm Springs 7.5 minute U.S. Geological Survey quadrangle. It is located within and on either side of Palm Canyon Wash at the Bogert Trail bridge crossing, between Borona Road and Via Monte Sereno. Natural communities found in the Project site include: Sonoran desert scrub (also characterized as native desert willow and desert dry wash woodland and Sonoran mixed woody and succulent scrub) located on the Palm Canyon Wash. Outside of the wash, the Project site is fully developed with hard structures, compacted dirt roads, rip-rap, and exotic landscaping except for a small area of ruderal vegetation near the western abutment of the bridge. The Project site and the City-owned conservation parcel are outside of the CVMSHCP plan area; both occur on fee title lands within the Tribal reservation. The Project site is surrounded by fee title lands within the reservation; the nearest non-fee title lands are some allotted lands that occur about 175 m (575 ft) upstream (south) in/along Palm Canyon Wash. The Project site is approximately 0.83 ha (2.05 ac) in total size (see Figure 5 and Table 1). About 0.45 ha (1.11 ac) of the Project footprint are within boundaries of proposed critical habitat, and about 0.38 (0.93 ac) are outside these boundaries. Approximately 0.38 ha (0.93 ac) of the Project footprint are within actual proposed critical habitat; about 0.07 ha (0.18 ac) of the Project footprint that is within the boundary of proposed critical habitat is excluded from proposed critical habitat (by the text of the proposed rule), as the ground surface of this area is Colonel R. Mark Toy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Craig Wentworth, Caltrans (FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344) 21 covered by hard structures (the existing bridge piers). Approximately 0.38 ha (0.95 ac) of the Project footprint are suitable Casey’s June beetle habitat; a small area, about 0.006 ha (0.016 ac) of the Casey’s June beetle habitat in the Project footprint is not within the proposed critical habitat boundary. Within the footprint area of the wash, the existing bridge deck partially shades about 0.08 ha (0.2 ac) of extant soft bottom of the wash. Table 1 -- Project Direct Footprint7 Existing Features and Structures Temporary Effects (clearing, staging, etc.) Permanent Effects (bridge piers, riprap, etc.) Total Suitable Habitat 0.0 ha (0.0 ac) 0.29 ha (0.72 ac) 0.09 ha (0.23 ac) 0.38 ha (0.95 ac) Proposed Critical Habitat (actual) 0.0 ha (0.0 ac) 0.29 ha (0.71 ac) 0.09 ha (0.22 ac) 0.38 ha (0.93 ac) Within Proposed Critical Habitat Boundary 0.07 ha (0.18 ac) 0.29 ha (0.71 ac) 0.09 ha (0.22 ac) 0.45 ha (1.11 ac) Project Footprint 0.45 ha (1.10 ac) 0.29 ha (0.72 ac) 0.09 ha (0.23 ac) 0.83 ha (2.05 ac) Status of the Species within the Action Area The Casey’s June beetle occurs in the Project site and surrounding action area. The action area includes a portion near the upstream end of the remaining core of extant habitat for the species. Within the action area, the main zone of remaining suitable habitat for the Casey’s June beetle occurs within and along the Palm Canyon Wash. Most of the wash that is not covered with hard structures (e.g., drop structures, piers, slope protection), consistently disturbed by equestrian uses or OHVs, or very recently disturbed by substantial flood flows, likely is occupied by the species. Casey’s June beetle surveys were conducted during the April 2010 flight season in the Project area by David Hawks and Guy Bruyea. Surveys consisted of light-trapping and focused visual searches for male and female specimens during appropriate periods and conditions. Casey’s June beetles were observed at the Project site during the focused surveys (Hawks pers. comm. 2011). EFFECTS OF THE ACTION The regulations implementing the Act (50 CFR § 402.02) define effects of the action as the direct and indirect effects of an action on the species or critical habitat, together with the effects 7 Due to rounding of the values, the small area differences between suitable habitat and actual proposed critical habitat are not apparent from the hectare figures, but these are apparent among the acreage figures. Also, the acreage figures do not all total exactly. Colonel R. Mark Toy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Craig Wentworth, Caltrans (FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344) 22 of other activities that are interrelated or interdependent with that action, that will be added to the environmental baseline. Indirect effects are those that are caused by the proposed action and are later in time, but still are reasonably certain to occur. Interrelated actions are those that are part of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification. Interdependent actions are those that have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration. Direct Effects As noted in the Project Description, the proposed Project will have a direct disturbance footprint of approximately 0.83 ha (2.05 ac). A breakdown of this disturbance is provided in Table 1. Direct disturbance of Casey’s June beetle from the Project is anticipated only within the proposed construction footprint within Palm Canyon Wash. Primary direct effects would result from construction disturbances such as clearing, staging, cut/fill disturbance, excavations, bridge pier construction, and placement of rock slope protection. Direct Injury, Mortality, or Loss Proposed construction of structures on the Project site will likely crush/or kill Casey’s June beetles within the Palm Canyon Wash portion of the footprint, particularly from vehicle operation, clearing/ grubbing, excavations, and other equipment activities performed within the bottom of the wash. Based on surveys, this portion of the Project site is occupied by Casey’s June beetle, including burrowed individuals within the site soils. Road use by vehicles associated with operation of the Project could result in the crushing and killing of some Casey’s June beetles during the useful life of the bridge. However, because roads and adjacent shoulder areas on and near the bridge are expected to remain unsuitable habitat for Casey’s June beetle, and because the road and bridge area will not be subject to nighttime lighting, any chance of death or injury to Casey’s June beetle by vehicles after the bridge is completed is expected to be extremely low and uncertain. Direct Disturbance of Habitat/Natural Communities Within the Project footprint, about 0.45 ha (1.10 ac) is existing ground-level hardscape, structures, or exotic landscaping/compacted ruderal areas which do not likely support Casey’s June beetle habitat or natural communities. About 0.38 ha (0.95 ac) of the footprint consists of soft-bottom within Palm Canyon Wash. The area of the wash within the Project footprint consists of Sonoran desert scrub (Sonoran mixed woody and succulent scrub) and is mapped as Riverwash soils. This area of the wash is reportedly dominated by cheesebush (Hymenoclea salsola), sweetbush (Bebbia juncea), desert willow (Chilopsis linearis), and catclaw acacia (Acacia greggii), species known to have associations with Casey’s June beetle. All occupied habitat for Casey’s June beetle within the Project footprint is likely limited to the area within the soft-bottom of the wash. All of this wash area is suitable habitat for Casey’s June Colonel R. Mark Toy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Craig Wentworth, Caltrans (FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344) 23 beetle, likely including most of the area under the existing bridge that is subject to shading. All potential Casey’s June beetle habitat within the Project site footprint, totaling 0.38 ha (0.95 ac), would be temporarily disturbed or permanently lost due to the proposed Project activities. Areas subject to temporary impacts are estimated to require approximately a decade to regain lost ecological functions. To reduce and offset the likely impacts to the Casey’s June beetle and its ecosystem from the Project, the Applicant’s proposed Conservation Measures (see Project Description above) include the protection and enhancement of some existing Casey’s June beetle habitat near the subject bridge, and best management practices for Project construction activities. This conservation includes preservation and legal protection with a conservation easement in perpetuity, of a 1.74-ha (4.29-ac) portion of a City-owned parcel about 400 m (1,300 ft) downstream of the Bogert Trail Bridge (or an equivalent parcel). This parcel is almost completely within the Palm Canyon Wash, and all of the 1.74-ha portion to be protected with a conservation easement is likely (except during periods following infrequent large flood events) occupied habitat for species. The 1.74-ha area to be protected with a conservation easement is the portion of the parcel that is wholly within the soft-bottom of Palm Canyon Wash and that is more than 90 m (300 ft) from the artificial levee on the west side of the wash. None of this conservation easement consists of the upland slope along the eastern edge of the parcel (an area not expected to be occupied by the species). The Applicant also proposes as part of the Project to enhance the conservation easement area by removing alien plants twice a year for 5 years and providing protective signage. The Applicant would salvage the taller native woody shrubs now in the Project site and plant them within the wash, adjacent to the Project footprint. In addition, the portion of the wash that would be subject to Project temporary construction impacts would actively be restored per a restoration plan to be developed by the Applicant, including planting of native species known to be associated with the beetle and weeding of the site for 5 years following construction. This temporary impact/ restoration area would be decompacted, recontoured to original grade, and provided basic revegetation. The potential direct impacts to Casey’s June beetle from the Project are considered to be offset by the total conservation measures as described in the Project Description. Direct Impacts to Casey’s June Beetle Proposed Critical Habitat About 0.45 ha (1.11 ac) of the Project footprint occurs within proposed critical habitat. Of this, about 0.07 ha (0.18 ac) is ground surface that is currently covered with hard structures (existing bridge piers). These areas are excluded from proposed critical habitat by text in the proposed rule (74 FR 32857). As such, about 0.38 ha (0.93 ac) of proposed critical habitat would be directly affected by the Project. Proposed Casey’s June beetle Critical Habitat, Primary Constituent Elements 1 and 2 occur within the Project site. The proposed critical habitat within the Project footprint would be adversely affected, particularly through soil excavation, soil compaction/decompaction, Colonel R. Mark Toy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Craig Wentworth, Caltrans (FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344) 24 permanent placement of hard impervious materials, soil drying, and native vegetation removal/degradation associated with construction. Proposed critical habitat primary constituent elements of both (1) riverwash soils (providing space for population growth and reproduction, moisture, and food sources) and (2) Sonoran desert scrub/desert wash vegetation are in the Project site and would be affected by the proposed construction activities (e.g., excavation) and new structures (piers and rip-rap) in the wash. These direct impacts to proposed critical habitat would be limited to the described Project footprint in the wash, which is 0.1 percent of the total critical habitat proposed. Some impacts in proposed critical habitat would be permanent: new hardscape or structures would be limited to about 0.09 ha (0.23 ac). As noted above, the Applicant has included conservation measures and best management practices in the Project Description, including restoration (within critical habitat on the Project site), plant salvage, enhancement, and legal protection of a parcel (also within proposed critical habitat), that together with the small size of the impact will maintain the ecological function of proposed critical habitat for Casey’s June beetle. Indirect Effects The proposed Project would have indirect effects, including effects that would extend past the Project footprint. Indirect effects are those that are caused by the proposed action and are later in time, but are reasonably certain to occur. Noise, ground vibration, and dust are expected to escape the Project site direct footprint during construction activities. Some changes in fluvial dynamics within the wash would likely occur inside and outside of the Project site following Project completion, during future flood events. Changes to the Project service area caused by the Project are not expected to be appreciable. The proposed Project could cause the introduction of invasive plant species to the action area, but the Applicant has provided a program in the Project description that any imported rock or soil would be free of invasive plant propagules and that weeding would be performed at the site following construction. Shading of a portion of Palm Canyon Wash would be increased with an increase in deck area of the bridge; any effects of shading would occur within the project footprint, but would occur in the future following construction. No nighttime lighting would occur associated with the Project, either from construction or operation (e.g., bridge/road lighting) activities/features; thus no associated impacts would be expected. While it is unknown if Casey’s June beetle are affected by noise, we assumed herein that noise impacts on Casey’s June beetle associated with construction activities would not be significant. Habitat within the action area (within the wash predominately) would likely be affected temporarily by impacts from dust on the ground surface (particularly if the dust remains during the breeding season). Some fugitive dust would likely escape ground-disturbing construction Colonel R. Mark Toy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Craig Wentworth, Caltrans (FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344) 25 activities, such as excavations and grading. A heavy dust layer in a habitat area may disrupt breeding activities (such as female emergence and pheromone release, and male ground search behaviors). However, the extent of activities proposed is relatively small and the typically required construction dust control measures will be implemented. Additionally, the short period of the breeding season has low potential to overlap with the temporary period of Project-caused dust on the ground surface. Thus, no death or injury of Casey’s June beetle is anticipated from any effect of dust. The Project would require the driving of 66 bridge piles8 over a period of approximately 4 weeks. The vibration of the soil from pile driving could cause significant soil settlement (Massarsch 2000). Strong vibrations (for example, uncorrected vibration velocity of approximately 9 mm per second [0.4 in per second) in sand], ground distortion, and soil settlement from pile driving (Massarsch 2000) could collapse burrows utilized by Casey’s June beetle individuals in occupied areas adjacent to (or any remaining within) the Project site. Pile driving may also disturb Casey’s June beetle individuals; the dominant frequency of propagating waves from pile driving (considering the range of pile driving equipment types commonly used) ranges mostly between 3 Hz and 60 Hz (Svinkin 2001). It is unknown if Casey’s June beetle (or burrow structures) are particularly sensitive to vibrations in this frequency range. The occupied area affected by these impacts is estimated to be relatively small (and temporary) considering: a) the attenuation of Project-caused vibrations expected over horizontal distance; b) the limited (or lack of) areas of the project footprint expected to be remain occupied during pile driving following proposed construction activities that would likely occur in advance; c) the distance to occupied portions of the action area outside the Project activity footprint; and d) the close proximity of human residences to the proposed pile driving and the expected utilization of pile driving techniques with limited vibration magnitudes to reduce property damage and human disturbances in these residences as part of the BMPs. Thus, any effects of these temporary vibrations on the Casey’s June beetle remain uncertain. As proposed, the bridge deck of the Bogert Trail bridge would be widened from an existing 10 m (33 ft) to 16 m (52 ft). This additional 6 m (19 ft) of deck width would shade (calculated vertically) approximately 0.06 ha (0.14 ac) of Casey’s June beetle habitat (additional to the shading from the existing bridge deck) in the wash. The Casey’s June beetle habitat in this same area of shading impacts is likely to have almost all of its habitat functions temporarily removed by proposed construction activities. Vegetation cover and type, effective rainfall, and thermal/solar radiation changes in the future are expected in the shaded areas under and next to the bridge; this is expected to affect the potential for restoration of Casey’s June beetle habitat in this area in the years after construction is completed. Although it is expected that much of this area under the completed bridge would be restored and become re-occupied by the species following construction completion, the partial degradation of Casey’s June beetle habitat from shading under and to the sides of the new portion of bridge deck is expected to be approximately 8 A pile is a long column driven deep into the ground to form part of a foundation or substructure of the bridge. Pile driving is usually composed of a tall framework in which either a weight is raised and dropped on a pile head or a large hammer drives the pile. Colonel R. Mark Toy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Craig Wentworth, Caltrans (FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344) 26 0.06 ha (0.14 ac). This area of shading degradation is fully within the Project construction activity direct footprint. Although the existing Bogert Trail across and near the bridge would be widened as part of the proposed Project, no appreciable expansion of human use of the bridge structure and road is expected. The subject bridge is the sole vehicle ingress/egress route into a developed residential area less than one square kilometer (0.4 square mile) in size. The bridge would continue to accommodate a maximum of a single vehicle travel lane in each direction, with a wider bridge deck supporting (compared to the existing structure) wider lane shoulders and two sidewalks instead of one (some additional pedestrian use of the bridge would likely occur in the future). Vehicle speeds, level of service, and overall traffic levels would likely remain unchanged. The hydrological/fluvial changes in Palm Canyon Wash associated with the proposed action would likely be relatively small. New proposed pier structures and associated flood protection for the piers (rip rap) are parallel and in-line to the flow line of the wash with the existing piers of the current bridge. As such, their effects on flood flows would largely be an expansion and extension of the current flood flow diversions caused (flows are split) by the existing bridge piers. Some additional scour and deposition within adjacent Wash areas in flood flow events is expected, mostly due to concentrated water flows (increase water flow velocity for a given flood event) around the new piers and rip-rap, and increased eddy turbulence downstream, with increased frequency of sediment scour and/or deposition event frequency and extent in limited areas. Some resulting degradation of habitat in the area of the bridge would likely occur, but these additional effects would not likely extend very far upstream or downstream (we estimated this as limited to about 10 m (30 ft)) from the new proposed bridge pier and scour protection structures during floods as large as the 25-year event (larger flood events will already have substantial effects on the wash due to the channelization that has occurred in the bridge area). These hydrological effects would not likely extend outside of the Project construction footprint. The Applicant has included conservation measures in the Project Description that are anticipated to offset the potential indirect impacts to Casey’s June beetle as described. Indirect Impacts to Casey’s June Beetle Proposed Critical Habitat The hydrological/fluvial changes in proposed critical habitat (Palm Canyon Wash) associated with the proposed action would likely be relatively small. As noted above, a small area of proposed critical habitat would be subject to increased frequency and magnitude of sediment scour and depositional flood events in the areas around new pier structures and rip-rap. Proposed critical habitat primary constituent elements of both soils (providing space for population growth and reproduction, moisture, and food sources) and Sonoran desert scrub/desert wash vegetation are expected to be affected by these hydrological changes. The changes, although long term would be relatively small and likely would be limited to within the Project footprint. Changes in future vegetation cover/type and effective rainfall reaching soils within the wash are expected in the shaded areas under and next to the bridge; this is expected to partially affect the potential for Colonel R. Mark Toy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Craig Wentworth, Caltrans (FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344) 27 Casey’s June beetle proposed critical habitat in this area to provide primary constituent elements required by the species. Together with the small size of the project, the Applicant has included conservation measures in the Project Description that are anticipated to maintain the function of Casey’s June beetle proposed critical habitat as described. Effects on Recovery Because the Casey’s June beetle is a proposed listed species at this time, we do yet to develop a recovery outline or drat recovery plan. However, the conservation measures proposed within the project description (i.e., protection of land with conservation easement, enhancement, and restoration), as analyzed above, proportionally contribute to maintaining a self-sustaining population of Casey’s June beetle, and effectively offsetting Project effects to the environmental baseline. Little land containing habitat for the species is currently protected from threats, and no regional plan or other similar process (such as local approvals) is in place that would assure any appreciable protection for the species. As such, the conservation easement to be provided by the Project on 1.7-ha (4.29-ac) of high-function habitat is, although small overall, extremely important to the species and considerably larger than the direct impact footprint of the Project. The conservation measures provided by the Applicant are commensurate to the likely Project impacts considering the species status, including the noted threats. In this context, the net effect of the proposed Project is offset such that it would not be likely to cause significant impairment of recovery efforts for the species. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Cumulative effects considered in this conference opinion include the effects of future State, Tribal, local, or private actions, unrelated to the proposed action, and not involving Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area. A low level of OHV and equestrian activities are expected to occur in the action area in the future. OHV activities are expected to substantially decrease over time (the current trend) as law enforcement efforts to reduce these activities in the area are expected to improve in the future. Future flood damage reduction activities in and along Palm Canyon Wash are expected to be subject to conference/consultation or a section 10 permit and, thus, would not result in cumulative effects to this action. The Service is unaware of other substantial future activities without Federal involvement in the action area that are likely to occur. CONCLUSION After reviewing the status of the Casey’s June beetle and its proposed critical habitat, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed action, and cumulative effects, it is the Service’s conference opinion that the Bogert Trail Bridge Project, as described herein, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Casey’s June beetle. It is also our conference opinion that the proposed action is not likely to destroy or adversely modify proposed critical habitat for the species. Colonel R. Mark Toy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Craig Wentworth, Caltrans (FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344) 28 The Service reached this conclusion for the following reasons: Casey’s June Beetle Based on the status and distribution of the Casey’s June beetle, the impacts to an undetermined number of Casey’s June beetle individuals that would be affected by the proposed action is not likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the species by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of the species, because: 1. The direct impacts to the species, including disturbance, direct injury, or mortality to an undetermined number of Casey’s June beetle that would occupy the Project site and environs are likely to be small because the occupied portion of the Project footprint is relatively small. 2. The direct impacts to potential or suitable Casey’s June beetle habitat are limited in extent, amounting to 0.38 ha (0.95 ac) or less. This amount of affected habitat is relatively small, considering the: a) offsetting measures provided by the Project, notably the legal protection, enhancement, and restoration of habitat; and b) a substantial portion of the Project impacts are expected to be temporary. 3. The indirect effects of the proposed Project are expected to be limited in their extent when considering the proposed design and minimization measures (e.g., no nighttime lighting, protection of habitat) of the Project. Casey’s June Beetle Proposed Critical Habitat Based on the status and distribution of the Casey’s June beetle and the Proposed designation of Casey’s June beetle Critical Habitat, the proposed action is not likely to destroy or adversely modify Casey’s June beetle Proposed Critical Habitat, because: The direct impacts to the Casey’s June beetle proposed critical habitat, are limited in extent, amounting to 0.38 ha (0.93 ac) or less. The overall amount of Casey’s June beetle proposed critical habitat for this species is only 314 ha (777 ac), and most of the Casey’s June beetle proposed critical habitat that would be affected by the Project is of high function and important for the species. Nevertheless, the amount of Casey’s June beetle proposed critical habitat affected by the Project would not constitute an adverse modification because we expect the ecological function and value of critical habitat will remain when considering the avoidance and minimization measures provided by the applicant and the temporary nature of a substantial portion of the Project impacts. The indirect effects of the proposed Project on Casey’s June beetle proposed critical habitat likely would be small, many would be temporary, and all significant impacts are expected to be limited to the direct footprint of the Project. Thus, the ecological function and value of critical habitat is expected to remain after project completion. Colonel R. Mark Toy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Craig Wentworth, Caltrans (FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344) 29 INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT The prohibitions against take of endangered and threatened species, per Section 9 of the Act and its implementing regulations, do not take effect until a species listing is final. The incidental take statement provided with this conference opinion does not become effective unless the Service adopts the opinion once the listing is final. If this opinion is adopted as such, this incidental take statement would then provide take exemption for the proposed action from the prohibitions against take, provided the action is implemented as noted in the Project description above. Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act prohibit the take of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined as harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm is further defined by the Service to include significant habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures a listed species by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is defined by the Service as an action that creates the likelihood of injury to a listed species by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Incidental take is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and 7(o)(2) of the Act, such incidental take is not considered a prohibited taking under the Act, provided that such taking is in compliance with this incidental take statement. The measures described below are nondiscretionary and must be undertaken by the Corps, FHWA, Caltrans, and the Applicant in order for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. The Corps and FHWA have a continuing duty, subject to their jurisdictional authority, to regulate the activity situated within the action area and covered by this incidental take statement. If the Corps or FHWA (1) fail to assume and implement the terms and conditions; or, (2) fail to require the Applicant to adhere to the terms and conditions through enforceable terms that are added to any permit, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. If Caltrans or the Applicant fail to assume and implement the terms and conditions of the incidental take statement, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. To monitor the impacts of the incidental taking, the Corps, FHWA, Caltrans, and the Applicant must report the progress of the action and its impact on the species to our agency as specified in the incidental take statement [50 CFR § 402.14(i)(3)]. Amount or Extent of Take Anticipated The Service has a reasonable basis to conclude that take would occur (if the species listing is finalized) incidentally as a result of the anticipated lawful activity. The species is known to occupy the area that would be directly affected by the Project activities. We anticipate that some of the Casey’s June beetle located within the 0.38 ha (0.95 ac) Project footprint in the wash will be killed or injured by means of habitat degradation resulting from pile driving, clearing/grubbing activities, and excavations. Colonel R. Mark Toy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Craig Wentworth, Caltrans (FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344) 30 However, it is impracticable to accurately quantify the number of Casey’s June beetle that are reasonably certain to be taken by the proposed action for the following reasons: The number of Casey’s June beetles that occupy the Project area is not precisely known or determinable. Surveys of the Project site have provided a minimum number of beetles present in the area, in the form of the numbers of adult males detected flying above ground. Adult females and burrow holes are detected opportunistically, which inform these numbers to an additional limited extent. No surveys have been performed within the range of the species to determine or estimate the actual number of individuals present in any given area. A survey to determine actual numbers in any given area would require invasive methods, with substantial handling of adults (e.g., mark and capture studies), and would be limited to males of the species because females spend little time on the ground surface, are difficult to detect, and are unlikely to be recaptured once they burrow underground after mating. A study of this type has not been designed, funded, or performed to date; a study of this type would entail substantial costs and access to private property. Determination of actual numbers in an area may be impossible without substantial injury or death resulting from excavation, as many or most of the individuals (adult females (with the exception of a brief period during mating season) eggs, and larvae) are below ground throughout most of their life history. To determine when incidental take is exceeded, we use acreage as a surrogate. Should the Project’s activities disturb more than 0.38 ha (0.95 ac) of Palm Canyon Wash soft-bottom or extend outside the identified boundaries established for those activities within the wash at any time, incidental take will be exceeded. To quantify the impact of the taking on Casey’s June beetle, we have estimated the amount of habitat that we anticipate would be lost or degraded by activities of the proposed Project. The Service anticipates that an undetermined number of Casey’s June beetle will be directly injured, harmed, or killed by activities within the Casey’s June beetle habitat associated with Project- specified construction. While the number cannot be determined (for the reasons provided above), the small scale of the Project disturbance at 0.38 ha (0.95 ac) relative to the total of 314 ha (777ac) of extant habitat available indicates the limited extent of the potential impacts of the taking. We do not expect Casey’s June beetle from outside the Project site to enter the site during Project activities because the Applicant will not perform activities (e.g., nighttime lighting) attractive to Casey’s June beetle during proposed construction. If the site is subject to construction activities during the breeding season, the Project footprint would probably not be attractive to the species due to the lack of vegetation and disturbed soils. Effect of the Take In the accompanying conference opinion, the Service determined that this impact of the anticipated taking is not likely to result in jeopardy to the Casey’s June beetle, and that it is not likely to adversely modify or destroy proposed critical habitat for the Casey’s June beetle. Colonel R. Mark Toy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Craig Wentworth, Caltrans (FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344) 31 REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURE The Service considers the following reasonable and prudent measure necessary and appropriate to minimize the impact of the taking of Casey’s June beetle: 1. The Corps, FHWA, Caltrans, and Applicant, including all of their agents/contractors, will assure that the conservation measures in the Project description are fully implemented. TERM AND CONDITION In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, the Corps, FHWA, Caltrans, and the Applicant must comply with the following term and condition, which implements the reasonable and prudent measure described above. This term and condition is non-discretionary. 1.1 The Corps, FHWA, Caltrans, and Applicant, including all of their agents/contractors, will implement all biological conservation measures and/or assurances provided above in the Project description, including compliance with the proposed Project footprint limits. The Corps, FHWA, Caltrans, and/or Applicant will notify the Service in writing at least 2 weeks before initiation of construction of the start date for construction activities. The Corps, FHWA, Caltrans, and Applicant will report in writing (letter report) to the Service, monthly during Project construction until completion of construction activities, and every 6 months for conservation measures that follow construction (e.g., alien plant removal), specifically documenting compliance with each of the measures of the Project description. CONSERVATION RECOMENDATIONS Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs all Federal agencies to, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Service, utilize their authorities to further the purposes of the Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. Pursuant to these agency responsibilities, conservation recommendations are suggestions from the Service regarding action agency 7(a)(1) discretionary activities that would assist in species conservation and/or develop information improving the understanding of a species’ biology or ecology. The recommendations provided herein do not represent complete fulfillment of the Corps’ or FHWA/ Caltrans’ section 7(a)(1) responsibilities for the proposed species discussed herein. 1. In the course of their regulatory duties and as part of any planned Corps projects, the Corps should coordinate with the Tribe, City, Riverside Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Service, and appropriate landowners within the Coachella Valley to design/implement flood damage reduction plans and projects that retain/restore most of the original ecological integrity (Karr 1991) and public trust resource values of desert washes, yet provide necessary protection from specific design (e.g., 100 year) flood events for existing structures where practicable. This effort would include, but is not Colonel R. Mark Toy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Craig Wentworth, Caltrans (FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344) 32 limited to: a) retaining and restoring wide, native-vegetated, natural-grade, soft-bottom channel facilities that include flood plain terraces and require minimal vegetation and sedimentation maintenance, b) maintaining existing/remaining 100-year floodplain areas within potential Casey’s June beetle habitat areas free of development, c) requiring new development to be protected from 100-year flood events through set-backs and on site protection measures that will not exacerbate the flood damage risk or cause ecological changes on adjacent parcels; d) modifying hard structures within Palm Canyon Wash to reduce impacts to the ecosystem Casey’s June beetle depends upon (e.g., burying rip-rap with substantial native soil); and e) acquiring and legally protecting remaining parcels within and along Palm Canyon Wash that support potential or restorable Casey’s June beetle habitat. We recommend the consideration of the Corps techniques for restoration and management of riparian areas (including washes) that provide for a broad range of physical and ecological functions, including flood storage and conveyance capacity, species habitats, and animal movement corridors developed by Dave Derrick (Principal Investigator, U.S. Army Corps Research and Development Center): http://www.riverspace.com/resumes/dld/publications.html 2. We recommend the Corps work with the Tribe, District, and City to perform and implement conservation planning for the ecosystem Casey’s June beetle depends upon in and along Palm Canyon Wash. 3. We recommend the Corps, FHWA, and Caltrans perform monitoring of ground vibrations from pile driving construction activities, and develop a monitoring protocol and report on potential adverse effects on Casey’s June beetle. If potential adverse effects are detected (e.g., substantial soil settlement in habitat areas), then this report should be used as a rationale to select and require implementation measures for minimizing or offsetting vibration impacts. This report should be similar to what Caltrans has developed for fish: “Interim Criteria for Injury of Fish Exposed to Pile Driving Operations: A White Paper" (Caltrans 2006). 4. The Corps, FHWA, and Caltrans should work with the Tribe, District, and City to restrict OHV access to Palm Canyon Wash and enforce restrictions in all Casey’s June beetle habitat areas. An OHV access point of high priority for closure/blockage occurs where the District has an existing vehicle access ramp leading into the wash from Bogert Trail at the subject Project bridge. An OHV gate/fencing with appropriate signage should be installed across this ramp. Another high priority location requiring management is along Araby Drive where it crosses Palm Canyon Wash. 5. We recommend the Corps work with the Tribe and City to modify landscaping on golf courses within and along Palm Canyon Wash in the range of Casey’s June beetle to incorporate restoration of Casey’s June beetle habitat in areas outside of green and tee areas into such courses (i.e., convert them to target or links courses), as well as management practices consistent with maintaining the species in these areas. Colonel R.Mark Toy,U.S.Army Corps of Engineers;Mr.Craig Wentworth,Caltrans 33 (FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344) To be kept informed of any actions to minimize or avoid adverse effects or benefiting listed species or their habitats,the Service requests notification of the implementation of any conservation recommendations. REINITIATION NOTICE This concludes the conference for the proposed Bogert Trail Bridge rehabilitation project.You may ask the Service to confirm the conference opinion as a biological opinion issued through formal consultation if the species is listed or critical habitat is designated.The request must be in writing.If the Service reviews the proposed action and finds that there have been no significant changes in the action as planned or in the information used during the conference,the Service will confirm the conference opinion as the biological opinion on the project and no further section 7 consultation will be necessary. After listing of Casey's June beetle as endangered or threatened and designation of critical habitat for Casey's June beetle,and any subsequent adoption of this conference opinion,the Corps and Caltrans shall request reinitiation of consultation if:(1)the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded;(2)new information reveals effects of the agency action that may affect the species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this conference opinion;(3)the·agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the species or critical habitat that was not considered in this conference opinion;or (4)a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action. The incidental take statement provided in this conference opinion does not become effective until the species is listed and the conference opinion is adopted as the biological opinion issued through formal consultation.At that time,the project will be reviewed to determine whether any take of the species or its habitat has Qccurred.Modifications of the opinion and incidental take statement may be appropriate to reflect that take.No take of the species or its habitat may occur between the listing of Casey's June beetle and the adoption of the conference opinion through formal consultation,or the completion of a subsequent formal consultation. If you have any questions about this conference opinion,please contact Jon Avery at 760-431- 9440. Sincerely, A.Bartel Field Supervisor cc: Margaret Park,Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Michael Flores,CDFG Bermuda Dunes Colonel R. Mark Toy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Craig Wentworth, Caltrans (FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344) 34 LITERATURE CITED Adams, J.A., L.H. Stolzy, A.S. Endo, P.G. Rowlands, and H.B. Johnson. 1982. Desert soil compaction reduces annual plant cover. California Agri. Adams, J.A., and A.S. Endo. 1980. Controlled experiments on soil compaction produced by off-road vehicles in the Mojave Desert, California. Pp. 121-134 in: P.G. Rowlands (ed.). The effects of disturbance on desert soils, vegetation and community process with emphasis on off road vehicles: a critical review. Desert Plan Staff, BLM, Riverside, California. Anderson, A. and S. Love, S. 2007. Casey’s June beetle habitat loss since 1991. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office analysis and notes. Bates, R. L., and J.A. Jackson. 1987. Glossary of Geology; 3rd edition. American Geological Institute, 754 p. Blaisdell, F.E. 1930. Revision of the genus and species of Dinacoma with description of a new species (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Pan-Pacific Entomologist 6(4):171-177. Bury, R.B., R.A. Luckenbach, and S.D. Busack. 1977. Effects of off-road vehicles on vertebrates in the California desert. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildl. Res. Rept. 8, Washington, D.C. Center for Natural Lands Management (CNLM). 2010. Annual Report for the 2008-2009 Fiscal Year (October 2008 – September 2009) on the Smoke Tree Ranch Preserve (SO35). CNLM, Fallbrook. Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG). 2005. Final Coachella Valley MSHCP. CVAG. November. Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG). 2007. Final recirculated Coachella Valley MSHCP. CVAG. September. Collinge, S.K. 2000. Effects of grassland fragmentation on insect species loss, colonization, and movement patterns. Ecology 81: 2211-2226. Cornett, J.W. 2004. Analysis of the distribution and abundance of the Casey’s June beetle (Dinacoma caseyi) in Palm Springs, California. Consultant report prepared for Smoke Tree Ranch, Inc., Palm Springs, California. Colonel R. Mark Toy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Craig Wentworth, Caltrans (FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344) 35 Driscoll, D.A., and T. Weir. 2005. Beetle responses to habitat fragmentation depend on ecological traits, habitat condition, and remnant size. Conserv. Bio. 19:182–194. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00586.x Duff, R. 1990. Dinacoma caseyi: current status of endangered species. Unspecified submission recipient. Evans, A.V. and A.B.T. Smith. 2005. An electronic checklist of the New World chafers (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Melolonthinae). Version 1. Electronically published, Ottawa, Canada. 344 pp. Evans, A.V. and A.B.T. Smith. 2009. An electronic checklist of the New World chafers (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Melolonthinae). Version 3. Electronically published, Ottawa, Canada. 3534 pp. Freemark, K., D. Bert, and M.A. Villard. 2002. Patch, landscape, and regional-scale effects on biota. In: K.J. Gutzwiller (ed.). Applying landscape ecology in biological conservation. Springer-Verlag, NY. Holling, C.S., and G.K Meffe. 1996. Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Cons. Bio. 10: 328-337. Hovore, F. 1995. Report of field surveys: Coachella Valley Multi-species HCP, Invertebrates– Palm Springs June beetle (Dinacoma caseyi). Unpublished, 7 pp. May 16. Hovore, F. 2003. Report of focused surveys for Casey’s June beetle: Smoketree Ranch and Vicinity. Report prepared for Krieger & Stewart, Inc., Riverside, California. Hughes, F.M.R. 1994. Environmental change, disturbance, and regeneration in semi-arid floodplain forests. Pp. 321-345 in: A.C. Millington and K. Pye. (eds.). Environmental change in drylands: Biogeographical and geomorphological perspectives. John Wiley & Sons. IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Karr, J.R. 1991. Biological integrity: a long neglected aspect of water resource management. Eco.l Appl. 1: 66-84. Lathrop, E.W., and P.G. Rowlands. 1983. Plant ecology in deserts: an overview. Pp. 114-152 in: R.H. Webb and H.G. Wilshire (eds.). Environmental effects of off- road vehicles: impacts and management in arid regions. Springer-Verlag. NY. Colonel R. Mark Toy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Craig Wentworth, Caltrans (FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344) 36 Massarsch, K.R. 2000. Settlements and damage caused by construction-induced vibrations. Proceedings, Intern. Workshop Wave 2000, Bochum, Germany 13 – 15 December 2000, pp. 299–315. Maurer, E.P. and P.B. Duffy. 2005. Uncertainty in projections of streamflow changes due to climate change in California. Geophysical Research Letters 32:L03704. doi:10.1029/2004GL021462, 2005. Mayer, K.E., and W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr. (eds.) 1988. A guide to wildlife habitats in California. State of California, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. McKechnie, A.E., and B.O. Wolf. 2010. Climate change increases the likelihood of catastrophic avian mortality events during extreme heat waves. Biology Letters 6:253-256. Mission Springs Water District (MSWD). 2008. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for Mission Springs Water District Comprehensive Water System Master Plan; Vols. 1 and 2. February. Mount, J. 1995. California rivers and streams; the conflict between fluvial processes and land use. U.C. Press. Parsons, A.J., and A.D. Abrahams (eds.). 2009. Gemorphology of desert environments. Second ed. Springer. Point Reyes Bird Observatory (PRBO). 2011. Projected Effects of Climate Change in California: Ecoregional Summaries Emphasizing Consequences for Wildlife. PRBO Conservation Science. http://data.prbo.org/apps/bssc/climatechange. Pickett, S.T.A., V.T. Parker, and P.L. Fiedler. 1992. The new paradigm in ecology: implications for conservation biology above the species level. Pp. 66-88 in: P.L. Fiedler, S.K. Jain (eds.). Conservation Biology. Chapman & Hall. Poff, N. L., J.D. Allan, M.B. Bain, J.R. Karr, K.L. Prestegaard, B.D. Richter, R.E. Sparks, and J.C. Stromberg. 1997. The Natural Flow Regime. BioScience. 47:11. Riverside County. 2005. Riverside County Projections 2005. Riverside County Center for Demographic Research/TLMA. Rowlands, P.G. (ed.). 1980. The effects of disturbance on desert soils, vegetation, and community processes with emphasis on off-road vehicles: a critical review. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Riverside, CA. Colonel R. Mark Toy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Craig Wentworth, Caltrans (FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344) 37 Schulte, M.A., D. Smith, D.T. Williams. 1999. What caused the Palm Canyon Wash drop structure problem? Solving a mystery and finding solutions in Palm Springs, California. Conference preceding paper: WRPMD’99 - Preparing for the 21st Century (doi 10.1061/40430(1999)124). http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?5537 Sinervo B., F. Méndez-de-la-Cruz, D.B. Miles, and B. Heulin. 2010. Rapid erosion of lizard diversity at global scales: Altered thermal niches due to climate change. Science 328:894–899. Snyder, C.T., D.G. Frickel, R.E. Hadley, and R.F. Miller. 1976. Effects of off-road vehicle use on the hydrology and landscape of arid environments in central and southern California. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report #76-99. Stanford, J.A., J.V. Ward, W.J. Liss, C.A. Frissell, R.N. Williams, J.A. Lichatowich,and C.C. Coutant. 1996. A general protocol for restoration of regulated rivers. Regulated Riv: Res. & Man. 12:391-414. Stralberg, D., D. Jongsomjit, C.A. Howell, M.A. Snyder, J D. Alexander, J.A. Wiens, and T.L. Root. 2009. Re-Shuffling of Species with Climate Disruption: A No-Analog Future for California Birds? PLOS ONE 4:e6825. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006825 Svinkin, M.R. 2001. Environmental vibration problems during construction. Vibraconsult. http://www.vulcanhammer.net/svinkin/osaka.pdf U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2000. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for Riverside County, California, Coachella Valley Area. http://www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/ssur_data.html. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (Service and NMFS). 1998. Endangered Species Consultation Handbook. Service and NMFS. Webb, R.H., and H.G. Wilshire. (eds.). 1983. Environmental Effects of Off-Road Vehicles: Impacts and Management in Arid Regions. Springer-Verlag, New York. Wilcove, D.S., D. Rothstein, and J. Dubow. 1998. Quantifying Threat to Imperiled Species in the United States. BioScience 48:607-15. Wright D.H. 2003. Letter to Joan Taylor, Tahquitz Group, Sierra Club, Palm Springs, California, Subject: Monte Sereno Biological Constraints. Unpublished, 4 pp. July 10 Wright D.H. 2004. Petition to emergency-list Casey’s June beetle (Dinacoma caseyi Blaisdell 1930) as a federally endangered species. Center for Biological Diversity. Colonel R. Mark Toy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Craig Wentworth, Caltrans (FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344) 38 Personal Communications: Hawks, D. 2009. Email from David Hawks, University of California, Riverside. Electronic mail communication to Tony McKinney, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, Carlsbad, CA (September 9, 2009). Hawks, D. 2011. Conversation with David Hawks, University of California, Riverside (retired). Meeting notes taken by Alison Anderson, Entomologist, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, Carlsbad, CA (April 21, 2011). LaRue, D. 2004. Electronic mail communication from Delbert LaRue to David Wright, PhD, Researcher, Sacramento, CA. (January 18). LaRue, D. 2006. Electronic mail communication from Delbert LaRue to Alison Anderson, Entomologist, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, Carlsbad, CA (June 13). Personal Observations: Avery, J. 2005-2010, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office Biologist. Colonel R. Mark Toy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Craig Wentworth, Caltrans (FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344) 39 Colonel R. Mark Toy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Craig Wentworth, Caltrans (FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344) 40 Colonel R. Mark Toy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Craig Wentworth, Caltrans (FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344) 41 Colonel R. Mark Toy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Craig Wentworth, Caltrans (FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344) 42 Figure 4: Project Site (looking upstream) Colonel R. Mark Toy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Craig Wentworth, Caltrans (FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344) 43 Par Code: Title: P257 Bogert Wash CE Ginny ShortPrepared by: Date:12/16/2011 CNLM PAR Habitat Planning In Perpetuity The Property Analysis Record The Center for Natural Lands Management prepared this software to assist habitat conservation planners to develop the management tasks and costs of long-term stewardship. While the sources are thought to be reliable, the Center makes no representations about the accuracy of cost estimates. The date of the cost information is 2007. The operation of the program is not guaranteed by the Center. Management requirements are determined by the user. Users should consult with their own financial advisors before relying on the results of their analysis. www.cnlm.org Property Analysis Record 3 - Version 1.03 (C) 1999-2008 Center for Natural Lands Management Section 1 - Property Information 12/13/2011P257PAR ID:Bogert Wash CEProperty Title:Last Modified: Management type Prepared by Date Created Address City, State, Zip Location/Jurisdiction County Company Address City, State, Zip Phone Fax E-Mail address Developer/Proponent InformationProject Management Information Contact Address City, State, Zip Phone Fax E-Mail address Conservation Easement CNLM 11/10/2011 07:47:49 PM Bogert Trail and Barona Rd. Palm Springs, CA Palm Springs Riverside CNLM Fallbrook, CA 92028 415 W. Ash St. 760-731-7790 760-731-7790 gshort@cnlm.org City of Palm Springs Palm Springs, CA 92262 3200 East Tahquitz Cyn. Way 760-323-8299 Contact Ginny Short David Barakian Company Prepared for City of Palm Springs Ginny Short Cost Year Date of site visit: Development Project Project Name Total Project Acres Stage of planning 2012 11/18/2011 Bogert Trail Bridge 0 PAR Habitat for Casey's June Beetle (Dinocoma caseyi) Imported by ADMIN on 11/29/2011 C:\PARTEMP\ADMIN\ARCHIVE\P3EXPORT_P257_109_20111129182607.ZIP Imported by ADMIN on 12/02/2011 C:\PARTEMP\ADMIN\ARCHIVE\P3EXPORT_P257_101_20111130200101.ZIP Notes Conserved Acres 4.29 Property Analysis Record 3 - Version 1.03 (C) 1999-2008 Center for Natural Lands Management www.cnlm.org 1Sect.1 Page12/16/2011 12/16/2011P257PAR ID:Bogert Wash CEProperty Title: Section 2 - Division of Responsibility There are no records for this section. Property Analysis Record 3 - Version 1.03 (C) 1999-2008 Center for Natural Lands Management www.cnlm.org Sect. 2 Page 1 Section 3 - Property Details 12/16/2011P257PAR ID:Bogert Wash CEProperty Title: Title NotesPermitted Problem Level Location Future Permitted Access Easements Yes Equestrian access for Henderson and Garitan Trails located "both" onsite and adjacent to site High BothYes Right of Way Yes Ditches and CanalsNot Selected BothYes Road Yes EasementNot Selected Not SelectedYes Utility Easements Yes Public UtilityNot Selected Not SelectedYes Property Analysis Record 3 - Version 1.03 (C) 1999-2008 Center for Natural Lands Management www.cnlm.org 1Sect.3 Page Section 4 - Contacts 12/16/2011P257PAR ID:Bogert Wash CEProperty Title: Contacts List 760-323-8299Barakian, David - - Position: Name: Address: Director of Public Works 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Company/Agency: City of Palm Springs City, State & Zip:Palm Springs, CA 92262 Phone: Fax: Email: Mobile: - - 760-431-9440Bartel, Jim - - Position: Name: Address: Field Supervisor 6010 Hidden Valley Road Company/Agency: US FWS City, State & Zip:Carlsbad, CA 92011 Phone: Fax: Email: Suite 101 Mobile: - - 909-383-4631Burton, Aaron - - Position: Name: Address: Sr. Env. Planner District 8 Company/Agency: Cal. Dept. of Transportation City, State & Zip:San Bernardino, CA 92401-1400 Phone: Fax: Email: 464 W. Fourth St., 6th Floor Mobile: - - - -Flores, Michael - - Position: Name: Address: Company/Agency: Cal. Dept. of Fish & Game City, State & Zip:Bermuda Dunes, CA Phone: Fax: Email: Mobile: - - 760-323-8253Fuller, Marcus Marcus.Fuller@palmspringsca.go v - - Position: Name: Address: Asst. Dir. of Public Rel. 3200 East Tahquitz Cyn. Way Company/Agency: City of Palm Springs City, State & Zip:Palm Springs, CA 92262 Phone: Fax: Email: Mobile: - - Property Analysis Record 3 - Version 1.03 (C) 1999-2008 Center for Natural Lands Management www.cnlm.org 1Sect. 4 Page Section 4 - Contacts 12/16/2011P257PAR ID:Bogert Wash CEProperty Title: Contacts List 916-858-0642Jenkins, Sarah sjenkins@dokkenengineering.com - - Position: Name: Address: Environmental Manager Iron Point Road, Suite 200 Company/Agency: Dokken Engineering City, State & Zip:Folsom, CA 95670 Phone: Fax: Email: Mobile:916-806-0642 Property Analysis Record 3 - Version 1.03 (C) 1999-2008 Center for Natural Lands Management www.cnlm.org 2Sect. 4 Page Section 5 - Purpose of Preservation 12/16/2011P257PAR ID:Bogert Wash CEProperty Title: Purpose of Preservation Goals and ObjectivesPrioritize Endangered Species Casey's June Beetle Dinocoma caseyi 1 Open Space 3 Watershed Protection 2 Property Analysis Record 3 - Version 1.03 (C) 1999-2008 Center for Natural Lands Management www.cnlm.org 1Sect.5 Page Section 6 - Site Conditions 12/16/2011P257PAR ID:Bogert Wash CEProperty Title: Hydrological Features NotesProblem Location Water Control Structures Cement on SE edge Property Analysis Record 3 - Version 1.03 (C) 1999-2008 Center for Natural Lands Management www.cnlm.org 1Sect.6 Page Section 7 - Land Use 12/16/2011P257PAR ID:Bogert Wash CEProperty Title: Adjacent Land Use NotesPermitted Problem Location Future Permitted Minor Roads Yes Bogert Trail is just to the South, Barona dead ends onto the mitigation site. Not Selected Not SelectedYes Recreational Yes Golf Course across the wash just 100 feet NW of the north boundary of the mitigation property Not Selected Not SelectedYes Residential - High Density Yes Some already built, some open but zoned for development Not Selected Not SelectedYes Recreation NotesPermitted Problem Location Future Permitted Equestrian Yes "Both" refers to being adjacent to and onsite.Not Selected BothNo Hiking Yes "Both" refers to being adjacent to and onsite.Not Selected BothNo Passive Recreation Yes "Both" refers to being adjacent to and onsite.Not Selected BothNo Trails Yes "Both" refers to being adjacent to and onsite.Not Selected BothNo Resource Use NotesPermitted Problem Location Future Permitted Other No Drainage/ Desert WashNot Selected Not SelectedNo Property Analysis Record 3 - Version 1.03 (C) 1999-2008 Center for Natural Lands Management www.cnlm.org 1Sect.7 Page Section 8 - Biological Assessment 12/16/2011P257PAR ID:Bogert Wash CEProperty Title: Notes: ANIMALS Acreage:Scientific Name:Status: Ranking:Common Name: Individual: OTHER BEETLES Casey's June Beetle (Dinacoma caseyi)Breeding S1N1 4.29G1 Surveys for Casey's June Beetle for the Bogert Wash Bridge confirmed the presence of CJB onsite 4.29 Global: National: State: 6 males Property Analysis Record 3 - Version 1.03 (C) 1999-2008 Center for Natural Lands Management www.cnlm.org 1Sect.8 Page Section 8 - Biological Assessment 12/16/2011P257PAR ID:Bogert Wash CEProperty Title: Notes: INVASIVE/EXOTIC Acreage:Scientific Name:Status: Ranking:Common Name: Individual: FLOWERING PLANTS Annual Rabbit's-foot Grass (Polypogon monspeliensis) SNANNAGNRGlobal: National: State: Bermuda Grass (Cynodon dactylon) SNANNAGNRGlobal: National: State: Black Mustard (Brassica nigra) SNANNAGNRGlobal: National: State: Castor-bean (Ricinus communis) SNANNAGNRGlobal: National: State: Common Mediterranean Grass (Schismus barbatus) SNANNAGNRGlobal: National: State: Common Shepherd's Purse (Capsella bursa-pastoris) SNANNAGNRGlobal: National: State: Common Sowthistle (Sonchus oleraceus) SNANNAGNRGlobal: National: State: Compact Brome (Bromus madritensis) SNANNAGNRGlobal: National: State: Crimson Fountain Grass (Pennisetum setaceum) SNANNAGNRGlobal: National: State: Great Brome (Bromus diandrus) SNANNAG5Global: National: State: Indian Sweetclover (Melilotus indicus) SNANNAGNRGlobal: National: State: Pin Clover (Erodium cicutarium) SNANNAGNRGlobal: National: State: Russian-thistle (Salsola tragus) SNANNAGNRGlobal: National: State: Salt-cedar (Tamarix ramosissima) SNANNAGNRGlobal: National: State: Slender Oat (Avena barbata) SNANNAGNRGlobal: National: State: Sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis) SNANNAGNRGlobal: National: State: Property Analysis Record 3 - Version 1.03 (C) 1999-2008 Center for Natural Lands Management www.cnlm.org 2Sect.8 Page Section 8 - Biological Assessment 12/16/2011P257PAR ID:Bogert Wash CEProperty Title: Notes: NATURAL COMMUNITIES Acreage:Scientific Name:Status: Ranking:Common Name: Individual: CALIFORNIA Desert-willow Shrubland (Chilopsis linearis Shrubland) G3Global: National: State: White Cheesebush - (Woolly Bursage) (Hymenoclea salsola - (Ambrosia eriocentra) G5Global: National: State: Property Analysis Record 3 - Version 1.03 (C) 1999-2008 Center for Natural Lands Management www.cnlm.org 3Sect.8 Page 12/16/2011P257PAR ID:Bogert Wash CEProperty Title: Section 9 - Documents and Maps There are no records for this section. Property Analysis Record 3 - Version 1.03 (C) 1999-2008 Center for Natural Lands Management www.cnlm.org Sect. 9 Page 1 Section 10 - Permits and Agreements 12/16/2011P257PAR ID:Bogert Wash CEProperty Title: Permit NumberPermit or Agreement Date Issued Expiration Date Army Corp of Engineers 05/18/2011 / / Agency/Division/Type: Permit Purpose: NWR 14 Linear Transportation Projects Issued:SPL-2010-00138-SCH ACOEYes Responsibilities:No Habitat Management Performance Standards:No Responsible Party: Manager's Responsibilities Entered into PAR as Tasks and Reporting:No Details: Restoration Required:RestorationYes Monitoring Required:CE MonitoringYes Report Required:Yes Refer to required reports in next section. US FWS Biological Opinion 10/12/2011 / / Agency/Division/Type: Permit Purpose: US FWS Issued:FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344Yes Responsibilities:No Habitat Management Performance Standards:No Responsible Party: Manager's Responsibilities Entered into PAR as Tasks and Reporting:No Details: Restoration Required:No Monitoring Required:CE MonitoringYes Report Required:Yes Refer to required reports in next section. Property Analysis Record 3 - Version 1.03 (C) 1999-2008 Center for Natural Lands Management www.cnlm.org 1Sect.10 Page Permit NumberPermit or Agreement Date Issued Expiration Date US FWS Conference Assessment 05/11/2011 / / Agency/Division/Type: Permit Purpose: Issued:FWS-ERIV-11B0021-11FC0344Yes Responsibilities:No Habitat Management Performance Standards:No Responsible Party: Manager's Responsibilities Entered into PAR as Tasks and Reporting:No Details: Restoration Required:No Monitoring Required:CE MonitoringYes Report Required:Yes Refer to required reports in next section. Property Analysis Record 3 - Version 1.03 (C) 1999-2008 Center for Natural Lands Management www.cnlm.org 2Sect.10 Page Section 11 - Report Summary 12/16/2011P257PAR ID:Bogert Wash CEProperty Title: Permit NumberPermit or Agreement Date Issued Expiration Date Army Corp of Engineers 05/18/2011 / / Name of Report: Report Detail/Start Date: Annual CE Monitoring Report Additional Notes: Requirement: No Agency or Agreement Reference Document and Page: Internal Report: No Sent Report To: Sent Copy To: Report Due Date: October Frequency: Reporting End Date: / / US FWS Biological Opinion 10/12/2011 / / Name of Report: Report Detail/Start Date: Annual Report Additional Notes: Requirement: No Agency or Agreement Reference Document and Page: Internal Report: No Sent Report To: Sent Copy To: Report Due Date: October Frequency: Reporting End Date: / / US FWS Conference Assessment 05/11/2011 / / Name of Report: Report Detail/Start Date: Annual Report Additional Notes: Requirement: No Agency or Agreement Reference Document and Page: Internal Report: No Sent Report To: Sent Copy To: Report Due Date: Frequency: Reporting End Date: / / Property Analysis Record 3 - Version 1.03 (C) 1999-2008 Center for Natural Lands Management www.cnlm.org 1Sect.11 Page Section 12 - Mitigation Bank 12/16/2011P257PAR ID:Bogert Wash CEProperty Title: Mitigation: Credit Owner: Bank Manager: Species Type: Description: Ratio: Total Amount: Credits Available: Credit Svc Map: Acres: Not Selected Not Selected Bank Owner: Not Selected Notes: Habitat Type: Fund Account: Credit Sales: Credit Account: Credit Sales Date: Fund Reqmt: Credit Type: Property Analysis Record 3 - Version 1.03 (C) 1999-2008 Center for Natural Lands Management www.cnlm.org 1Sect.12 Page 12/16/2011P257PAR ID:Bogert Wash CEProperty Title: Section 13 - Phase List There are no records for this section. Property Analysis Record 3 - Version 1.03 (C) 1999-2008 Center for Natural Lands Management www.cnlm.org Sect. 13 Page 1 Section 14 - Initial & Capital Tasks and Costs 12/16/2011P257PAR ID:Bogert Wash CEProperty Title: Task List Specific Unit Quantity Cost / Unit Annual Cost Times Years Total Cost Cont %Description BIOTIC SURVEYS Conservation Easement Compliance Monitoring L. Hours 12.00 52.50 630.00 4.0 2,772.0010.0 Science Director Coordination/Oversight L. Hours 5.00 72.50 362.50 1.0 398.7510.0 Supervisor Site Surveys Site Visits L. Hours 8.00 72.50 580.00 1.0 638.0010.0 Supervisor Travel Each 1.00 200.00 200.00 1.0 220.0010.0 Sub-Total 4,028.75 FIELD EQUIPMENT Binoculars Binoculars 10 X 50 Pair 0.25 450.00 112.50 1.0 123.7510.0 Camera 35mm/lens Mid-range Camera Item 0.25 500.00 125.00 1.0 137.5010.0 GPS, Rover & Base Unit Gps/corrected Item 0.03 4,400.00 132.00 5.0 726.0010.0 Vehicle Mileage (4x4) Mile 350.00 1.18 413.00 4.0 1,817.2010.0 Vehicle Small Pickup 4x4 Item 0.04 26,000.00 1,040.00 1.0 1,144.0010.0 Sub-Total 3,948.45 OFFICE MAINTENANCE Cellular Phone Unit Each 0.03 185.00 5.55 4.0 24.4210.0 Computer Software Gps Photo Link Each 0.25 350.00 87.50 4.0 385.0010.0 Computer software Microsoft Office Pkg Item 0.03 544.50 16.33 4.0 71.8710.0 Computer, PC,Monitor, Desktop Item 0.03 2,541.00 76.23 4.0 335.4110.0 Facilities Maintenance & Annual 1.00 30.00 30.00 4.0 132.0010.0 GIS ARC/INFO GIS, Pc Based Item 0.03 600.00 18.00 4.0 79.2010.0 Home Office Annual 0.03 3,300.00 99.00 4.0 435.6010.0 Office Supplies, Printed Stationary/ Business Person 0.03 150.00 4.50 4.0 19.8010.0 Office Supplies, Annually Supplies Person 0.10 2,425.00 242.50 4.0 1,067.0010.0 Printer Deskjet All-in-one Item 0.25 500.00 125.00 4.0 550.0010.0 Printer Large Format Color Each 0.25 450.00 112.50 4.0 495.0010.0 Telephone Telephone Item 0.03 50.00 1.50 4.0 6.6010.0 Telephone Charges, Phone Charges Person 0.03 1,200.00 36.00 4.0 158.4010.0 Sub-Total 3,760.30 OPERATIONS Audit Audit-cost share Annual 1.00 250.00 250.00 4.0 1,100.0010.0 CNLM Memberships LTA/CCLT Annual 0.03 75.00 2.25 4.0 9.9010.0 Employee Training Professional Development Annual 0.03 1,800.00 54.00 4.0 237.6010.0 Insurance Liability/conserv. Easement Acre 4.29 0.15 0.64 4.0 2.8310.0 LTA Legal Defense Fund Annual 1.00 48.00 48.00 4.0 211.2010.0 Legal & Emergency Fund Establish Fund 1% 1% endow. 1.00 1,071.59 1,071.59 1.0 1,071.590.0 Owner Contact Meetings L. Hours 10.00 52.50 525.00 4.0 2,310.0010.0 Professional Each 0.03 100.00 3.00 4.0 13.2010.0 Project Accounting Setup And Maintain Annual 1.00 375.00 375.00 1.0 412.5010.0 Research & Establish Fund 1% 1% endow. 1.00 1,071.59 1,071.59 1.0 1,071.590.0 Uniforms Each 0.03 100.00 3.00 4.0 13.2010.0 Sub-Total 6,453.61 REPORTING Aerial Photo Digital Geo-referenced Flight 1.00 600.00 600.00 1.0 660.0010.0 Annual Reports Labor L. Hours 6.00 52.50 315.00 4.0 1,386.0010.0 Review Annual Reports Labor L. Hours 2.00 72.50 145.00 4.0 638.0010.0 Sub-Total 2,684.00 www.cnlm.org 1Sect.14 Page Property Analysis Record 3 - Version 1.03 (C) 1999-2008 Center for Natural Lands Management Section 14 - Initial & Capital Tasks and Costs 12/16/2011P257PAR ID:Bogert Wash CEProperty Title: Task List Specific Unit Quantity Cost / Unit Annual Cost Times Years Total Cost Cont %Description Subtotal 20,875.11 Administration 4,495.66 Total 25,370.78 www.cnlm.org 2Sect.14 Page Property Analysis Record 3 - Version 1.03 (C) 1999-2008 Center for Natural Lands Management Section 15 - Ongoing Tasks and Costs 12/16/2011P257PAR ID:Bogert Wash CEProperty Title: Task List Specific Unit Number of Units Cost / Unit Annual Cost Years Divide Total Cost Cont %Description BIOTIC SURVEYS Compliance Monitoring L. Hours 12.00 52.50 630.00 1.0 693.00Conservation Easement 10.0 Coordination/Oversight L. Hours 5.00 72.50 362.50 5.0 79.75Science Director 10.0 Site Visits Annual 8.00 72.50 580.00 5.0 127.60Supervisor Site Surveys 10.0 Each 1.00 200.00 200.00 5.0 44.00Supervisor Travel 10.0 944.35Sub-Total FIELD EQUIPMENT Binoculars 10 X 50 Pair 0.25 450.00 112.50 5.0 24.75Binoculars10.0 Mid-range Camera Item 0.25 500.00 125.00 5.0 27.50Camera 35mm/lens 10.0 Gps/corrected Item 0.03 4,400.00 132.00 1.0 145.20GPS, Rover & Base 10.0 Mileage (4x4) Mile 350.00 1.18 413.00 1.0 454.30Vehicle10.0 651.75Sub-Total OFFICE MAINTENANCE Unit Each 0.03 185.00 5.55 1.0 6.10Cellular Phone 10.0 Gps Photo Link Each 0.25 350.00 87.50 5.0 19.25Computer Software 10.0 Microsoft Office Pkg Item 1.00 544.50 544.50 5.0 119.79Computer software 10.0 Desktop Item 0.03 2,541.00 76.23 5.0 16.77Computer, PC,Monitor,10.0 Annual 1.00 30.00 30.00 1.0 33.00Facilities Maintenance 10.0 GIS, Pc Based Item 0.03 600.00 18.00 5.0 3.96GIS ARC/INFO 10.0 Annual 0.03 3,300.00 99.00 1.0 108.90Home Office 10.0 Printed Stationary/ Person 0.03 150.00 4.50 1.0 4.95Office Supplies,10.0 Supplies Person 0.10 2,500.00 250.00 1.0 275.00Office Supplies,10.0 Deskjet All-in-one Item 0.25 500.00 125.00 5.0 27.50Printer10.0 Large Format Color Each 0.25 450.00 112.50 5.0 24.75Printer10.0 Telephone Item 0.03 50.00 1.50 5.0 0.33Telephone10.0 Phone Charges Person 0.03 1,200.00 36.00 1.0 39.60Telephone Charges,10.0 679.90Sub-Total OPERATIONS Audit-cost share Acre 1.00 250.00 250.00 1.0 275.00Audit10.0 LTA/CCLT Annual 0.03 75.00 2.25 1.0 2.47CNLM Memberships 10.0 Pm Transition L. Hours 0.03 52.50 1.57 5.0 0.34Employee Training 10.0 Professional Development Day 0.03 1,800.00 54.00 1.0 59.40Employee Training 10.0 Liability/conserv. Acre 4.26 0.15 0.63 1.0 0.70Insurance10.0 Annual 1.00 48.00 48.00 1.0 52.80LTA Legal Defense 10.0 Meetings L. Hours 10.00 52.50 525.00 1.0 577.50Owner Contact 10.0 Each 0.03 100.00 3.00 1.0 3.30Professional10.0 Each 0.03 100.00 3.00 1.0 3.30Uniforms10.0 974.82Sub-Total REPORTING Digital Geo-referenced Flight 1.00 600.00 600.00 5.0 132.00Aerial Photo 10.0 Labor L. Hours 6.00 52.50 315.00 1.0 346.50Annual Reports 10.0 Labor L. Hours 2.00 72.50 145.00 1.0 159.50Review Annual Reports 10.0 638.00Sub-Total Property Analysis Record 3 - Version 1.03 (C) 1999-2008 Center for Natural Lands Management www.cnlm.org 1Sect.15 Page Section 15 - Ongoing Tasks and Costs 12/16/2011P257PAR ID:Bogert Wash CEProperty Title: Task List Specific Unit Number of Units Cost / Unit Annual Cost Years Divide Total Cost Cont %Description Subtotal 3,888.83 Administration 933.31 Total 4,822.14 Property Analysis Record 3 - Version 1.03 (C) 1999-2008 Center for Natural Lands Management www.cnlm.org 2Sect.15 Page Section 16 - Financial Summary Date:12/16/2011Property Title: 1st Budget Year: 2012 Bogert Wash CE State: CA PAR Code:P257 Item Descriptions Total Initial & Capital Financial Requirements Revenues Management Costs Contingency Expense Administrative Costs of Total Management Costs Initial & Capital Management Total Costs $0 $19,172 $1,703 $20,875 $4,496 Initial & Capital Gross Costs $25,371 Initial & Capital Net Costs $25,371 Annual Ongoing Financial Requirements Ongoing Costs Contingency Expense Ongoing Management Total Costs $3,535 $354 $3,889 Administrative Costs of Total Management Costs $933 Ongoing Gross Costs $4,822 Endowment Requirements for Ongoing Stewardship Endowment to Produce Income of $4,822 Stewardship costs are based on 4.50% of Endowment Earnings per Year $107,159 Total Funding Required $132,530 Revenues $0 Ongoing Net Costs $4,822 Endowment per acre $24,979 Ongoing management funding per year is $4,822 Resulting in a per acre per year cost of $1,124 1Sect.16 Page Property Analysis Record 3 - Version 1.03 (C) 1999-2008 Center for Natural Lands Management www.cnlm.org Par Code: Title: P257 Bogert Wash - 3 Year I & C Revision Prepared by: Date:04/29/2013 PAR Habitat Planning In Perpetuity The Property Analysis Record The Center for Natural Lands Management prepared this software to assist habitat conservation planners to develop the management tasks and costs of long-term stewardship. While the sources are thought to be reliable, the Center makes no representations about the accuracy of cost estimates. The date of the cost information is 2007. The operation of the program is not guaranteed by the Center. Management requirements are determined by the user. Users should consult with their own financial advisors before relying on the results of their analysis. www.cnlm.org Property Analysis Record 3 - Version 1.05 (C) 1999-2008 Center for Natural Lands Management Section 14 - Initial & Capital Tasks and Costs 04/29/2013P257PAR ID:Bogert Wash - 3 Year I & C RevisionProperty Title: Task List Specific Unit Quantity Cost / Unit Annual Cost Times Years Total Cost Cont %Description BIOTIC SURVEYS Conservation Easement Compliance Monitoring L. Hours 12.00 52.50 630.00 3.0 2,079.0010.0 Science Director Coordination/Oversight L. Hours 5.00 72.50 362.50 1.0 398.7510.0 Supervisor Site Surveys Site Visits L. Hours 8.00 72.50 580.00 1.0 638.0010.0 Supervisor Travel Travel Each 1.00 200.00 200.00 1.0 220.0010.0 Sub-Total 3,335.75 FIELD EQUIPMENT Binoculars Binoculars 10 X 50 Pair 0.25 450.00 112.50 1.0 123.7510.0 Camera 35mm/lens Mid-range Camera Item 0.25 500.00 125.00 1.0 137.5010.0 GPS, Rover & Base Unit Gps/corrected Item 0.03 4,400.00 132.00 3.0 435.6010.0 Vehicle Mileage (4x4) Mile 350.00 1.18 413.00 1.0 454.3010.0 Vehicle Small Pickup 4x4 Item 0.04 26,000.00 1,040.00 1.0 1,144.0010.0 Sub-Total 2,295.15 OFFICE MAINTENANCE Cell Phone Unit Each 0.03 185.00 5.55 3.0 18.3110.0 Computer Software Gps Photo Link Each 0.25 350.00 87.50 3.0 288.7510.0 Computer software Microsoft Office Pkg Item 0.03 544.50 16.33 3.0 53.9010.0 Computer, PC,Monitor, Desktop Item 0.03 2,541.00 76.23 3.0 251.5510.0 Facilities Maintenance Annual 1.00 30.00 30.00 3.0 99.0010.0 GIS ARC/INFO GIS, Pc Based Item 0.03 600.00 18.00 3.0 59.4010.0 Home Office Annual 0.03 3,300.00 99.00 3.0 326.7010.0 Office Supplies, Printed Stationary/ Person 0.10 150.00 15.00 3.0 49.5010.0 Office Supplies, Annually Supplies Person 0.10 2,500.00 250.00 3.0 825.0010.0 Printer Deskjet All-in-one Item 0.25 500.00 125.00 3.0 412.5010.0 Printer Large Format Each 0.25 450.00 112.50 3.0 371.2510.0 Telephone Telephone Each 0.03 50.00 1.50 3.0 4.9510.0 Telephone Charges, Phone Charges Person 0.03 1,200.00 36.00 3.0 118.8010.0 Sub-Total 2,879.62 OPERATIONS Audit Audit-cost share Annual 1.00 250.00 250.00 3.0 825.0010.0 Cnlm Memberships Lta/cclt Annual 0.03 75.00 2.25 3.0 7.4210.0 Employee Training PM Transition Annual 0.03 1,800.00 54.00 3.0 178.2010.0 Insurance Liability/conserv. Easement Acre 4.29 0.15 0.64 3.0 2.1210.0 Legal & Emergency Fund Establish Fund 1% 1% endow. 1.00 1,071.59 1,071.59 1.0 1,178.7410.0 Lta Legal Defense Fund Annual 1.00 48.00 48.00 3.0 158.4010.0 Owner Contact Meetings L. Hours 10.00 52.50 525.00 3.0 1,732.5010.0 Professional Each 0.03 100.00 3.00 3.0 9.9010.0 Project Accounting Setup And Maintain L. Hours 1.00 375.00 375.00 1.0 412.5010.0 Research & Establish Fund 1% 1% endow. 1.00 1,071.59 1,071.59 1.0 1,178.7410.0 Uniforms Each 0.03 100.00 3.00 3.0 9.9010.0 Sub-Total 5,693.44 REPORTING Aerial Photo Digital Geo-referenced Flight 1.00 600.00 600.00 1.0 660.0010.0 Annual Reports Summary L. Hours 6.00 52.50 315.00 3.0 1,039.5010.0 Review Annual Reports L. Hours 2.00 72.50 145.00 3.0 478.5010.0 Sub-Total 2,178.00 www.cnlm.org 1Sect.14 Page Property Analysis Record 3 - Version 1.05 (C) 1999-2008 Center for Natural Lands Management Section 14 - Initial & Capital Tasks and Costs 04/29/2013P257PAR ID:Bogert Wash - 3 Year I & C RevisionProperty Title: Task List Specific Unit Quantity Cost / Unit Annual Cost Times Years Total Cost Cont %Description Subtotal 16,381.97 Administration 3,931.67 Total 20,313.65 www.cnlm.org 2Sect.14 Page Property Analysis Record 3 - Version 1.05 (C) 1999-2008 Center for Natural Lands Management Section 15 - Ongoing Tasks and Costs 04/29/2013P257PAR ID:Bogert Wash - 3 Year I & C RevisionProperty Title: Task List Specific Unit Number of Units Cost / Unit Annual Cost Years Divide Total Cost Cont %Description BIOTIC SURVEYS Compliance Monitoring L. Hours 12.00 52.50 630.00 1.0 693.00Conservation Easement 10.0 Coordination/Oversight L. Hours 5.00 72.50 362.50 5.0 79.75Science Director 10.0 Site Visits L. Hours 8.00 72.50 580.00 5.0 127.60Supervisor Site Surveys 10.0 Travel Each 1.00 200.00 200.00 5.0 44.00Supervisor Travel 10.0 944.35Sub-Total FIELD EQUIPMENT Binoculars 10 X 50 Pair 0.25 450.00 112.50 5.0 24.75Binoculars10.0 Mid-range Camera Item 0.25 500.00 125.00 5.0 27.50Camera 35mm/lens 10.0 Gps/corrected Item 0.03 4,400.00 132.00 1.0 145.20GPS, Rover & Base 10.0 Mileage (4x4) Mile 350.00 1.18 413.00 1.0 454.30Vehicle10.0 651.75Sub-Total OFFICE MAINTENANCE Unit Each 0.03 185.00 5.55 1.0 6.10Cell Phone 10.0 Gps Photo Link Each 0.25 350.00 87.50 5.0 19.25Computer Software 10.0 Microsoft Office Pkg Item 1.00 544.50 544.50 5.0 119.79Computer software 10.0 Desktop Item 0.03 2,541.00 76.23 5.0 16.77Computer, PC,Monitor,10.0 Annual 1.00 30.00 30.00 1.0 33.00Facilities Maintenance 10.0 GIS, Pc Based Item 0.03 600.00 18.00 5.0 3.96GIS ARC/INFO 10.0 Annual 0.03 3,300.00 99.00 1.0 108.90Home Office 10.0 Printed Stationary/ Person 0.03 150.00 4.50 1.0 4.95Office Supplies,10.0 Supplies Person 0.10 2,500.00 250.00 1.0 275.00Office Supplies,10.0 Deskjet All-in-one Item 0.25 500.00 125.00 5.0 27.50Printer10.0 Large Format Each 0.25 450.00 112.50 5.0 24.75Printer10.0 Telephone Item 0.03 50.00 1.50 5.0 0.33Telephone10.0 Phone Charges Person 0.03 1,200.00 36.00 1.0 39.60Telephone Charges,10.0 679.90Sub-Total OPERATIONS Audit-cost share Acre 1.00 250.00 250.00 1.0 275.00Audit10.0 Lta/cclt Annual 0.03 75.00 2.25 1.0 2.47Cnlm Memberships 10.0 PM Transition Day 0.03 52.50 1.57 5.0 0.34Employee Training 10.0 Professional Development Day 0.03 1,800.00 54.00 1.0 59.40Employee Training 10.0 Liability/conserv. Acre 4.29 0.15 0.64 1.0 0.70Insurance10.0 Annual 1.00 48.00 48.00 1.0 52.80Lta Legal Defense Fund 10.0 Meetings L. Hours 10.00 52.50 525.00 1.0 577.50Owner Contact 10.0 Each 0.03 100.00 3.00 1.0 3.30Professional10.0 Each 0.03 100.00 3.00 1.0 3.30Uniforms10.0 974.82Sub-Total REPORTING Digital Geo-referenced Flight 1.00 600.00 600.00 5.0 132.00Aerial Photo 10.0 Summary L. Hours 6.00 52.50 315.00 1.0 346.50Annual Reports 10.0 L. Hours 2.00 72.50 145.00 1.0 159.50Review Annual Reports 10.0 638.00Sub-Total Property Analysis Record 3 - Version 1.05 (C) 1999-2008 Center for Natural Lands Management www.cnlm.org 1Sect.15 Page Section 15 - Ongoing Tasks and Costs 04/29/2013P257PAR ID:Bogert Wash - 3 Year I & C RevisionProperty Title: Task List Specific Unit Number of Units Cost / Unit Annual Cost Years Divide Total Cost Cont %Description Subtotal 3,888.83 Administration 933.32 Total 4,822.15 Property Analysis Record 3 - Version 1.05 (C) 1999-2008 Center for Natural Lands Management www.cnlm.org 2Sect.15 Page Section 16 - Financial Summary Date:04/29/2013Property Title: 1st Budget Year: 2013 Bogert Wash - 3 Year I & C Revision State: CA PAR Code:P257 Item Descriptions Total Initial & Capital Financial Requirements Revenues Management Costs Contingency Expense Administrative Costs of Total Management Costs Initial & Capital Management Total Costs $0 $14,893 $1,489 $16,382 $3,932 Initial & Capital Gross Costs $20,314 Initial & Capital Net Costs $20,314 Annual Ongoing Financial Requirements Ongoing Costs Contingency Expense Ongoing Management Total Costs $3,535 $354 $3,889 Administrative Costs of Total Management Costs $933 Ongoing Gross Costs $4,822 Endowment Requirements for Ongoing Stewardship Endowment to Produce Income of $4,822 Stewardship costs are based on 4.50% of Endowment Earnings per Year $107,159 Total Funding Required $127,473 Revenues $0 Ongoing Net Costs $4,822 Endowment per acre $24,979 Ongoing management funding per year is $4,822 Resulting in a per acre per year cost of $1,124 1Sect.16 Page Property Analysis Record 3 - Version 1.05 (C) 1999-2008 Center for Natural Lands Management www.cnlm.org Par Code: Title: P257 Bogert Wash CE Ginny ShortPrepared by: Date:12/16/2011 CNLM PAR Habitat Planning In Perpetuity The Property Analysis Record The Center for Natural Lands Management prepared this software to assist habitat conservation planners to develop the management tasks and costs of long-term stewardship. While the sources are thought to be reliable, the Center makes no representations about the accuracy of cost estimates. The date of the cost information is 2007. The operation of the program is not guaranteed by the Center. Management requirements are determined by the user. Users should consult with their own financial advisors before relying on the results of their analysis. www.cnlm.org Property Analysis Record 3 - Version 1.03 (C) 1999-2008 Center for Natural Lands Management Section 15 - Ongoing Tasks and Costs 12/16/2011P257PAR ID:Bogert Wash CEProperty Title: Task List Specific Unit Number of Units Cost / Unit Annual Cost Years Divide Total Cost Cont %Description BIOTIC SURVEYS Compliance Monitoring L. Hours 12.00 52.50 630.00 1.0 693.00Conservation Easement 10.0 Coordination/Oversight L. Hours 5.00 72.50 362.50 5.0 79.75Science Director 10.0 Site Visits Annual 8.00 72.50 580.00 5.0 127.60Supervisor Site Surveys 10.0 Each 1.00 200.00 200.00 5.0 44.00Supervisor Travel 10.0 944.35Sub-Total FIELD EQUIPMENT Binoculars 10 X 50 Pair 0.25 450.00 112.50 5.0 24.75Binoculars10.0 Mid-range Camera Item 0.25 500.00 125.00 5.0 27.50Camera 35mm/lens 10.0 Gps/corrected Item 0.03 4,400.00 132.00 1.0 145.20GPS, Rover & Base 10.0 Mileage (4x4) Mile 350.00 1.18 413.00 1.0 454.30Vehicle10.0 651.75Sub-Total OFFICE MAINTENANCE Unit Each 0.03 185.00 5.55 1.0 6.10Cellular Phone 10.0 Gps Photo Link Each 0.25 350.00 87.50 5.0 19.25Computer Software 10.0 Microsoft Office Pkg Item 1.00 544.50 544.50 5.0 119.79Computer software 10.0 Desktop Item 0.03 2,541.00 76.23 5.0 16.77Computer, PC,Monitor,10.0 Annual 1.00 30.00 30.00 1.0 33.00Facilities Maintenance 10.0 GIS, Pc Based Item 0.03 600.00 18.00 5.0 3.96GIS ARC/INFO 10.0 Annual 0.03 3,300.00 99.00 1.0 108.90Home Office 10.0 Printed Stationary/ Person 0.03 150.00 4.50 1.0 4.95Office Supplies,10.0 Supplies Person 0.10 2,500.00 250.00 1.0 275.00Office Supplies,10.0 Deskjet All-in-one Item 0.25 500.00 125.00 5.0 27.50Printer10.0 Large Format Color Each 0.25 450.00 112.50 5.0 24.75Printer10.0 Telephone Item 0.03 50.00 1.50 5.0 0.33Telephone10.0 Phone Charges Person 0.03 1,200.00 36.00 1.0 39.60Telephone Charges,10.0 679.90Sub-Total OPERATIONS Audit-cost share Acre 1.00 250.00 250.00 1.0 275.00Audit10.0 LTA/CCLT Annual 0.03 75.00 2.25 1.0 2.47CNLM Memberships 10.0 Pm Transition L. Hours 0.03 52.50 1.57 5.0 0.34Employee Training 10.0 Professional Development Day 0.03 1,800.00 54.00 1.0 59.40Employee Training 10.0 Liability/conserv. Acre 4.26 0.15 0.63 1.0 0.70Insurance10.0 Annual 1.00 48.00 48.00 1.0 52.80LTA Legal Defense 10.0 Meetings L. Hours 10.00 52.50 525.00 1.0 577.50Owner Contact 10.0 Each 0.03 100.00 3.00 1.0 3.30Professional10.0 Each 0.03 100.00 3.00 1.0 3.30Uniforms10.0 974.82Sub-Total REPORTING Digital Geo-referenced Flight 1.00 600.00 600.00 5.0 132.00Aerial Photo 10.0 Labor L. Hours 6.00 52.50 315.00 1.0 346.50Annual Reports 10.0 Labor L. Hours 2.00 72.50 145.00 1.0 159.50Review Annual Reports 10.0 638.00Sub-Total Property Analysis Record 3 - Version 1.03 (C) 1999-2008 Center for Natural Lands Management www.cnlm.org 1Sect.15 Page Section 15 - Ongoing Tasks and Costs 12/16/2011P257PAR ID:Bogert Wash CEProperty Title: Task List Specific Unit Number of Units Cost / Unit Annual Cost Years Divide Total Cost Cont %Description Subtotal 3,888.83 Administration 933.31 Total 4,822.14 Property Analysis Record 3 - Version 1.03 (C) 1999-2008 Center for Natural Lands Management www.cnlm.org 2Sect.15 Page Section 16 - Financial Summary Date:12/16/2011Property Title: 1st Budget Year: 2012 Bogert Wash CE State: CA PAR Code:P257 Item Descriptions Total Initial & Capital Financial Requirements Revenues Management Costs Contingency Expense Administrative Costs of Total Management Costs Initial & Capital Management Total Costs $0 $19,172 $1,703 $20,875 $4,496 Initial & Capital Gross Costs $25,371 Initial & Capital Net Costs $25,371 Annual Ongoing Financial Requirements Ongoing Costs Contingency Expense Ongoing Management Total Costs $3,535 $354 $3,889 Administrative Costs of Total Management Costs $933 Ongoing Gross Costs $4,822 Endowment Requirements for Ongoing Stewardship Endowment to Produce Income of $4,822 Stewardship costs are based on 4.50% of Endowment Earnings per Year $107,159 Total Funding Required $132,530 Revenues $0 Ongoing Net Costs $4,822 Endowment per acre $24,979 Ongoing management funding per year is $4,822 Resulting in a per acre per year cost of $1,124 1Sect.16 Page Property Analysis Record 3 - Version 1.03 (C) 1999-2008 Center for Natural Lands Management www.cnlm.org Bogert Wash Preserve COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND FUNDING AGREEMENT Exhibit E Insurance 1. Procurement and Maintenance of Insurance. CNLM shall procure and maintain public liability and property damage insurance against all claims for injuries against persons or damages to property resulting from CNLM ’s performance under this Agreement. CNLM shall procure and maintain all insurance at its sole cost and expense, in a form and content satisfactory to the City, and submit concurrently with its execution of this Agreement. CNLM shall also carry workers’ compensation insurance in accordance with California workers’ compensation laws. Such insurance shall be kept in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, including any extensions. Such insurance shall not be cancelable without thirty (30) days advance written notice to City of any proposed cancellation. Certificates of insurance evidencing the foregoing and designating the City, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers as additional named insureds by original endorsement shall be delivered to and approved by City prior to commencement of services. The procuring of such insurance and the delivery of policies, certificates, and endorsements evidencing the same shall not be construed as a limitation of CNLM’s obligation to indemnify City, its elected officials, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers. 2. Minimum Scope of Insurance. The minimum amount of insurance required under this Agreement shall be as follows: a. Comprehensive general liability and personal injury with limits of at least one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) combined single limit coverage per occurrence and two million dollars ($2,000,000) general aggregate; b. Automobile liability insurance with limits of at least one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence; c. Professional liability (errors and omissions) insurance with limits of at least one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence and two million dollars ($2,000,000) annual aggregate: __ is required X is not required; d. Workers’ Compensation insurance in the statutory amount as required by the State of California and Employer’s Liability Insurance with limits of at least one million dollars $1 million per occurrence. If CNLM has no employees, CNLM shall complete the City’s Request for Waiver of Workers’ Compensation Insurance Requirement form. Bogert Wash Preserve COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND FUNDING AGREEMENT 3. Primary Insurance. For any claims related to this Agreement, CNLM’s insurance coverage shall be primary with respect to the City and its respective elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by City and its respective elected officials, officers, employees , agents, and volunteers shall be in excess of CNLM’s insurance and shall not contribute with it. For Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s Liability Insurance only, the insurer shall waive all rights of subrogation and contribution it may have against Cit y, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers. 4. Errors and Omissions Coverage. If Errors & Omissions Insurance is required, and if CNLM provides claims made professional liability insurance, CNLM shall also agree in writing either (1) to purchase tail insurance in the amount required by this Agreement to cover claims made within three years of the completion of CNLM’s services under this Agreement, or (2) to maintain professional liability insurance coverage with the same carrier in the amount required by this Agreement for at least three years after completion of CNLM’s services under this Agreement. CNLM shall also be required to provide evidence to City of the purchase of the required tail insurance or continuation of the pr ofessional liability policy. City agrees Errors and Omissions Insurance is not required for this Agreement. 5. Sufficiency of Insurers. Insurance required in this Agreement shall be provided by authorized insurers in good standing with the State of California. Coverage shall be provided by insurers admitted in the State of California with an A.M. Best’s Key Rating of B++, Class VII, or better, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. 6. Verification of Coverage. CNLM shall furnish City with both certificates of insurance and endorsements, including additional insured endorsements, effecting all of the coverages required by this Agreement. The certificates and endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All proof of insurance is to be received and approved by the City before work commences. City reserves the right to require CNLM’s insurers to provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies at any time. Additional insured endorsements are not required for Errors and Omissions and Workers’ Compensation policies. Verification of Insurance coverage may be provided by: (1) an approved General and/or Auto Liability Endorsement Form for the City of Palm Springs or (2) an acceptable Certificate of Liability Insurance Coverage with an approved Additional Insured Endorsement with the following endorsements stated on the certificate: Bogert Wash Preserve COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND FUNDING AGREEMENT a. "The City of Palm Springs, its officials, employees, and agents are named as an additional insured…” ("as respects City of Palm Springs Contract No.___" or "for any and all work performed with the City" may be included in this statement). b. "This insurance is primary and non-contributory over any insurance or self-insurance the City may have..." ("as respects City of Palm Springs Contract No.___" or "for any and all work performed with the City" may be included in this statement). c. "Should any of the above described policies be canceled before the expiration date thereof, the issuing company will mail 30 days written notice to the Certificate Holder named." Language such as, “endeavor to” mail and "but failure to mail such notice shall impose no obligation or liability of any kind upon the company, its agents or representative" is not accepta ble and must be crossed out. d. Both the Workers’ Compensation and Employers' Liability policies shall contain the insurer's waiver of subrogation in favor of City, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers. In addition to the endorsements listed above, the City of Palm Springs shall be named the certificate holder on the policies. All certificates of insurance and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. All certificates of insurance must be authorized by a person with authority to bind coverage, whether that is the authorized agent/broker or insurance underwriter. Failure to obtain the required documents prior to the commencement of work shall not waive the CNLM’s obligation to provide them. 7. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions for any insurance required pursuant to this Agreement must be declared to the City. Any deductibles or self -insured retentions in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) must be approved by the City prior to commencing any work or services under this Agreement. In the event CNLM's insurance has deductibles or self-insured retentions in excess of $10,000, City shall have the option of requiring either of the following: (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions with respect to the City, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers; or (2) CNLM shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses. Certificates of Insurance must include evidence of the amount of any deductible or self-insured retention under the policy. CNLM guarantees payment of all deductibles and self-insured retentions. 8. Severability of Interests (Separation of Insureds). Bogert Wash Preserve COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND FUNDING AGREEMENT This insurance applies separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought except with respect to the limits of the insurer’s liability. �ee"4111 CENTFOR-04 LELL A��izv CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE A63� DAM 911 1202YYII 9/11 /2023 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER - IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(les) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder In lieu of such endomement(s). PRODUCER 4111ant Insurance Services, Inc. 1530 Walney Rd Ste 200 ,hantilly, VA 20151-2285 INSURED Centerfor Natural Lands Management 27258 Via Industria Ste B Temecula, CA 92590 IFAX (AEC No, Eap: (AC' No): ADDRESS: ahill@alliant.com INSURERIS) AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC F INSURERA:Federal Insurance Company 20281 INSURERS: Homeland Insurance Company of New York 34452 INSURER c : Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America 131194 INSURER D : INSURER E : COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER- REVISION NUMBER - THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR TYPE OF INSURANCE AOOL SUBR POUCYNUMSER POLICY EFF POUCIT,Y EXP M7 LIMITS A X COMMERCUAL GENERAL LIABILITY i EACH OCCURRENCE S 1,000,000 CLAIMS -MADE X OCCUR _ X X '135351713 101512/12 101512023 DAMAGE TO REN1 TED _ 000,000 PREMISES (Ea ocaminm) S ' 1 MED EXP (Any one person) S 10,000 1,000,000 PERSONAL B ADV INJURY f GENL AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: GENERAL AGGREGATE i 2,000.000 X POLICY LOC PRODUCTS - COMPIOP AGG S Included Host Liquor Included OTHER: A AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT _ 1,000.000 X ANY AUTO 730N092 101512022 10/512023 BODILYINJURY Per ( person) . ( OWNED SCHEDULED AUTOS ONLY AUTOS BODILY BODILY INJURY (Per acdpem),S Eo AUTOS ONLY ARMS (Peer accident) GE r£ is EACH OCCURRENCE It 10,000,000 A X UMBRELLALUAB X OCCUR EXCESS LIAR I CLAJMBaeAOE 79756443 10/5/2022 10I5/2023 AGGREGATE $ 10,000,000 DED I RETENTIONS WORKERS COMPENSATION PER Cm+ STATUTE ER AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY VIM _ EL EACH ACCIDENT S pMpYPREWMEIMgO�p�EXCLUDEDEWE?ECUfNE INandatory In NN) MIA E L DISEASE - FA EMPLOYEE S II yyes, N describeunder DESCRIPTIOOF OPERATIONS IeIaw E.L. DISEASE POLICY LIMIT $ B Pollution Liability 793-00-05.72-0004 e/15/2023 1015/2024 Policy Aggregate 1,000,000 C Professional Liab 010711458541.6 5126/2023 5/2W2024 Each Claim/Aggregate 1,000,000 DESCRIPTMIN OF OPERATIONS I LOCATIONS I VEHICLES (ACORD tat, AddMomi Remarks Scheduk, may M sllschod H mon spry k n W dI Project# S051 Bogert Wash Preserve Compliance Monitoring and, Funding Agreement. The City of Palm Springs, its officials, employees, and agents are named as an additional insured as respects City of Palm Springs Contract. This Insurance is primary and non-contributory as per written contract. This certificate has a blanket Waiver of Subrogation. RECEIVE[ SEP 19 20 CERTIFICATE HOLDER City of Palm Springs Attn: Director of Public Works 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Reception Des, SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. AUDIPICIUMID REPRESENTATIVE V ACORD 25 (2016103) 01988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD